Who you rate the highest Pep, Klopp or Tuchel?

[Theonas]

I'd rank Tuchels Dortmund on the same level as Klopps Dortmund. Tuchel only won one DFB Cup with them because Bayern were better during his time compared to Kloppos years.

And how did he fail at PSG? He led them to a CL final that they barely lost.

That was not my argument. I did not say that he was not good, in fact, I might agree with you that his side was as good as Klopp's which goes to show the point that the titles alone and numbers don't tell the whole story. The same argument I could use for Pep's City in his first season. In another country, he probably could have won a trophy then too.

I don't think Tuchel failed at PSG either. The poster I was replying too made the point that he brought instant success using the CL as evidence, I took it as the metric being major trophies on the table. I was arguing that by that token, Tuchel was not a success at PSG or Dortmund.

 

[Theonas]

while we do have great spending power, it’s limited to maybe one or at most two players a year. There seems to be some prudence to our spending, otherwise Mou would have bought Maguire when he wanted him, and he would not have been fussing about lack of spending. City regularly spend £50-£60m for players that will go to the bench.

The only evident difference to our spending is we prioritize big names for commercial reasons as well as established names because since Mourinho, we rely on difference makers up front as opposed to players that fit a specific system. That means we are hesitant if the name does not have enough clout. That is a structural and management issue, and not a question of prudence. How can it be prudence when we still pay the highest wages in the league and we have directly beaten City to the signing of at least 3 players in the last few years.

The highlighted part could be said about literally any manager in history including Guardiola. City wanted Maguire, Sanchez, Ronaldo and probably Fred as well if I am not mistaken. They wanted Jorginho also and missed out on the deal in the last minute. If this stuff happened to our managers, there would be an outrcy about how are we supposed to compete with wealthy rivals when they are stealing players from us.

 

[Sviken]

Pep to me will always have a black stain on his CV in that he needs the GDP of a small sovereign country to make a team unplayable. Klopp, on the other hand, has proven time and time again that he can make a team extremely competitive with very limited resources. Reminds me of Fergie in that regard. Let's ask ourselves this: would Pep be able to do what Klopp has done if he was in charge of Liverpool? Most likely not. But I'm pretty sure Klopp would have killed it at City. Maybe not as dominant as they are on Pep's best day, but still would have achieved everything Pep has done so far, maybe even more.

Tuchel shouldn't really be in the conversation as of right now. He needs some miles before anyone considers him equal to those two.

 

[criticalanalysis]

I know City squad is bigger with better quality but Liverpool have their Rodri, Dias, Grealish in Fabinho, Konate, Thiago, Naby Keita, etc.

People always try to paint that Liverpool squad as similar to the Watfords of this world. I’m not having that.

Yes of course Liverpool have spent big but when their Thaigos, Keitas and Konates don't work out, they haven't backed Klopp the next season to buy big again.

Under Pep, City has replaced Laporte with Dias, Silva with Silva, Mendy with Cancelo, Sane with Mahrez, add Grealish etc, on top of having already inherited a title winning team.

One has a one-time cycle and the other has two chances to rectify/improve. Their spending power is simply not the same and you have to factor this in.

 

[footballistic orgasm]

Pep to me will always have a black stain on his CV in that he needs the GDP of a small sovereign country to make a team unplayable. Klopp, on the other hand, has proven time and time again that he can make a team extremely competitive with very limited resources. Reminds me of Fergie in that regard. Let's ask ourselves this: would Pep be able to do what Klopp has done if he was in charge of Liverpool? Most likely not. But I'm pretty sure Klopp would have killed it at City. Maybe not as dominant as they are on Pep's best day, but still would have achieved everything Pep has done so far, maybe even more.

Tuchel shouldn't really be in the conversation as of right now. He needs some miles before anyone considers him equal to those two.

Based on what exactly? Klopp has actually refused to go where there's immediate pressure to win CL and other trophies, while Barca won everything there is to win in Pep's first season at Barcelona without buying a lot of players.

Mourinho spent a lot at Chelsea and Madrid and never won the CL, so nothing tells us that Klopp will do so if he had unlimited budget (which they actually don't have) at City.

 

[footballistic orgasm]

Yes of course Liverpool have spent big but when their Thaigos, Keitas and Konates don't work out, they haven't backed Klopp the next season to buy big again.

Under Pep, City has replaced Laporte with Dias, Silva with Silva, Mendy with Cancelo, Sane with Mahrez, add Grealish etc, on top of having already inherited a title winning team.

