LondonLax Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 54 minutes ago, villa4europe said: 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 Perhaps it’s just not possible to win domestic cup competitions and the league and the champions league, unless you have a squad like City’s , i.e. one built with unlimited money. For any ‘normal’ squad you just have to cut your cloth accordingly, focus and target certain trophies each season and settle on being the second most successful team in the country as your highest possible achievement? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 58 minutes ago, villa4europe said: 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 Have you gone insane or just forgotten what football is like? "Chelsea and Man Utd are not better than Liverpool therefore they can't win anything and Liverpool should" is bonkers. Utterly bonkers. Aston Villa, under a massive cup expert, lost at home to a League Two side in the cup. Teams lose random games all the time; getting absolute consistency and some sort of domination is incredibly rare. Liverpool losing to Chelsea in a cup final would be "failure" from a pure perspective but, really, is Chelsea beating Liverpool a shock in any way shape or form? Nope. Aston Villa will be favourites (I imagine) to win the Europa Conference League. Would I consider it a failure if we don't win it? Nope. Would I shrug and go "well, we should win it" if we do? Nope - I'd be **** ecstatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 minute ago, bobzy said: Have you gone insane or just forgotten what football is like? "Chelsea and Man Utd are not better than Liverpool therefore they can't win anything and Liverpool should" is bonkers. Utterly bonkers. Aston Villa, under a massive cup expert, lost at home to a League Two side in the cup. Teams lose random games all the time; getting absolute consistency and some sort of domination is incredibly rare. Liverpool losing to Chelsea in a cup final would be "failure" from a pure perspective but, really, is Chelsea beating Liverpool a shock in any way shape or form? Nope. Aston Villa will be favourites (I imagine) to win the Europa Conference League. Would I consider it a failure if we don't win it? Nope. Would I shrug and go "well, we should win it" if we do? Nope - I'd be **** ecstatic. No I haven't gone utterly insane Id simply call those things underachieving Let me put it another way, if you were to list the top 5 PL teams of all time - in no order for me it would be fergies utd, Jose's Chelsea, Peps city, arsenes arsenal, Klopps Liverpool - now list out all the things those teams won... It's not about dominating, it's about the perspective that Klopps Liverpool team are that good and yet don't have the trophy return to back it up, they are the best PL team to have won so little so at what stage do you class that as underachieving? Why do man city win so much? Because they're the best Well then why don't Liverpool who at times have been comfortably 2nd best and at other times has been miles ahead of everyone bar city win what city don't? They've not done enough in the domestic cups for as good a team as they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 There was that one season where they had those crazy injuries at the back where they were playing the likes of Nat Philips and Kabak together. Ruled out the title and any other trophies. Then the next season they won a cup double and were 2 goals away from the quadruple (thanks in part to Stevie G). Very fine margins, but on the whole they've had a very great run for the past 8 years. This has lasted a lot longer than Klopp's Dortmund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, villa4europe said: Well then why don't Liverpool who at times have been comfortably 2nd best and at other times has been miles ahead of everyone bar city win what city don't? That's not how football works, though. If City are the best team, why haven't they just won every single trophy available? Are they under achieving because they've had the best team in World football for the last 4 years and only have 3 league titles and 1 CL to show for it? You don't just win every trophy, and Klopp is arguably the biggest reason Liverpool are up there. the fact they are competing with City is a massive overachievement in itself. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 7 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said: That's not how football works, though. If City are the best team, why haven't they just won every single trophy available? Are they under achieving because they've had the best team in World football for the last 4 years and only have 3 league titles and 1 CL to show for it? You don't just win every trophy, and Klopp is arguably the biggest reason Liverpool are up there. the fact they are competing with City is a massive overachievement in itself. Exactly. As an example - guess who my man @villa4europe picked to win the league when Liverpool came 2nd, 1 point behind Man City in 2021/22? Surely Man City or maybe the comfortably 2nd best team in the league? Nope - Chelsea 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy7211 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, villa4europe said: No I haven't gone utterly insane Id simply call those things underachieving Let me put it another way, if you were to list the top 5 PL teams of all time - in no order for me it would be fergies utd, Jose's Chelsea, Peps city, arsenes arsenal, Klopps Liverpool - now