Klopps Liverpool Vs Peps Barcelona

The overrating of this liverpool side is ridiculous. That barca side will play rings around them.
 
Pep’s Barcelona played impressive football for years (albeit boring to some). Liverpool’s most impressive football resulted in nothing and they’ve mostly played very meh stuff since despite the results.

Also agree that our best two Fergie sides were better in every way.
 
Last edited:
WUM thread, Barca would destroy them like they did everyone else. Pep's lads were doped of there tits too, that Barca team would beat anyone.
 
Liverpool are immense at pressing but that Barca midfield was as close to perfection in keeping the ball as you’ll ever see. They were virtually impossible to press successfully, especially over an entire 90 minutes.

Barcelona had equally great full backs and unlike Liverpool they also had a 2nd top class CB in Pique. Then of course Liverpool have no one like Messi either. Its impossible to replicate what he does and did for that team.
 
VeevaVee said:
Pep’s Barcelona played impressive football for years (albeit boring to some). Liverpool’s most impressive football resulted in nothing and they’ve mostly played very meh stuff since despite the results.

Also agree that our best two Fergie sides were better in every way.
Click to expand...

It was people just annoyed their matches were so one-sided. If the opponent took the game to them then the match was very exciting... the opponent would just be derided for being "naive" by the very same detractors of Barcelona's style.
 
It would be a bit like The Mountain vs The Viper in Game of Thrones.

Except instead of The Viper they send in Crippled Bran before he learned how to warg.
 
Liverpool would get some chances on the break, but pressing Xavi, Iniesta & Busquets (and you can add Messi to that) was pointless. Look at the way Messi toyed with them when they have faced each other — and that was a post-peak Messi in a horribly mismanaged team without the likes of Xavi & Iniesta being at his side.

Liverpool are a good side, but they lack individual quality when compared to the best, and that Barcelona side had arguably the greatest footballer of all-time & the likes of Xavi and Iniesta, who are miles ahead of any scouse's player in terms of the talent.

Just like we did in those 2 finals, they wouldn't come close to beating them most of the time, with an odd 1 or 2 victories from 10 games, because football is a low-scoring game with a lot of luck involved. Liverpool has pace on the break and outstanding mentality, which is a big plus.
 
Liverpool would win, easily. The only thing that can defeat them, is a global pandemic. And Watford.
 
VeevaVee said:
They didn’t play their best football that season. They played well in some games obviously.
Click to expand...
Which year was their best year then? They're playing worse this season, despite the results.
 
Pep's Barca are a level above.

Liverpool's side still has some mediocre players (I'm talking the midfield) but heavily influenced by Klopp's excellent coaching, that Barca side had world class players in every position who also benefited from the same level of coaching from Pep.

Not to mention Barca would have just dominated Liverpool's midfield and starve them of the ball imo.
 
adexkola said:
It was people just annoyed their matches were so one-sided. If the opponent took the game to them then the match was very exciting... the opponent would just be derided for being "naive" by the very same detractors of Barcelona's style.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree. Never understood the 'boring' label some tried to place on them.

It reminded me of the same label some would put on Schumacher when he dominated for so long back in the day, repetition becomes uninteresting to some. But never boring.

That Barca side were perfection, I hate them because they single handedly stopped us winning another CL under SAF more than once but they were so good you just had to hold your hands up and say fair play to them.
 
Klopp has spent half a billion, they haven't won anything, they're breaking all sorts of records with the same players playing fire 2 seasons, VAR has certainly helped them.... But they might be equal to one of THE best teams ever?!

That's the level of bias they get in the media. Ridiculous.

They are good though, and I expect them to go onto European domination, taking over from RM and barca
 
I would give the edge to Pep's Barcelona.

But it would be a close game. Barca's record against Liverpool isn't that good anyway, but they have enough firepower to beat them.
 
Forget Guardiola's Barcelona, If Liverpool had faced the same barcelona side as last year but with a peak Messi, he would have destroyed them with all the spaces behind directly as a result of their high pressing.
 