One has a one-time cycle and the other has two chances to rectify/improve. Their spending power is simply not the same and you have to factor this in.

No one considered Dias a world-class player before he came to City, let's not re-write history. He was barely talked about in the transfer market.
Cancelo wasn't playing at Juventus and came as an exchange for Danilo (with extra funds since he's way younger), but no one was expecting him to light the pl up as he's doing, especially at the LB position too.

 

[Fridge chutney]

Tuchel is looking really good right now.

All 3 are great and we'd be lucky to have them.

 

[criticalanalysis]

No one considered Dias a world-class player before he came to City, let's not re-write history. He was barely talked about in the transfer market.
Cancelo wasn't playing at Juventus and came as an exchange for Danilo (with extra funds since he's way younger), but no one was expecting him to light the pl up as he's doing, especially at the LB position too.

Regardless of what you think of those players, City spent £100m+ on two players to replace two players who....they had bought for £100m+ barely 2-3 seasons prior.

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

Klopp all day long at this point.

Pep is all about money or peak Barca. (but of course also a very good manager)

Tuchel too soon, but he looks great right now.

 

[Sviken]

Based on what exactly? Klopp has actually refused to go where there's immediate pressure to win CL and other trophies, while Barca won everything there is to win in Pep's first season at Barcelona without buying a lot of players.

Mourinho spent a lot at Chelsea and Madrid and never won the CL, so nothing tells us that Klopp will do so if he had unlimited budget (which they actually don't have) at City.

While I do consider 2008's Barca to be Pep's best work, let's not pretend he had a "hard" job. He was coming to a team that had recently won the CL and multiple La Liga's. An underperforming team, but a team with Xavi, Iniesta, Valdes, Puyol, Eto'o and Abidal in their prime. A team with up and coming world class talents in Busquets, Pique and Messi. He also brought Henry to strengthen the side. So yes, Barca were no mugs. In terms of squad talent, Barca and United back then were by far the best so it's logical to assume Barca would win the league and give a good showing in the CL with a competent manager in charge with Pep certainly is.

I don't know what Klopp has refused, but he has certainly delivered the same as Guardiola with much less resources and that's a fact. At Mainz, at Dortmund, at Liverpool he has always punched above his weight. As far as winning CL's and what not, it isn't about that, it's about the fact that Klopp has transformed Liverpool from a mediocre midtable team into title challengers, capable of fully competing with Guardiola's City in very little time and money spent. Yeah, sure, you can argue there is no guarantees that Klopp would do better if he had City or Chelsea budget, but is it likely? Well, yeah. I fail to see why Klopp would fail at those teams if he had the luxury of paying for 50 million duds that would later rot on the bench until he hit that one guy that works for him. Man City probably don't have an unlimited budget, but they're pretty close to it. No other team beside PSG can waste money like Guardiola wastes and continue to compete.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Pep to me will always have a black stain on his CV in that he needs the GDP of a small sovereign country to make a team unplayable. Klopp, on the other hand, has proven time and time again that he can make a team extremely competitive with very limited resources. Reminds me of Fergie in that regard. Let's ask ourselves this: would Pep be able to do what Klopp has done if he was in charge of Liverpool? Most likely not. But I'm pretty sure Klopp would have killed it at City. Maybe not as dominant as they are on Pep's best day, but still would have achieved everything Pep has done so far, maybe even more.

Tuchel shouldn't really be in the conversation as of right now. He needs some miles before anyone considers him equal to those two.

I don’t understand why people penalise Pep on hypotheticals. The fact is that there is no concrete evidence that he would not be able to do what Klopp has done at Liverpool. That’s speculation. So I just look at what each has actually achieved.

 

[Reynoldo]

Peak Pep Barca vs peak Klopp Liverpool...who would win?

 

[footballistic orgasm]

[

Regardless of what you think of those players, City spent £100m+ on two players to replace two players who....they had bought for £100m+ barely 2-3 seasons prior.

That's market value based on a lot of factors (players age, the club selling, the club buying, etc). Their price tag doesn't mean they were world-class players.

While I do consider 2008's Barca to be Pep's best work, let's not pretend he had a "hard" job. He was coming to a team that had recently won the CL and multiple La Liga's. An underperforming team, but a team with Xavi, Iniesta, Valdes, Puyol, Eto'o and Abidal in their prime. A team with up and coming world class talents in Busquets, Pique and Messi. He also brought Henry to strengthen the side. So yes, Barca were no mugs. In terms of squad talent, Barca and United back then were by far the best so it's logical to assume Barca would win the league and give a good showing in the CL with a competent manager in charge with Pep certainly is.

