Keyblade

He was always a RM, but moved to RB early in his career because he thought it would be a better pathway to the first team, and so it proved. I think Klopp should have eventually shifted him there permanently, but that would probably have been predicated on them signing a top class RB which they never did.

You can only keep the conveyor belt running flawlessly for so long. It was bound to happen at some point. They had a good run though. Played against the likes of Ajax and Roma in Europe too, who'd have thought this when we were both slugging it out under Hughton and Bruce not so long ago?

They've looked good in multiple periods under Potter, but they'd always lacked cutting edge and ultimately finished bottom half. I didn't expect that season to go any different. Lest we forget our famous Cazoo Derby where we were once joint top with Everton after a similar number of games. De Zerbi had them scoring for fun (not just topping the xG charts) and finished 6th + got them to an FA Cup semi. I'd say he did.

What, after 6 games?

You can only say they spent well in hindsight after seeing how they turned out. Did their scouting department (who largely predated Klopp's arrival) know that Salah, Mane, TAA, Robertson et al would be world beaters, or did Klopp coach it out of them? FSG are notorious among Liverpool fans for not being particularly ambitious, and their transfer record belies that. It's quite obvious that they've been dragged to their level of success by Klopp.

Actually be an attacking threat and finished in a European spot?

I mean for one, football is largely played on the balance sheet today, but also how did Liverpool get a team that should have challenged for more trophies, if it wasn't their budget? You can't have it both ways. Either they spent their way to their success (or perceived lack thereof), or they didn't and were dragged there through superior coaching.

I agree net spend is flawed, but you brought up their sales. No matter which way you slice it, they have over performed under Klopp.

You're still doing it. Look at the net spend list. They're 8th mate. That's including Coutinho.

Manchester City have bought at least 3 £50m+ fullbacks, but Klopp with TAA and Robertson for a combined £8m should have done better really. Because of course they were the TAA and Robertson we know now back when they made their debuts. I've always disliked Liverpool, but sometimes you have to hold your hands up and give credit where it's due.

I'm not sure why you're cherry picking a handful of examples and ignoring overall spend which is a better metric, but even so let's look at some of these. - TAA: Academy player who Klopp started playing from the age of 17. Not sure what you're getting at here. You realize when you mention players that cost nothing or very little you're making the argument in favour of Klopp right? - Robertson was a top fullback at *checks notes* Hull City and moved for a then world record fee of *turns page* £8m? That one? - Salah/Mane/Firmino: You're right, nothing needs to be said about turning a Chelsea reject slowly turning his career around in Series A, a promising young player from Hoffenheim and a good but inconsistent player from Southampton, for £30m a pop into one of the greatest front 3's in PL history. If there was something to be said I can only imagine it would be in Klopp's favour. You can go through the other 5 clubs above them in spending (maybe not City), and cherry pick way more examples of very experience signings, both good and bad. To put it in perspective, they've only spent roughly £300m more than us in the time Klopp was there. And we spent 3 of those years in the Championship! This is the same amount that Arsenal spent more than them, and yet they have been much more successful than Arsenal, and lightyears away from us. How is this possible? Is it magic?

What do you mean for the team they had, as if they went and bought the best players out there? They've been outspent by 5 other teams. Were they the 6th best team of the past decade? You are inadvertently making the argument that Klopp made that team so good. It's like in 10 years time people saying Villa should have won more trophies, or finished in the top 4 more under Emery with the team they had, when in reality we only really look this good precisely because of Emery and his coaching, not because we have the best players. We really have no right to be as good as we are if not for our manager's genius.

He'll be remembered by Liverpool fans in the same way Paisley and Dalglish are but let Villa fans tell it and you'd think he was Souness or something.

Very cheap. Are the in some financial trouble?

Spending since Klopp came in: Gross: Net: You would hope Man United could sneak a couple of league finishes above Liverpool (such as the injury derailed season where Cardiff City bench warmer Nat Phillips made 20 starts for Liverpool), given how much they've spent. Ironically, it's a feather in the cap of Klopp that people are expecting Pep/City-esque dominance from him otherwise he's deemed a failure, when by right they shouldn't even be up there. And they never were anywhere near up there for the ~30 years preceding him, and likely won't be for many gears after him. But he's the failure, somehow.

Cup competitions are a crapshoot relatively speaking. Even saying that, they've been to 3 CL finals, which even City can't boast. I'd prefer to measure a team's greatness on league performance. If you take City out of the equation, they'd have had 3 of the 5 best seasons in PL history. Also, I know we take the piss out of them for winning the Net Spend Table, but they really have spent comparatively little. Previous great teams like United, Chelsea etc simply spent the most. Klopp has done well elevating players like Salah and Mane to world class levels. I'm hesitant to add VVD to that given that he was £70m, but he wasn't anywhere near world class at Southampton, plus we've seen how big signings like that could go south *cough*Maguire*cough*.

He's had to contend with a cheating, Man City who have been sweeping up the trophies here. How can anybody else win the league here? They've finished a season with 90+ points 3 times and only won the title once. Drop them in Fergie's era and they're winning the league every season. Hell, they just need 5 more points this season to win the league in the hallowed treble season

Rooney being younger than Ashley Young, Ronaldo and even LeBron James boggles the mind.

Barely any of this is true, and reads like you recently found out he shagged your wife

How do you feel about cabbages, as they relate to football?

Litmus test for the inevitable future bandwagon Villa fans: "How did you feel during the Round Badge Season?"

We need to play Diaby and Bailey together again. Keep the pressure on Cucurella all game. Keep Dougie on the bench til 60 mins. Tielemans and McGinn have been working so well together.

You can rest easy when you're owned by a very successful businessman who knows how to turn a profit and has already built a successful sports franchise. He wouldn't have bought us unless he knew he could get a return on his investment, and that could only happen if Aston Villa were doing well on the pitch. Champions League at a minimum. Tony Xia to NSWE is almost as big of a leap as Gerrard to Unai. Man we got lucky, we were right on the brink there.

Or you could look at it as Sheffield United, Burnley and Chelsea.

4 points from Chelsea and Brighton and we're almost home safe. Don't really care which order they come in. I think we got this. Of course Spurs could make it easy for us by losing a couple, but we don't want to rely on that.