Why is this even a question. Pep's Barca are the greatest team of this generation.

As for Liverpool. Man United from 07/08 was a better team, the treble winners were a better team. Even Arsenal's invincible were a better team.

Last season's City are propably a better team too.

What's with this over the top hype for this Liverpool side?
Yes, they've been very consistent, but nothing about them says they can't be beaten.
 
Is this a serious thread? Pep’s Barcelona was in a different universe to Klopp’s Liverpool, and most other sides too.
 
People who think Barca would smash Liverpool "9 times out of 10" are very delusional.

Pep's Barca lost to the worst CL winner of the past decade, a Chelsea side that doesn't even come close to this Liverpool team

They weren't unbeatable, far from it.
 
Dumbstar said:
We honestly wouldn't. Sure we'd target their softer backline with, ahem, accurate high velocity distance kickballs, but ultimately our midfield would be torn apart like a papermache toy in rain. With peak Messi doing the rest VvD and Alisson would not look as great as they are.
Click to expand...
Geez Dumbstar. Winning has made you soft!

(kudos btw). Hope you’re keeping safe during this time.
 
What the feck have Pool done to even deserve this thread. Jesus christ.
 
That Barca team beat us comfortably on the biggest stage in 2009, and '09 Man Utd was also a significantly better side than this current Liverpool team.

Pep's Barca would dismantle them.
 
Peyroteo said:
People here talk about Pep's Barca as if it was a team composed of aliens that never lost a game. They're the best team I've ever seen but they weren't unbeatable, they finished 9 points behind Mou's Madrid in 2012. This Liverpool team would give them loads of problems for sure.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was the end of their peak. They’re team from 09-11 was almost unstoppable - yes they lost to Jose’s Inter in 2010, but this Liverpool team lost to Simeone’s Atletico. If we hypothetically said both teams were playing at their absolute best for this hypothetical match then no one can touch Xavi, Iniesta and Messi.
 
Not even a debate. In a one off game, anything can happen sure. But say over 5 or 10 games, Peps Barca would cruise it. Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta, for that period of time, were untouchable. See the Spain team that also had this midfield. Class apart.

And that's not even considering a peak Messi.
 
Versus 08-09 Barcelona? Liverpool would win, that Barca side was far from invincible that season as Chelsea should've beaten them and even we were without Fletcher, who was a massive miss in that game.

Versus 10-11 Barca? Barca would win that. The addition of Villa was fantastic for that Barca team as I think he was more flexible than Eto'o was. Messi was able to play as a false 9, Pedro on the right was a better fit than Henry during 08-09, that team was fantastic no doubt.
 
I know it's been said, but.... how is this a real question/thread?

To anyone saying Liverpool's midfield could press Barca midfield, that's massively underrating Barca midfields ability to pass/move at speed and massively overrating Liverpool's midfield.

And the suggestion that Liverpool could launch quick attacks and pressure Barca's weak point (1) Liverpool's fullbacks wouldn't get the chance to push up and (2) not only did Barca have a decent defence, they also had Busquets patrolling in front of it.

Our 2008 side would struggle to win more than 2 in 10. I doubt this Liverpool team would win more than 2 in a 100.
 
The way I see it is that none of those Barca players had the technical ability to deal with Liverpool's press. There's also the fact that Pep's team wasn't known for being good at pressing either and even if they were Liverpool's midfield is too technical to be pressed. Liverpool easy win with them having 80% possession or more.
 
Peyroteo said:
:lol:

Honestly that might actually work. I'd argue the Inter first leg in 2010 or the Madrid cup final in 2011 would be how to do it though.

Still, Barcelona are obviously better but Liverpool could cause them problems exactly the same way plenty of teams did cause them problems. A not so great United team making the 2011 final thanks to a good draw and getting demolished when Barca were at their very peak is clouding people's judgement here to think the gap was always that big between them and the rest when it obviously wasn't.

Madrid weren't that great at the time and they still pushed them during those years. Pep was 4 years at Barca, in that time Madrid only had 7 less points than Barca.
Click to expand...

