Klopp to leave Liverpool at the end of the season

Great to see how it ended for Klopp. This is one of the best manager of all time and Pool will not be so lucky to hit the jackpot again with their next manager appointment.

The had the best manager and only 1 PL titile...haha..
 
Fully Fledged said:
The hard part is getting the team over the line. You put a good team together you can amass points. Being able to take a team that extra step to winning things is what shows true quality.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a single point difference on both occasions where they pushed City to the last day.

A manager can give his team the best possible chance of winning, and then it's out of their hands.

Your logic dictates that in 2019 and 2022, Pep Guardiola was one Premier League point better than Jurgen Klopp. That's not the truth, though, is it? If you simulate those seasons 100 times each, it doesn't end in a 1 point difference in City's favor every time. It's just a logical fallacy, I'm sorry.

Very rarely will a 1 point difference have to do anything with the manager's abilities at the end of the season. Was Carlo Ancelotti better than Sir Alex Ferguson in 2010 by one point exactly? Or how do you define it? Chelsea finished 1 points ahead of us, but you surely don't think the only thing that decided that is the difference between Ferguson and Ancelotti? There's the two squads of players, small margins deciding several games, referee decisions, number of resting days between matches, I could probably list dozens of things.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
So would United. Klopp has finished 2nd to City just as many times as United have since City started cheating. The difference is we don't brag about finishing 2nd.
Click to expand...

Its not about bragging its the fact that we've never had a title challenge post fergie. Liverpool have and it makes a difference in assesing our quality on the pitch. And a pl title, ucl win and 3 ucl finals. There is a reason why Liverpool never thought about firing Klopp.
 
Gehrman said:
You don't think how many points won and goals scored paints a worthwhile picture of your season? Ole getting 74 points getting 2nd is obviously inferior to getting 97 points while finishing 1 point of first place. And Klopp had less money to work with than post Saf United managers. No you don't get a trophy for it but for it still shows the quality of your management and the team.
Click to expand...
You’re comparing to Ole when the context was comparing to Sir Alex.


Winning a title with 80 points is clearly a much bigger achievement than coming second with 97 points.
 
Rojofiam said:
You're correct. It doesn't diminish what Barcelona achieved, but if they time travelled to 2024 and had to play City, Madrid, Arsenal, etc. without any preparation, they would lose. If you gave them a few months to train up to the current level, it would probably be different, though.

I think the weird logic is saying that footballers and teams from the 80s, 90s, 00s or even before can be considered better than what we're seeing in 2024, dismissing the evolution of tactics, medicine and sports science among other things.

Just go watch back a few PL games from 2004. They will look like friendly games compared to a 2024 Premier League match.
Click to expand...
Come on. You’ve gone from over blowing klopps achievements and calling them the best club side ever to out right talking bollocks to try and back up your crazy opinion.
 
Rojofiam said:
We're talking about a single point difference on both occasions where they pushed City to the last day.

A manager can give his team the best possible chance of winning, and then it's out of their hands.

Your logic dictates that in 2019 and 2022, Pep Guardiola was one Premier League point better than Jurgen Klopp. That's not the truth, though, is it? If you simulate those seasons 100 times each, it doesn't end in a 1 point difference in City's favor every time. It's just a logical fallacy, I'm sorry.

Very rarely will a 1 point difference have to do anything with the manager's abilities at the end of the season. Was Carlo Ancelotti better than Sir Alex Ferguson in 2010 by one point exactly? Or how do you define it? Chelsea finished 1 points ahead of us, but you surely don't think the only thing that decided that is the difference between Ferguson and Ancelotti? There's the two squads of players, small margins deciding several games, referee decisions, number of resting days between matches, I could probably list dozens of things.
Click to expand...
Yes, and we lost to them by goal difference, but we still lost. It's not the point difference, or the goal difference, it's the getting over the line that matters. Second is nothing.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
The type of scouse bootlicking that's straight out of Gary Neville's "Trent is a freak of a player and is miles better than I ever was" playbook.