I don't know what Klopp has refused, but he has certainly delivered the same as Guardiola with much less resources and that's a fact. At Mainz, at Dortmund, at Liverpool he has always punched above his weight. As far as winning CL's and what not, it isn't about that, it's about the fact that Klopp has transformed Liverpool from a mediocre midtable team into title challengers, capable of fully competing with Guardiola's City in very little time and money spent. Yeah, sure, you can argue there is no guarantees that Klopp would do better if he had City or Chelsea budget, but is it likely? Well, yeah. I fail to see why Klopp would fail at those teams if he had the luxury of paying for 50 million duds that would later rot on the bench until he hit that one guy that works for him. Man City probably don't have an unlimited budget, but they're pretty close to it. No other team beside PSG can waste money like Guardiola wastes and continue to compete.

Hindsight is a powerful thing though, you're re-writing history here a bit.

Barca wanted to let Xavi go and he was behind Deco and Ronaldinho in Barca's midfield. Iniesta's prime came under Pep, not before. Didn't realize Valdes was considered a top GK. Pep brought in Busquets and Pedro from la masia, no one knew who they were. He brought Piqué from United who wasn't playing. Abidal's prime came under Pep too.

That same Barca team that won everything with Pep that first season was basically the same team that finished 19 points behind Madrid the season before he arrived and had not won anything in the 2 previous seasons.

As for your last sentence, that's funny because United has spent just as much.

 

[Carolina Red]

Peak Pep Barca vs peak Klopp Liverpool...who would win?

Barca

 

[roonster09]

Peak Pep Barca vs peak Klopp Liverpool...who would win?

Peak Barca.

 

[Scottynaldinho]

Peak Pep Barca vs peak Klopp Liverpool...who would win?

Definitely Barca circa 2008-2012 as "Peak Liverpool" will play into their hands.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

Peak Pep Barca vs peak Klopp Liverpool...who would win?

It's not even a comparison honestly.

Flick's Bayern would have given Pep's Barcelona a better game IMO.

 

[RedBanker]

Guardiola with current United vs Klopp with current United....who would win?

 

[Sviken]

Hindsight is a powerful thing though, you're re-writing history here a bit.

Barca wanted to let Xavi go and he was behind Deco and Ronaldinho in Barca's midfield. Iniesta's prime came under Pep, not before. Didn't realize Valdes was considered a top GK. Pep brought in Busquets and Pedro from la masia, no one knew who they were. He brought Piqué from United who wasn't playing. Abidal's prime came under Pep too.

That same Barca team that won everything with Pep that first season was basically the same team that finished 19 points behind Madrid the season before he arrived and had not won anything in the 2 previous seasons.

As for your last sentence, that's funny because United has spent just as much.

That's not true. Xavi was integral to Barca's midfield at that time and Ronaldinho was on the wane. Deco and Toure were shuffled in favour of Iniesta and Busquets. Sure, you might argue everyone's prime came under Pep. After all it was probably the best Barca team in existence and one of the greatest teams ever. But it was a team set up for winning already with a little bit of tinkering. And Pep of course made the right decisions, but you're acting like he rebuilt Barcelona or something. Let's not forget that in the previous year where they were underperforming in the league they reached the UCL semis and gave us quite a bit of trouble to one of United's best historical teams. Prior to that they only lost the league on a head2head, while a much better goal difference than Real. So yes, he did a great job, but nobody can argue against the fact that the team he inherited was set to win, it just needed a good manager. Nothing special, just a good manager.

And what does it matter what United have spent? United spending their money bad doesn't have any meaning in this conversation. If Pep was in charge of United, we'd probably dominate the league because we have vast resources and money, as well. That's not the point. The point is that Pep needs a specific set-up in order to be successful

I don’t understand why people penalise Pep on hypotheticals. The fact is that there is no concrete evidence that he would not be able to do what Klopp has done at Liverpool. That’s speculation. So I just look at what each has actually achieved.

Pep regularly spends obscene amount of money on duds that he later repalces when they don't work out. With a club without unlimited resources he won't have that ability. It is a valid question.

 

[Rajiztar]

Guardiola with current United vs Klopp with current United....who would win?

I think tuchel with current united will win because of his adaptability to what he got. Can't pep or Klopp will do better than tuchel do with that squad in my opinion.

