Keyblade Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 5 minutes ago, Zatman said: They won same amount of trophies as Chelsea since Klopp joined In this hypothetical scenario where Man City didn't exist, that wouldn't be the case. In the 10 years of the Abramovich era before Klopp joined, Chelsea had won 5 more trophies. In fact, Klopp's Liverpool have won more trophies than the Liverpool from that same time period. And crucially, one of those trophies is the Premier League. I can't see how his tenure has been anything more than a resounding success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 4 minutes ago, Keyblade said: In this hypothetical scenario where Man City didn't exist, that wouldn't be the case. In the 10 years of the Abramovich era before Klopp joined, Chelsea had won 5 more trophies. In fact, Klopp's Liverpool have won more trophies than the Liverpool from that same time period. And crucially, one of those trophies is the Premier League. I can't see how his tenure has been anything more than a resounding success. You can be successful and still underachieve which was the initial point. Liverpool should have won more trophies than just 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 11 minutes ago, Zatman said: You can be successful and still underachieve which was the initial point. Liverpool should have won more trophies than just 4 Why's that? Their spending? Wage bill? By what metric should they have won more trophies? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Why's that? Their spending? Wage bill? By what metric should they have won more trophies? They have one of the best managers in the world even if he is a scumbag. A top class keeper, full backs and wide players, the greatest centre back in the history of the British media and probably Liverpool's greatest ever forward in Salah. They have been among Europes top 4 teams since about 2017 despite a huge asthma outbreak yet knocked out of cups by teams like Southampton, West Brom, Wolves twice(once under Lambert ) Edited January 2 by Zatman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 1 minute ago, Zatman said: They have one of the best managers in the world even if he is a scumbag. A top class keeper, full backs and wide players, the greatest centre back in the history of the British media and probably Liverpool's greatest ever forward in Salah. They have been among Europes top 4 teams since about 2017 despite a huge asthma outbreak Their trophy haul suggests they are the second best team in the country. They have been outspent by 4 other teams, yet only 1 team has won more. I just don't see how they're underachieving. Klopp has gotten more out of this team than has been invested in it imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 I think league Cup and FA cup you can make an argument League and CL not so much 3 cup finals since 2015, we've been to 2... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy7211 Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, villa4europe said: I think league Cup and FA cup you can make an argument League and CL not so much 3 cup finals since 2015, we've been to 2... There's an argument that they didn't make as many finals due to focusing on CL and competing for the title. For all the talent, for quite a few years their squad wasn't nearly as strong as it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 22 minutes ago, Jonesy7211 said: There's an argument that they didn't make as many finals due to focusing on CL and competing for the title. For all the talent, for quite a few years their squad wasn't nearly as strong as it is now. I get that, they're the team that probably has the biggest right to be pissed off with man city I also get that 3 CL finals is great going, that they lost the PL with a record breaking number of points and for a couple of years them vs city arguably was the best the PL has ever been, I also think they shoudl win the league cup this year But in cold hard stats 1 PL, 1 CL, 1 league cup, 1 FA cup in 7 seasons isn't that good, you then throw in 2 leagues and 1 cuo with dortmund and Klopps trophy cabinet isn't as full as it probably should be for a manager as good as he is - and he is very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 16 hours ago, Genie said: The fact Jota took a dive rather than pass the ball into an empty net was shocking tbh. Did he want the keeper sent off? He had Salah as captain in his fantasy football team 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 14 hours ago, villa4europe said: I get that, they're the team that probably has the biggest right to be pissed off with man city I also get that 3 CL finals is great going, that they lost the PL with a record breaking number of points and for a couple of years them vs city arguably was the best the PL has ever been, I also think they shoudl win the league cup this year But in cold hard stats 1 PL, 1 CL, 1 league cup, 1 FA cup in 7 seasons isn't that good, you then throw in 2 leagues and 1 cuo with dortmund and Klopps trophy cabinet isn't as full as it probably should be for a manager as good as he is - and he is very good They’ve set 3 of the top 9 highest Premier League points totals and “only” won the title once. I think it’s fair to say that Man City has been the barrier between Liverpool and more success, rather than them not being “that good”. (Edit: and of course the nature of knockout football being weird) Edited January 3 by bobzy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 33 minutes ago, bobzy said: They’ve set 3 of the top 9 highest Premier League points totals and “only” won the title once. I think it’s fair to say that Man City has been