Pep's Barca would have absolutely twatted this current Real Madrid side, regardless of how much sports science has developed over the last 15 years.
Click to expand...
Never mind Madrid, he included Arsenal :lol:
 
Zlatan 7 said:
Come on. You’ve gone from over blowing klopps achievements and calling them the best club side ever to out right talking bollocks to try and back up your crazy opinion.
Click to expand...
I think we've found a closet Scouser hiding in the long grass.
 
Rojofiam said:
We're talking about a single point difference on both occasions where they pushed City to the last day.

A manager can give his team the best possible chance of winning, and then it's out of their hands.

Your logic dictates that in 2019 and 2022, Pep Guardiola was one Premier League point better than Jurgen Klopp. That's not the truth, though, is it? If you simulate those seasons 100 times each, it doesn't end in a 1 point difference in City's favor every time. It's just a logical fallacy, I'm sorry.

Very rarely will a 1 point difference have to do anything with the manager's abilities at the end of the season. Was Carlo Ancelotti better than Sir Alex Ferguson in 2010 by one point exactly? Or how do you define it? Chelsea finished 1 points ahead of us, but you surely don't think the only thing that decided that is the difference between Ferguson and Ancelotti? There's the two squads of players, small margins deciding several games, referee decisions, number of resting days between matches, I could probably list dozens of things.
Click to expand...

Fergie had his own "City" in Chelsea, whose spending relative to competition was probably higher than City. He simply got the job done and vanquished that beast to prove his quality, so his reputation is not so reliant on would haves, should haves and could haves.
 
Gehrman said:
Its not about bragging its the fact that we've never had a title challenge post fergie. Liverpool have and it makes a difference in assesing our quality on the pitch. And a pl title, ucl win and 3 ucl finals. There is a reason why Liverpool never thought about firing Klopp.
Click to expand...
That's fair enough but football is about winning - you can't compare them to any of the great PL sides just because they were valiant runners-up. They couldn't even come close to retaining their only PL title and barely scraped top 4 that season.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
This is a weird take. You compare achievements relative to the context and time period in which they were achieved.

Would you have Marcell Jacobs as a greater sprinter than Jesse Owens?
Click to expand...

I don't follow sprinting, but surely football is a way more complex sport? Doubt yours is a good example
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
That's fair enough but football is about winning - you can't compare them to any of the great PL sides just because they were valiant runners-up. They couldn't even come close to retaining their only PL title and barely scraped top 4 that season.
Click to expand...
You put Fergie into the Klopp and Guardiola era and I can promise you two things:

1. Neither Klopp nor Guardiola finish the season on 98/97 points.
2. Whatever points total they are getting Sir Alex is thereabouts too.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
The type of scouse bootlicking that's straight out of Gary Neville's "Trent is a freak of a player and is miles better than I ever was" playbook.

Pep's Barca would have absolutely twatted this current Real Madrid side, regardless of how much sports science has developed over the last 15 years.
Click to expand...

Then how did Madrid scrape through City, who are the perfected version of Pep's ideas and philosophy? Unless you think his tactics didn't evolve from the Tiki Taka days of 15 years ago?
 
Rojofiam said:
You're correct. It doesn't diminish what Barcelona achieved, but if they time travelled to 2024 and had to play City, Madrid, Arsenal, etc. without any preparation, they would lose. If you gave them a few months to train up to the current level, it would probably be different, though.

I think the weird logic is saying that footballers and teams from the 80s, 90s, 00s or even before can be considered better than what we're seeing in 2024, dismissing the evolution of tactics, medicine and sports science among other things.

Just go watch back a few PL games from 2004. They will look like friendly games compared to a 2024 Premier League match.
Click to expand...
Surely this is all about relativity? Obviously in 10 years, assuming money keeps piling into the sport, there'll be a team that would dick everyone now but would they better for their moment in time?