 

[sangria]

Peak Pep Barca vs peak Klopp Liverpool...who would win?

Peak Mourinho would be a better match up against peak Pep Barca. Immensely patient ****house defence combined with a functional and efficient attack. Maybe even peak Simeone or Benitez, if you want the same formula with slightly more/less ****housery. Basically what Jorge Valdano calls **** on a stick football, with individual quality in attack. Peak Pep Barca would still win more than they lose (hello Messi), but that kind of football would challenge/annoy them the most.

 

[Mark_Barca]

Let's not forget that in the previous year where they were underperforming in the league they reached the UCL semis and gave us quite a bit of trouble to one of United's best historical teams.

Only because of an easy draw against Celtic and Schalke in the knockouts, first decent team we faced we couldn't score one goal over two legs! Ronaldo also missed a penalty in the first leg and United lost Vidic just prior to the first leg and we created next to nothing.

Stop attempting to rewrite history with what Pep did for Barcelona, it was an incredible job and to claim it was a wee bit of tinkering is complete nonsense. Nobody else would have brought in Busuqets, Pedro and Pique.

Lyon made the SFs of CL recently, it means nothing with how good a team actually is, Chelsea fluked a CL under Di Matteo. Its a cup competition that often relies on luck and good draws.

Prior to that they only lost the league on a head2head, while a much better goal difference than Real. So yes, he did a great job, but nobody can argue against the fact that the team he inherited was set to win, it just needed a good manager. Nothing special, just a good manager.

What happened two years prior is irrelevant, Barcelona finished THIRD miles behind Real Madrid and Villarreal!

 

[adexkola]

Yes of course Liverpool have spent big but when their Thaigos, Keitas and Konates don't work out, they haven't backed Klopp the next season to buy big again.

Under Pep, City has replaced Laporte with Dias, Silva with Silva, Mendy with Cancelo, Sane with Mahrez, add Grealish etc, on top of having already inherited a title winning team.

One has a one-time cycle and the other has two chances to rectify/improve. Their spending power is simply not the same and you have to factor this in.

Dias was a replacement for Kompany, not Laporte
Mahrez was not a replacement for Sane
Cancelo was not a replacement for Mendy, he was a swap with Danilo
Silva was not intended as a replacement for Silva. Grealish was.

For all the players you have mentioned, the only failure has been Mendy (and that's due to him being injury ridden/an alleged rapist). And for much of his tenure, Guardiola didn't replace Mendy with another LB, he asked 2 midfielders, Delph and Zinchenko to fill in.

I mean, seems like much of what you're dinging Pep on is false or not applicable.

 

[adexkola]

What happened two years prior is irrelevant, Barcelona finished THIRD miles behind Real Madrid and Villarreal!

I used to post articles detailing the state of Barcelona (like when they got whipped 4-0 by a Madrid team that couldn't make it past the last 16 round for years), and you come to realize that in this discussion, facts like that don't matter.

Strangely enough, you can't find any posts on the Caf declaring Pep to have had the easiest of jobs upon his appointment. All this hindsight downgrading of his Barcelona stint is hindsight for a reason.

 

[adexkola]

That's not true. Xavi was integral to Barca's midfield at that time and Ronaldinho was on the wane. Deco and Toure were shuffled in favour of Iniesta and Busquets. Sure, you might argue everyone's prime came under Pep. After all it was probably the best Barca team in existence and one of the greatest teams ever. But it was a team set up for winning already with a little bit of tinkering. And Pep of course made the right decisions, but you're acting like he rebuilt Barcelona or something. Let's not forget that in the previous year where they were underperforming in the league they reached the UCL semis and gave us quite a bit of trouble to one of United's best historical teams. Prior to that they only lost the league on a head2head, while a much better goal difference than Real. So yes, he did a great job, but nobody can argue against the fact that the team he inherited was set to win, it just needed a good manager. Nothing special, just a good manager.

And what does it matter what United have spent? United spending their money bad doesn't have any meaning in this conversation. If Pep was in charge of United, we'd probably dominate the league because we have vast resources and money, as well. That's not the point. The point is that Pep needs a specific set-up in order to be successful


Pep regularly spends obscene amount of money on duds that he later repalces when they don't work out. With a club without unlimited resources he won't have that ability. It is a valid question.

What duds has Pep had at City? Mendy, Bravo, Nolito? That isn't bad for a 6 year stint at City. I can't think of any other acquisitions that have turned out as duds.