the barrier between Liverpool and more success, rather than them not being “that good”. (Edit: and of course the nature of knockout football being weird) The league I can see and understand The cups I have no context for, I don't know if it is a case of them not being bothered, if they've been unlucky with draws, if they've lost on pens, if they've lost lots of semi finals, if they've played their under 12s vs us... But as a high level headline I dont think it's that harsh to suggest they should have more especially given that they are undoubtedly a good team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 16 minutes ago, villa4europe said: The league I can see and understand The cups I have no context for, I don't know if it is a case of them not being bothered, if they've been unlucky with draws, if they've lost on pens, if they've lost lots of semi finals, if they've played their under 12s vs us... But as a high level headline I dont think it's that harsh to suggest they should have more especially given that they are undoubtedly a good team Should they have had more? Are we in a weird place with football where success is steam rolling rather than anything else? I mean, I reckon 4 trophies in 7 seasons is possibly better than any period in our history post 1900 (we won a lot in the late 1800’s) - and we’re a “big club”. Could be wrong here, I haven’t checked, but it seems quite a successful period rather than one of underachievement?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 14 minutes ago, bobzy said: Should they have had more? Are we in a weird place with football where success is steam rolling rather than anything else? I mean, I reckon 4 trophies in 7 seasons is possibly better than any period in our history post 1900 (we won a lot in the late 1800’s) - and we’re a “big club”. Could be wrong here, I haven’t checked, but it seems quite a successful period rather than one of underachievement?! surely success is judged by the best teams winning things? and as you've said which is correct Liverpool are the 2nd best team in the country behind man city and for periods in those 7 years they have been better than city, so the question should have they won more is not that daft, they are the 2nd best team but in terms of domestic trophies they are not 2nd man utd have 2 league cups and 1 FA cup in klopps time, chelsea have been to 7 domestic cup finals, arsenal have 2 FA cups I don't know of any 7 year period in Villa's more modern history where we would be considered the best / 2nd best team for such a duration so its not really comparable, you would be better off looking at utd, chelsea, arsenal and city in the PL era and seeing that their time in the sun won them more trophies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 13 minutes ago, villa4europe said: surely success is judged by the best teams winning things? and as you've said which is correct Liverpool are the 2nd best team in the country behind man city and for periods in those 7 years they have been better than city, so the question should have they won more is not that daft, they are the 2nd best team but in terms of domestic trophies they are not 2nd man utd have 2 league cups and 1 FA cup in klopps time, chelsea have been to 7 domestic cup finals, arsenal have 2 FA cups I don't know of any 7 year period in Villa's more modern history where we would be considered the best / 2nd best team for such a duration so its not really comparable, you would be better off looking at utd, chelsea, arsenal and city in the PL era and seeing that their time in the sun won them more trophies I don't think there's been any point during Klopp's reign that Man City have been considered an inferior team to Liverpool - let alone multiple periods. They've been comfortably the best side in England (even if not winning absolutely everything!) for ages. Further, I'm not even sure that Liverpool have been classed as clearly the 2nd best side in the league for the entirely of Klopp's reign. Even if you argue they have been the 2nd best side, they've been closer to Man Utd/Chelsea/Arsenal/Spurs than they are to Man City. I can't even think of a period of domestic football where two teams have dominated trophies - Man Utd vs Arsenal possibly the closest we've been to that, but other sides regularly won things. Generally, trophies are spread over a few clubs, or one club has been dominant and a selection of other clubs pick up the remaining trophies... ...which is exactly what has happened whilst Klopp has been manager. Man City have won 50% of available domestic trophies (insane), with the remaining "big clubs" (Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man Utd and... well, Leicester) picking up the others. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Liverpool should have won more during that time even if they could have done - and that's without looking at any nuance in cup competitions such as resting players or being knocked out by eventual winners etc. etc. To say Klopp has underachieved is, to me, madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Agree with @bobzy. It's worth remembering the Liverpool side he took over had finished in the top 4 once in the previous 6 years and won 1 trophy in 8 years. Combine that with competing with clubs with not only better sides, but spending power that did (and still does) dwarf what Liverpool could spend. I'd say that it's comparable with suggesting Simeone has underachieved at Atleti, though I'd argue Atleti have less competition for trophies overall. The fact Liverpool have been competing with City is an overachievment in itself, them wnning a European Cup and title is ridiculous. I think it'd barmy