Also with tactics being cyclical it all depends on who and when we discuss. That Barca team's issue would be more that if they time warped to today, everyone is pressing at a high level and teams are uber fit and I'm not sure tiki taka would be as effective as it was then. In the same way Mou's initial Chelsea team which only conceded 15 goals and lost 1 game all season would not be as effective now as everyone knows how to play against 433.
 
Rojofiam said:
Then how did Madrid scrape through City, who are the perfected version of Pep's ideas and philosophy? Unless you think his tactics didn't evolve from the Tiki Taka days of 15 years ago?
Click to expand...
Does the perfected version of Pep’s ideas have the greatest player that ever kicked a ball at the peak of his powers?
 
Rojofiam said:
Then how did Madrid scrape through City, who are the perfected version of Pep's ideas and philosophy? Unless you think his tactics didn't evolve from the Tiki Taka days of 15 years ago?
Click to expand...

Pep's Barca had a generational team of players, including possibly the greatest ever.
 
Rojofiam said:
Then how did Madrid scrape through City, who are the perfected version of Pep's ideas and philosophy? Unless you think his tactics didn't evolve from the Tiki Taka days of 15 years ago?
Click to expand...
The key word there is 'scrape'. Play that game on a loop 10 times and City go through on 7 or 8 occasions.

Pexbo said:
You put Fergie into the Klopp and Guardiola era and I can promise you two things:

1. Neither Klopp nor Guardiola finish the season on 98/97 points.
2. Whatever points total they are getting Sir Alex is thereabouts too.
Click to expand...
100 percent. I love it when the closet scousers on here try to paint Fergie as a dinosaur who wouldn't have been able to adapt to today's level of football, like 1986 was the same level as 2013 :lol:
 
Semigoodlookin said:
Nope, it doesn't work like that. There are too many variables to have absolutes in the "if" scenario. For example, if City didn't cheat, United may have won the Aguero goal title, changing the trajectory of top flight English football. If City didn't cheat, Brendan Rodgers may have won his title, and Klopp wouldn't even be with Liverpool potentially. Again, changing the trajectory of the league. There are a million things that would have happened before Klopp winning the league "if City didn't cheat".
Click to expand...

There's also so many variables that can decide a 1 point difference over 38 games. I agree with your logic, but it doesn't diminish Klopp's work at all.
 
Rojofiam said:
You're correct. It doesn't diminish what Barcelona achieved, but if they time travelled to 2024 and had to play City, Madrid, Arsenal, etc. without any preparation, they would lose. If you gave them a few months to train up to the current level, it would probably be different, though.

I think the weird logic is saying that footballers and teams from the 80s, 90s, 00s or even before can be considered better than what we're seeing in 2024, dismissing the evolution of tactics, medicine and sports science among other things.

Just go watch back a few PL games from 2004. They will look like friendly games compared to a 2024 Premier League match.
Click to expand...
This is unbelievably dumb.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
Fergie had his own "City" in Chelsea, whose spending relative to competition was probably higher than City. He simply got the job done and vanquished that beast to prove his quality, so his reputation is not so reliant on would haves, should haves and could haves.
Click to expand...

It was a different period, different team, different opponenets. Difficult to compare. But considering that we won those leagues with point differences of 2, 4, and 6 points, variance could've easily swung it in Chelsea's or Liverpool's favor in one of those seasons. Would it have made Ferguson a worse manager? No.
 
Rojofiam said:
It was a different period, different team, different opponenets. Difficult to compare. But considering that we won those leagues with point differences of 2, 4, and 6 points, variance could've easily swung it in Chelsea's or Liverpool's favor in one of those seasons. Would it have made Ferguson a worse manager? No.
Click to expand...
But they didn't. What the hell are you talking about :lol:
 
Rojofiam said:
It was a different period, different team, different opponenets. Difficult to compare. But considering that we won those leagues with point differences of 2, 4, and 6 points, variance could've easily swung it in Chelsea's or Liverpool's favor in one of those seasons. Would it have made Ferguson a worse manager? No.
Click to expand...
Now this. This is a unique take.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Surely this is all about relativity? Obviously in 10 years, assuming money keeps piling into the sport, there'll be a team that would dick everyone now but would they better for their moment in time?