Would you call Keita, Ox, Karius, Thiago... duds as well?

 

[NasirTimothy]

That's not true. Xavi was integral to Barca's midfield at that time and Ronaldinho was on the wane. Deco and Toure were shuffled in favour of Iniesta and Busquets. Sure, you might argue everyone's prime came under Pep. After all it was probably the best Barca team in existence and one of the greatest teams ever. But it was a team set up for winning already with a little bit of tinkering. And Pep of course made the right decisions, but you're acting like he rebuilt Barcelona or something. Let's not forget that in the previous year where they were underperforming in the league they reached the UCL semis and gave us quite a bit of trouble to one of United's best historical teams. Prior to that they only lost the league on a head2head, while a much better goal difference than Real. So yes, he did a great job, but nobody can argue against the fact that the team he inherited was set to win, it just needed a good manager. Nothing special, just a good manager.

And what does it matter what United have spent? United spending their money bad doesn't have any meaning in this conversation. If Pep was in charge of United, we'd probably dominate the league because we have vast resources and money, as well. That's not the point. The point is that Pep needs a specific set-up in order to be successful


Pep regularly spends obscene amount of money on duds that he later repalces when they don't work out. With a club without unlimited resources he won't have that ability. It is a valid question.

It’s not a valid question IMO. The point is that you are still dealing in suppositions and hypotheticals. You have no idea what he would and wouldn’t be able to do in a Liverpool situation and neither does anyone else. You’re just guessing.

We know that he can improve players so one can just as easily surmise that he could succeed on a budget.

 

[RatPack]

For me it is Klop by far. He has won with teams weaker to begin with and developed them.

Pep took over a great team in Barca. Almost every coach would have won with Bayern. And even in City he took a "winning team".
Further I always hated how his teams always gets away with small free kicks when opposition has a counter possibility. Smart play but his players should have had a lot more yellow cards over the years.
But his teams have played great football with amazing goals.

 

[Dancfc]

For me it is Klop by far. He has won with teams weaker to begin with and developed them.

Pep took over a great team in Barca. Almost every coach would have won with Bayern. And even in City he took a "winning team".
Further I always hated how his teams always gets away with small free kicks when opposition has a counter possibility. Smart play but his players should have had a lot more yellow cards over the years.
But his teams have played great football with amazing goals.

Pre Pep Bayern only ever won three in a row twice and never four.

The treble in a lot of ways made Pep's job harder, how do you convince a bunch of players who've just won the lot to not only go again but to buy into new ideas? It's not as easy as people claim it is (case in point Benitez at Inter).

 

[stefan92]

Pre Pep Bayern only ever won three in a row twice and never four.

The treble in a lot of ways made Pep's job harder, how do you convince a bunch of players who've just won the lot to not only go again but to buy into new ideas? It's not as easy as people claim it is (case in point Benitez at Inter).

Yet he never beat the points record Heynckes achieved and failed in the CL with them. He kept their level high, that surely deserves credit. He also further developed their playing style, but that's about it, he has nothing special to show for it.

 

[Bearded One]

Yes of course Liverpool have spent big but when their Thaigos, Keitas and Konates don't work out, they haven't backed Klopp the next season to buy big again.

Under Pep, City has replaced Laporte with Dias, Silva with Silva, Mendy with Cancelo, Sane with Mahrez, add Grealish etc, on top of having already inherited a title winning team.

One has a one-time cycle and the other has two chances to rectify/improve. Their spending power is simply not the same and you have to factor this in.

I don’t really like to get into a debate around Pep, Klopp and Tuchel. For me they are the best in the world today and I’d be blessed to have any and United however I feel like Pep is unjustly measured on this board for obvious reasons. The central theme seems to be, if a manger can achieve so much with little then extra funds will see them achieve much more. But the examples of Lampard, Mourinho and Pochettino would teach us about the dynamism of the game and remind us that football is not that simplistic to work out.

I believe that if it was City that went for Konate, Leipzig would sell to them at an extra premium just because they have “filthy wealth” and if it was Liverpool that went for Nathan Ake, the price would be closer to market value.

City have used Delph and Zinchenko at left back to win titles and personally I don’t even think Mendy was a flop per se. His unhealthy lifestyle got the better of him because he was brilliant in his first season. Cancelo was Danilo’s replacement who has found a new home at left back. Dias is not Laporte’s replacement and even then if I had a choice to sign Verane or Dias before he got to City I wouldn’t think twice. If I had a chance to sign Harry or Dias, hell I’d go for Maguire.

Indeed City have the best squad in the league but the expectation on that team is over the roof. People expect them to knock Bayern, PSG, Chelsea, Liverpool and win the champions league and then go ahead to do a quadruple every season. For Liverpool so long as they are within top 4 every year they have done pretty well. The expectation on both teams is just not the same.

 

[Teja]

Peak Pep Barca vs peak Klopp Liverpool...who would win?

It's actually more interesting if you take Guardiola from 2012 with his Barca side vs Klopp from 2021.

2021 Pep with that Barca side will easily beat Pool.

 

[GMok]

What duds has Pep had at City? Mendy, Bravo, Nolito? That isn't bad for a 6 year stint at City. I can't think of any other acquisitions that have turned out as duds.

Would you call Keita, Ox, Karius, Thiago... duds as well?

Karius is a definite dud. Keita as well, if you see how much Liverpool wanted him and paid for him one year in advance.

Thiago I think will be a hit. Klopp is trying to transform his midfield, the two wide midfielders are now 10 yards up on their position during 2018-19, trying to get more goals. But that is also making Liverpool's defense more vulnerable with so many goals conceded. But I think, eventually it will be a settled system.

Oxlade is an enigma. His directness add a lot to Klopp's midfield but he is not consistent enough, gets injured frequently as well. I guess you can count him as a flop.

 

[TheReligion]

What duds has Pep had at City? Mendy, Bravo, Nolito? That isn't bad for a 6 year stint at City. I can't think of any other acquisitions that have turned out as duds.

Would you call Keita, Ox, Karius, Thiago... duds as well?

Ake and Danilo.

 

[MartinRed]

Klopp.He is from the kind that could last.

 

[adexkola]

Ake and Danilo.

Ake was signed as a backup CB/LB. No indications he's failed at this so far.

Ditto with Danilo. He didn't pull up trees or anything, and he was traded to Juventus for Cancelo, so I guess if your definition of flop is anything other than excellent success, then yes he was a flop. Otherwise I'd disagree.

Karius is a definite dud. Keita as well, if you see how much Liverpool wanted him and paid for him one year in advance.

Thiago I think will be a hit. Klopp is trying to transform his midfield, the two wide midfielders are now 10 yards up on their position during 2018-19, trying to get more goals. But that is also making Liverpool's defense more vulnerable with so many goals conceded. But I think, eventually it will be a settled system.

Oxlade is an enigma. His directness add a lot to Klopp's midfield but he is not consistent enough, gets injured frequently as well. I guess you can count him as a flop.

My point of raising this point was to illustrate the inflated attention paid to transfers Pep has gotten wrong, compared to other managers, especially when under scrutiny, the argument usually doesn't hold.

 

[Mick1]

Klopp. He competes with Pep with half the budget and half the player quality. He also does not have the cartoon villain look, partnered with the " I'm so smart and misunderstood " of the bold cont.

Tuchel is getting up there. Brilliant work with Dortmund who were one of the most exciting teams in world football, by all accounts good job with PSG considering the circus, and now proper world class stuff with Chelsea. Seems more of a " student of the game " than both others, and might have a higher ceiling. That said Peps absolute dominance when he gets his team playing his way is not something we ve ever really seen. Guaranteed to turn your team into one of the goat teams given his way.

But we've also never really seen a manager who was given the absolute class of ingredients Pep had to work with, and can cherry pick the best team in football at any moment, no matter the manager, and go there. Tuchel less so, Klopp is a proper hipster favourite ( challenge, la) and I'm quite worried that the scousers have found their Fergie.

 

[Desert Eagle]

Ralf. Never heard of these other bozos

 

[stefan92]

Ralf. Never heard of these other bozos

Yeah. Daddy is coming to crash the party his disciples have

 

[sangria]

It's actually more interesting if you take Guardiola from 2012 with his Barca side vs Klopp from 2021.

2021 Pep with that Barca side will easily beat Pool.

A more interesting contest would be Mourinho in his first Chelsea stint versus Pep's peak Barca. Stylewise Mourinho is a better counter to Pep Barca, while his first Chelsea team had the quality up front to punish any overreach.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Im leaning towards Tuchel. He's got his team playing balanced, dominant football. With his attackers his team shouldn't be as good as it is at scoring goals but here we are. Defensively though, this Chelsea side is one of the greatest ever. Amazing to see a team that defends on the front foot as well as they do on the back foot. Last time we had something like this was Jupps Bayern team.