The 2011 CL final is hardly clouding people's judgement in here since we got just as demolished in 2009 when we had one of our best teams ever. That's the game that changed my (and I'm sure many others) perception of both teams since I thought we were the best team in the world and had a great chance to win but was shocked to see how much better they actually were. In 2011 I expected us to lose since we had a worse team and Barca had somehow stepped it up a notch further.
 
Last edited:
Zlaatan said:
The 2011 CL final is hardly clouding people's judgement in here since we got just as demolished in 2009 when we had one of our best teams ever. That's the game that changed my (and I'm sure many others) perception of both teams since I thought we were the best team in the world and had a great chance to win but was shocked to see how much better they actually were. In 2011 I expected us to lose since we had a worse team and Barca had somehow stepped it up a notch further.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're remembering things right?? That's not true at all, you didn't get demolished in 2009 like in 2011. In 2011 there was a huge gap in quality, in 2009 they were better but it was a quite an even game despite Pep getting the better of SAF that day. United were playing John O'Shea at starting right back and a midfield 3 of Carrick, Anderson and a 35 year old Giggs and it was still competitive... possession was even and United actually had more shots. In 2011 Barca had more possession and it was 19 shots to 4, they were very different games.

United were better than Chelsea and look how Chelsea did in the semis against the same team in 2009.
 
Not even close, Barcelona ten out of ten times. Liverpool’s highest level isn’t that impressive as last year at the Camp Nou showed us, but their bottom level is insanely high. Which is very strange of course, but they are definitely driven and motivated by that 30 year slump - and a great manager, I miss that last effect at United. Once they do win the title, the next season they will have more draws and losses against the Villas and Sotons and Brightons. Not taking anything away from them though, what they have done so far in the league is unprecedented.
 
That Barcelona team had no serious competition in Europe; United were on a decline when playing them, Real were still being assembled. Pep's football is not effective when not being vastly superior to the opposition, so I would fancy Liverpool to win 6 times out of 10.

Oh, and they (that Barcelona team) are vastly overrated on here due to the spankings they gave United in the finals.
 
Peyroteo said:
Are you sure you're remembering things right?? That's not true at all, you didn't get demolished in 2009 like in 2011. In 2011 there was a huge gap in quality, in 2009 they were better but it was a quite an even game despite Pep getting the better of SAF that day. United were playing John O'Shea at starting right back and a midfield 3 of Carrick, Anderson and a 35 year old Giggs and it was still competitive... possession was even and United actually had more shots. In 2011 Barca had more possession and it was 19 shots to 4, they were very different games.

United were better than Chelsea and look how Chelsea did in the semis against the same team in 2009.
Click to expand...

In 2009 Barca had 8 shots on goal, United had 2. Xavi also hit the post on top of that. Even if it wasn't as bad as in 2011 it still wasn't an even game unless you ignore what happened after the first 15min, and I've yet to hear a single United fan, player or manager say otherwise.

Either way, my original point was that I doubt people in here just look at the 2011 CL final when they evaluate that 4-year period for Barca. Otherwise you'd have everyone in here saying that over the past 5 years United has been better than Klopp's Liverpool because we have a superior H2H record against them.
 
kidbob said:
The way I see it is that none of those Barca players had the technical ability to deal with Liverpool's press. There's also the fact that Pep's team wasn't known for being good at pressing either and even if they were Liverpool's midfield is too technical to be pressed. Liverpool easy win with them having 80% possession or more.
Click to expand...

I...

Words fail me
 
If They play against each other, you would think there's only one team that is playing.

This shouldn't even be a debate tbh.
 
It should be noted that while United were missing Fletcher, we (Barca) didn't have our strongest XI available either. Abidal and Alves were both missing. We played Puyol at RB, Yaya Toure at CB, and Sylvinho at LB.

The way I see it, is that if Fletcher was available, United might have had a decent chance of winning the game.

If Alves and Abidal were available, then Barca would have beaten any United team ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.