Also with tactics being cyclical it all depends on who and when we discuss. That Barca team's issue would be more that if they time warped to today, everyone is pressing at a high level and teams are uber fit and I'm not sure tiki taka would be as effective as it was then. In the same way Mou's initial Chelsea team which only conceded 15 goals and lost 1 game all season would not be as effective now as everyone knows how to play against 433.
Click to expand...

Of course that will happen.
 
Rojofiam said:
It was a different period, different team, different opponenets. Difficult to compare. But considering that we won those leagues with point differences of 2, 4, and 6 points, variance could've easily swung it in Chelsea's or Liverpool's favor in one of those seasons. Would it have made Ferguson a worse manager? No.
Click to expand...

First of all, as Liverpool's near title misses, and our own miss on gd shows, 4 points and 6 points are pretty big gaps.

I also don't think you're considering whether/how much we took our foot off the gas once the title was all but assured. Like last year, City could've easily racked up another 6 points if they really had to. But once Arsenal crumbled, there was no need.
 
Pexbo said:
Does the perfected version of Pep’s ideas have the greatest player that ever kicked a ball at the peak of his powers?
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is here. Pep's philosophy and ideas obviously improved over the last 15 years. Not saying that City has better players than 2009 Barcelona, though.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
The key word there is 'scrape'. Play that game on a loop 10 times and City go through on 7 or 8 occasions.
Click to expand...

So you do understand my point about simulating something 100 times and the outcome not being the same every time. So why can't you admit that Klopp is a great manager who could've easily won 3 titles instead of 1? A single point difference often doesn't have much to do with the manager.

Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
100 percent. I love it when the closet scousers on here try to paint Fergie as a dinosaur who wouldn't have been able to adapt to today's level of football, like 1986 was the same level as 2013 :lol:
Click to expand...

"closet scousers" "scouser bootlicking" You're embarrassing. Just because you can't think critically or put your bias aside for a second, it doesn't mean I like Liverpool.

And I didn't even say any of that about Ferguson.
 
Rojofiam said:
Not sure what your point is here. Pep's philosophy and ideas obviously improved over the last 15 years. Not saying that City has better players than 2009 Barcelona, though.
Click to expand...
So why try to argue that Klopp's Liverpool is one of the greatest sides in the history of football when you know that there were better sides with better players 15 years ago?
 
There's always room for nuance, but if we can't accept that a win is a win and a loss is a loss, then what's the point of competing?

Klopp is an all-time great already, but he can't claim to be better than managers with almost 4 times as many major trophies than him. The same logic applies to Fergie by the way. Just because he was unlucky to run into that Barcelona team twice, he can't claim to be as good of a CL manager as Ancelotti. He still the better manager overall, though.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
So why try to argue that Klopp's Liverpool is one of the greatest sides in the history of football when you know that there were better sides with better players 15 years ago?
Click to expand...

One of the best doesn't mean the best, and Pep's Barca were better in those years, than Liverpool from 2018 and 2022. They probably also won less than what they should have with that team of ~2008-2012.
 
Scandi Red said:
There's always room for nuance, but if we can't accept that a win is a win and a loss is a loss, then what's the point of competing?

Klopp is an all-time great already, but he can't claim to be better than managers with more than 3 times as many major trophies than him. The same logic applies to Fergie by the way. Just because he was unlucky to run into that Barcelona team twice, he can't claim to be as good of a CL manager as Ancelotti. He still the better manager overall, though.
Click to expand...

I feel a league table is different than a cup run though to some extent. If Guardiola managed to beat Klopp's total pl point tally with 1 point with twice as much money spent, much higher wage budget shady ffp stuff going on is he then really a much better manager or is the circumstances tilted in his favour?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.