Sure, you can make the case for Pool. For Chelsea - not sure what your point is, as that table is post-Lampard table. For your CL opponents point, we had additional 2 games in Europa. If you're bringing injuries into context, then lets also bring empty mid-weeks for Pool as they got knowcked out of FA cup pre-Tuchel and knocked out of CL in QF.
I am sure you know what the point is, because, just as I did, you read all the posts about the terrific job Ole did to stabilize the team after Mourinho. Apart from that - nice to see us agree on context in general. I'd like to add that I am pretty sure, if we would bring in a chelsea fan, we would be able to collect even more "context".
As far as your 2nd para is concerned, sure let's forget context for the sake of argument. But I think you avoided my question. Would you say that Ole was a better manager than Klopp last season? (I won't but it seems like you don't like considering context so, I'm assuming you would say that)
Yes I would say Ole was the better manager last year. Because Klopp made the mistake of reacting to the injuries by bringing his trusted midfield players into defense and therefor spreading the cancer to even more parts of the team. He corrected it eventually, so I wouldn't take away a lot of his credit because the injury crisis was pretty rough. Oles biggest fault was not engaging our set piece issue for a whole season and the no-show in the EL finale. Apart from that, he was pretty good. But Klopp also managed his team to some good stats, so when I say Ole was better than him, I don't want to say, Ole was great and Klopp was shit, I would say, Ole was pretty good and Klopp was mostly alright. Tuchel on the other hand came in and changed a team without a clear direction into a well-organized possession team, able to create chances and stop opposition chances. He also trumped Pep in the CL Final, he was very good last season.
As for your questions -
A) No, it wasn't. But we aren't talking about today. The post which we're discussing considers 28 odd games
B) No, we can play better. But again, we aren't just talking about today.
C) 3/3 - Not talking about today's game. But if you want the answer, we lost the midfield battle.
For fun, lets answer all questions regardless of the original context. What caused us to lose the midfield battle in your opinion?
I really hope that the forum in general stops rating the team either way, good or bad, on a match by match basis. And if they want to, then apply it to every manager. I'd love to see the absurd views (more absurd*) the forum comes up with - I'm pretty sure Klopp's pool can't deal with low block defences would be the "terrible take of the week" once we start that.
Well, that is the beauty of "witnessing" whole matches isn't it. Of course you will see way more of what you don't like in 90min than in a 3min-highlight video. But lets face it, we all are flawed in that respect. And this community is well trained in the old "3 points is all that counts" approach to shrug off bad performances as soon as the points are secured.
When judging/rating any player, you don't take into account one game, do you? I doubt scouts sign a player after watching him once? Or you root for a player's signing on the basis of one game? So, why analyze everything on a game by game basis? I don't mind commenting on performances btw on a weekly basis. Its a forum, but going across the spectrum on a weekly basis is tiring
I agree. But you don't have to participate and if other people like to do it, they should do what they want. I see it this way: each match provides you with some more indicators making this or that hypothesis likelier or unlikelier. So I think, there is nothing wrong with discussing each week. Spiralling through endless Klopp-comparisons is tedious, I'll give you that but both parties are responsible for that.