to suggest anyone other than Klopp has been the best PL manager over the past 5-10 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, kurtsimonw said: Agree with @bobzy. It's worth remembering the Liverpool side he took over had finished in the top 4 once in the previous 6 years and won 1 trophy in 8 years. Combine that with competing with clubs with not only better sides, but spending power that did (and still does) dwarf what Liverpool could spend. I'd say that it's comparable with suggesting Simeone has underachieved at Atleti, though I'd argue Atleti have less competition for trophies overall. The fact Liverpool have been competing with City is an overachievment in itself, them wnning a European Cup and title is ridiculous. I think it'd barmy to suggest anyone other than Klopp has been the best PL manager over the past 5-10 years. that's something id kind of agree with, Klopp has been the best PL manager - or obviously pep, he's top 2, VVD has been the best PL defender, TAA has been one of the best PL RBs, Salah has probably been the best PL striker / goalscorer, Robertson has probably been the best PL LB, Allison has been top 3 for GK 1 league cup 1 FA cup... the argument isn't that Liverpool are not very good, its that Liverpool are very good but have surprisingly little to show for it - and I obviously factor man city when saying that - is it as simple as saying man city have been better and have been knocking them out of the cups? i don't think it is Klopps FA cup record is losing games to wolves (x2) west brom, west ham, brighton, man utd, chelsea (x2) - they've made 1 final (no semi finals apart from that year) - and includes replays vs wolves, plymouth and shrewsbury his league cup record is losing games to southampton (semi final), leicester, chelsea, villa, arsenal, man city again the point is they are an excellent team and manager so why are they not very good in the domestic cups? i think its a fair question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 22 hours ago, Zatman said: Liverpool should have won more trophies than just 4 You could make that argument if two of those trophies weren't the league and CL. Can't really say they've underachieved when they've won those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 27 minutes ago, villa89 said: You could make that argument if two of those trophies weren't the league and CL. Can't really say they've underachieved when they've won those two. lost 2 CL finals and broke records in finishing 2nd, that's an indication as to how good they are so why haven't they won the league cup more than once? is it as simple as they just prioritise those 2 competitions over the other 2, or are they not very good at cups? or do they think the league cup is beneath them? all 3 of those would lead me to suggest they've underachieved if you say man city since klopp was appointed have won 50% of the 3 domestic trophies on offer then you say liverpool are the 2nd best team for most of that time span yet they've only won 12.5% of them, same as man utd, chelsea, arsenal and leicester have won 8% of them this Liverpool team is too good for that to be the case and it not to raise a question as to whether or not they should have won more and we seriously saying that pep's man city are so much better than klopp's liverpool that 11 domestic trophies (in one year less) to 3 is met with a shrug of the shoulders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 14 minutes ago, villa4europe said: lost 2 CL finals and broke records in finishing 2nd, that's an indication as to how good they are so why haven't they won the league cup more than once? is it as simple as they just prioritise those 2 competitions over the other 2, or are they not very good at cups? or do they think the league cup is beneath them? all 3 of those would lead me to suggest they've underachieved if you say man city since klopp was appointed have won 50% of the 3 domestic trophies on offer then you say liverpool are the 2nd best team for most of that time span yet they've only won 12.5% of them, same as man utd, chelsea, arsenal and leicester have won 8% of them this Liverpool team is too good for that to be the case and it not to raise a question as to whether or not they should have won more and we seriously saying that pep's man city are so much better than klopp's liverpool that 11 domestic trophies (in one year less) to 3 is met with a shrug of the shoulders? One of those two teams has been found to have broken the financial rules over a hundred times. The other has not. I’d suggest it’s fair game to not be too critical of any team for not winning many trophies during the ‘City era’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said: One of those two teams has been found to have broken the financial rules over a hundred times. The other has not. I’d suggest it’s fair game to not be too critical of any team for not winning many trophies during the ‘City era’. But that's like what I said before Chelsea have been to 5 FA cup finals in Klopps time, Liverpool have been to 1, they've been to the same number of league cup finals, man utd have 2 league cups to their name in Klopps time That's not city And Chelsea and man utd are not better than Liverpool I can understand the league, I could understand it if city were beating Liverpool in the cups but they're not (they have once, beat them in the LC final) All this being said they must be favourites for this year's LC, semi final vs Fulham potential final vs Chelsea or Boro, that is surely seen as a failure of they don't win it from here? less so with the EL but again they must be considered favourites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts