They were competing with Manchester City and Guardiola for league titles. That's not easy.
Klopp to leave Liverpool at the end of the season
- Thread starter RonaldoVII
- Start date
They were competing with Manchester City and Guardiola for league titles. That's not easy.
One example: Let's say we lose out 2 points due to a refereeing mistake in a 93rd minute in a game, then next week it happens again. That's 4 points gone in games that the manager cannot do anything about. Why is it a unique take to acknowledge that variance can swing things against you, even if you're doing everything as you should?
There's a thin line between 1, 2, or 3 league titles. Klopp could've easily won 2 or 3. Just like how we could've won 3 or 4 CL titles with Ferguson, instead of 2.
I wasnt even specifically referring to you in that post. I've seen plenty of posters on the caf downplay Fergie's achievement whilst praising Klopp to the heavens for achieving the impossible and beating a doped up City to the PL title, which is also what Fergie did in his final season.
You did say 'if not the best ever'...
For me the most impressive thing about klopp is the fact that he managed to turn liverpool into an top side despite starting with absolute dross in the team. Check that 2015 side he was given and compare it to Pep who already had the core of his team ready and set to go. Pep already had the likes of Silva, KDB, Kompany, Toure, Aguero, Sterling, Fernandinho, etc etc when he came in and all of those players were instrumental to most of his success. Yet he still spent more than Klopp who had a lot to overhaul and he had to get his signings right with a significantly smaller budget.
Sure, but you could also make an argument about the volatility of cups. Only 1 manager has 4 CL/EC. Only 3 have won 3, and one of them is Zidane in express time. It's a maddening exercise, but some lines must be drawn.
Whether you win by an inch or a mile, winning is still winning. This is also why I don't care too much about points. The bottom-half teams could be particularly weak one season. And it's no secret that a strong challenger will can push you to get more points. These things are largely out of your control. No, the final table and your position on it is what matters. The rest is secondary.
Its bit like Chelsea winning the league in 2010 due to a offside goal and a vintage Gerrard back pass. The fine margins don't matter for the glory or the trophy stats but it matters for a deeper analysis. Something unheard off on a forum where we have taled about "progress" for 10 years and even moaned about zombie passing in Fergies last years.
I meant 'if not one of the best ever'.
So do you think the Glazers would even think of firing Solskjær or Mourinho if they had managed 97 points? Or would they acknowledge that was a good job everything considered?
The bolded part is basically my whole point. And the narrative I'm trying to argue against is that somehow Klopp isn't one of the best managers of the last 15 years, but rather some mediocre PL manager that's on the level of Ranieri, Pellegrini, Di Matteo and the likes. It's just insecurity and delusion from United supporters.
Me too. Im a bit old to be a fanatic starry eyed Man Utd fan. Im still all in for Fergie but i try to objective about the quality of our rival managers.
So now you’re backtracking from saying they are the best side ever and that todays arsenal could beat 2010 Barca. That’s something Atleast
I'm not claiming that points don't matter for the full context. What I'm saying is that trophies matter far more than points.
I agree..
SAF could easily end up with zero UCL titles, that game against Bayern was a miracle, and John Terry's slip was probably one of the most unlucky moments I've ever seen in a penalty shoot-out.. If these miracles didn't happen, would that make SAF an inferior manager?
No, I didn't say they are the best side ever. I'd say they are one of them, because I believe football in the last 10 years has evolved to the highest level it's been overall. Today's Arsenal beats 2010 Barca, if Barca get no time or opportunity to prepare for the game. I'm not backtracking in any form.
If you need to start delving into navel-gazing, tendentious probabilistic handwringing to diminish SAF and make these arguments, then maybe reconsider your priors. It's football, not a problem set. For all of your talk about variance and probability, you never consider the possibility that these particular instances may be showing Liverpool in a more favorable light than is actually "warranted". Their good results and points totals are valid and properly reflective of Klopp's quality and their failures to get over the line can be explained away by "variance".
Is the "model" you're using more sophisticated than those calculating xpts, which have City at +39 over that vaunted 4-year period? +12 and +5 in each of those respective 1-point seasons and actually +12 in xpts in the season that Liverpool actually won the title. If a City fan started saying "but we had +12 xpts the season we lost", they would rightly be laughed out of the room. Nobody seriously relies on these things because luck, chance, officials, "fine margins" are assumed to be part of the game. In the face of overwhelming spending SAF convincingly overcame the challenge; Klopp competed, but came up just short more often than not. It doesn't mean Klopp is a fraud or a bad coach.
Sure you need to try to look at things in context, but the "extras" you are bringing in are doing a lot of legwork and weirdly diminishing SAF's accomplishments.
Maybe you’re phrasing it wrong then because when someone says if not the best club side ever and then clarifys it by saying it again then that kind of implies you think they are the best club side ever.
and you are kind of backtracking, you have now said 2010 Barca beats 2018 Liverpool, but as we are now 6 years on aren’t 2024 Arsenal better than the teams of 2018? You’ve just made a massive mess of trying to big up klopp for coming second.
I didn't say any of that. I said Barcelona were better in their own golden era, than Liverpool between 2018 and 2022.
This 2024 Arsenal side is also way better than you might assume. I don't know if they beat 2018 Liverpool but they're similarly one of the best sides around, just like Liverpool 6 years ago.
SAF didn't compete against Guardiola in the league, only in the CL, and we saw how that went. You cannot reduce these managers' impact to "spending" difference only. Pretty sure, Klopp would have easier time against any manager not named Pep.
Has been pointed out multiple times here. Take out City from the PL table and you have 2 more PL for Pool, which is the same as that for United.
No one says this kind of stuff if they know this kind of stuff. You saying this suggests you have been hitting Google yourself to come off as smart. If you were making a good point, you wouldn't need to defend it by telling people to Google information. Your knowledge would speak for itself. It doesn't. This is a classic case of someone making one point and then getting dragged down a rabbit hole of their own ego. I know you will come back with a spiffy comment as though you are the clever one out of the 30 people going against you. Save it, I have been around enough charlatans to know one. I just wanted to put this here to let you know there are people who are onto your intellectual dishonesty.
Last edited:
Of course they do its the glory part. You can still use points to assess the quality of team's and managers season performance also compared to the quality of the opposition.
Its a bit like saying Maradona only won 1 WC and 2 Seria A titles. If you dont make a deeper analysis that's unimpressive if you disregard all the factors in context.
Would Klopp have won a European cup with Aberdeen and beaten Real Madrid in the final.
Would Klopp have won the Scottish League with Aberdeen and ridimensioned Celtic and Rangers in the process.
SAF did both.
Would Klopp have won the Scottish League with Aberdeen and ridimensioned Celtic and Rangers in the process.
SAF did both.
SAF's quality has otherwise already been proven many, many other ways. He doesn't need to rely on "what if's" or hypotheticals in the same way that Klopp does. I only bring up the "spending" point because it is constantly used as a counterfactual to prop up Klopp. SAF was going up against big spending Mourinho, who is no slouch and who, at that time, was the holder of several prem points total and other records.
I wasn't diminishing Ferguson's managerial career nor was I comparing him to Klopp. I was arguing with the posters labelling Klopp as basically a mediocre manager solely based on his CV, and claiming that he's Ranieri and Di Matteo level, as they also only have 1 PL or 1 CL title to their names. I only mentioned Ferguson's achievements as examples that he also could've missed out on a few titles and cups due to no fault of his own, much like how I believe Klopp missed out on Premier League and Champions League titles. In the 2022 final, Liverpool were the better team on the pitch, and yet they lost. That isn't Klopp's fault. When we lost to Madrid in 2013 in the CL, we were also the better team, but it wasn't Ferguson's fault. If you do the absolute maximum you can as a manager, it doesn't mean that the team on the pitch will automatically win everything for you. There's a lot of variables. I generally agree with what you're saying here, but you assumed I was comparing Ferguson and Klopp, when that wasn't the case at all, if you read all of my posts.
My bad then, I read you saying Barca of 2010 were better than Liverpool of 2018. I forgot that you think recent times means these teams are better.
it’s a crazy conversation all the same, just to back up your opinion that Liverpool were one of the, if not the best club sides ever. (Your words). They won one league, came second twice and were nowhere to be seen the other times. It’s like an opinion up there with van dijk being the best centre back ever.
Not really true when there was plenty of other managers he finished behind. People make out like it was only pep stopping Liverpool win it every season
30 people going against me, when at least half of them don't even understand the point I'm trying to make. If you read all my posts this afternoon, I'd love to hear where you think the flaw in my logic is.
PL:
2017-2018 75 pts
2018-2019 97 pts
2019-2020 99 pts
2020-2021 69 pts
2021-2022 92 pts
CL:
2017-2018 Runners-up
2018-2019 Winners
2019-2020 Round of 16
2020-2021 Quarter-finals
2021-2022 Runners-up
How did they achieve this with a mediocre manager that's no better than the likes of Ranieri, Di Matteo, Pellegrini and whoever else people on here compare Klopp to? How did they do this, when apparently Trent, van Dijk, Salah, etc. are all shit players? Weird.
Klopp won Bundesliga with Dortmund twice against Bayern and led them to a UCL final destroying Mourinho's Real Madrid 4-1 in the process (I know, Real was their nemesis at Liverpool). SAF faced Real three times with United, and got eliminated all three times.
Those European Cup you're talking about, teams like Dinamo Tbilisi, Carl Zeiss Jena, Standard Liege, Rapid Wien, Fortuna Dusseldorf, Austria Wien, Goteborg, Dundee United, Videoton etc. were playing finals during that period. That's not to say Aberdeen's win is not impressive, but it's hardly unusual those times. We even had teams like Steaua, Red Star winning UCL those years (in fact Steaua played two UCL finals in a span of 4-5 years).
I never said he was mediocre, and haven’t seen anyone else say this. I started by laughing at people bringing up points totals to show how amazing he was and how silly looking at points totals are, which you are still doing
Please don't try to undermine SAF's achievements as you just won't manage.
Who really gives a feck he'll be gone in a couple of games?
A very good manager yes but he's nothing compared to SAF not even remotely close.
A very good manager yes but he's nothing compared to SAF not even remotely close.
Finishes outside of the top 3/4 too often to be considered amongst SAF and Pep.
I haven't seen many seriously call him mediocre; perhaps overrated.
Simeone gave Madrid a much tougher fight in both of his CL finals with them and no one is heralding him as the second coming or conjuring magical "what if" scenarios to put him in the conversation with some of the greatest ever. Simeone has been to more CL QF's than Klopp. When he got At Madrid to their level he has never finished below 3rd behind the two giants (though he finally might this year), unlike Klopp. They have both participated in the Europa league 3 times. Klopp never won it; Simeone won it twice. Ironically, one of the main differentiators in their perceptions is the fact that Klopp actually got the job done in a CL; unlike Simeone with his near misses, no matter that Klopp had the gift of Dembele and a poor Tottenham with an injured Harry Kane as an opponent in the CL final that year. He won it.
Why are you only looking at that final vs Madrid in 2022 and not the fairly easy run Liverpool had to get to the final? If your invocation of "luck" and counterfactuals only runs in one direction (supportive of Klopp), it can't be taken seriously. Time and chance happen to them all. You can selectively nitpick everyone's record endlessly.
Maybe not you specifically, but I'm dismayed by how many red Scousers disrespect him, given his achievements and overall goodwill throughout the football world. I can say in all honesty I've never disrespected or said a bad word about Shankley or Paisley in all my decades loving United, but when I see "old purple nose" or "whisky nose" or all the far worse epithets directed his way, it doesn't predispose me to liking Liverpool fans, put it that way. The thing is, Fergie took over a mess, a far worse mess than Klopp did. The infamous drinking culture, the directionless drift of a once-great club, the occasional domestic cup wins slim pickings for fans once used to being competitive in the league. When Fergie took over, it took him six years to straighten things out (an understatement, and I cannot even imagine the sheer effort of will it took to do that). Whereas Klopp took over from a decent manager and did a good job winning some important trophies again, but one English league and one Champions League is merely good compared to the sheer greatness of Ferguson's achievements: given those six years he took to even steer the club in the right direction, thirteen leagues in that time period is incredible, especially since United have never been an oil club and after 2005, in fact, were the victims of owners intent on draining not replenishing the coffers, a situation Fergie negotiated admirably, winning the league five more times. Five! And as much as we're rivals and I don't like Liverpool, I disagree that they're not a big club. Yes, there's something in what you say about Klopp versus City, but I know for certain that Fergie would have found a way to make more inroads into their dominance. He was that good.
Like another posted pointed it out, points totals mean nothing in the end if people look at the list of trophies you won in your career. However, it does matter in a deeper context. Yes, Liverpool did have off-years, but their peak was incredibly high, despite only winning one league and Champions League title each over those 4 years.
The straw man in this recent back and forth is that anyone is calling Klopp "mediocre." He's not, and no one thinks he is. He's a very good manager, but he's nowhere near Ferguson levels.
Totally agree.
Some of these people might want to research the "Butterfly effect".
Interesting ones would have been if Mourinho's Porto hadn't been outrageously lucky to see Scholes' goal ruled offside when it was miles on.
Without that, Mourinho doesn't get the Chelsea job, and there's every chance they don't change the shape of English football with their extreme spending, and certainly don't win as much as quickly.
He doesn't hit Fergie, Pep, Wenger or Mourinho levels really.
The latter two people sometimes forget built superb sides and obviously won more.