list out all the things those teams won... It's not about dominating, it's about the perspective that Klopps Liverpool team are that good and yet don't have the trophy return to back it up, they are the best PL team to have won so little so at what stage do you class that as underachieving? Why do man city win so much? Because they're the best Well then why don't Liverpool who at times have been comfortably 2nd best and at other times has been miles ahead of everyone bar city win what city don't? They've not done enough in the domestic cups for as good a team as they are Apply this logic to the Juventus team of the 90s, or the Real Madrid team of the mid 00s or early 10s. Both fantastic teams that didn't dominate their leagues and cups because the of the behemoth Milan and Barca clubs that existed, and both could be accused of financial and performance enhancing doping. They still won the occasional trophy though. Bit of repeated history there. It's the same with Man City now. The simple reason Liverpool haven't won more trophies is because of them. You can still acknowledge Liverpool as a bloody good, and successful, team that will be remembered for the football they played. The same as the Juventus team with Baggio and the Madrid galacticos, great teams that didn't win as much because there was a better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 maybe I'm wrong then, this liverpool team with their best manager in the world, best RB in the world, best CB in the world, best GK in the world, best striker in the world, best left back in the league, team littered with world class players winning 4 trophies in 7 years hasnt underachieved.... ...maybe they're just overrated... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 21 minutes ago, villa4europe said: maybe I'm wrong then, this liverpool team with their best manager in the world, best RB in the world, best CB in the world, best GK in the world, best striker in the world, best left back in the league, team littered with world class players winning 4 trophies in 7 years hasnt underachieved.... ...maybe they're just overrated... I mean, VvD was probably the best CB in the World for 2 years and they won the league and the title (Whilst also getting 97 points the season they didn't win the league), then his standard dropped quite a lot. Liverpool haven't had the best striker in the league since Suarez and Trent has never really been close.until probably this season. I also think in the other positions (RCB an the whole midfield) Liverpool have been very weak and filled with workman like squad fillers. Meanwhile City have probably had 7 of the best XI in the entire PL every year. Edited January 4 by kurtsimonw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 12 hours ago, villa4europe said: No I haven't gone utterly insane Id simply call those things underachieving Let me put it another way, if you were to list the top 5 PL teams of all time - in no order for me it would be fergies utd, Jose's Chelsea, Peps city, arsenes arsenal, Klopps Liverpool - now list out all the things those teams won... It's not about dominating, it's about the perspective that Klopps Liverpool team are that good and yet don't have the trophy return to back it up, they are the best PL team to have won so little so at what stage do you class that as underachieving? Why do man city win so much? Because they're the best Well then why don't Liverpool who at times have been comfortably 2nd best and at other times has been miles ahead of everyone bar city win what city don't? They've not done enough in the domestic cups for as good a team as they are How can you compare the achievements of two who've managed their respective clubs for 26 and 21 years, with someone who's been in charge for 8 years? In Fergusons first 8 seasons, United won 5 major trophies, and in Wenger's first 8 he won 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 33 minutes ago, duke313 said: How can you compare the achievements of two who've managed their respective clubs for 26 and 21 years, with someone who's been in charge for 8 years? In Fergusons first 8 seasons, United won 5 major trophies, and in Wenger's first 8 he won 6. So as I remember Ferguson was called to be sacked early days, yet they still won more? Liverpool should have more trophies. That does not take away the fact they have been a top team. They should have just won more. I really think Klopp isn't as good as people think he is - I know some think about Pep that way. That doesn't mean he isn't veeerery good. He is elite. Liverpool are just not as good as the biggest greats in my opinion. If Pep run Liverpool, I'd hazard a guess they'd be more successful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 28 minutes ago, Mic09 said: So as I remember Ferguson was called to be sacked early days, yet they still won more? Liverpool should have more trophies. That does not take away the fact they have been a top team. They should have just won more. I really think Klopp isn't as good as people think he is - I know some think about Pep that way. That doesn't mean he isn't veeerery good. He is elite. Liverpool are just not as good as the biggest greats in my opinion. If Pep run Liverpool, I'd hazard a guess they'd be more successful. I think Klopp is a very good manager but he got Mainz relegated and he had Dortmund in a relegation battle until February He has his limits and players got exhausted by his methods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 5 hours ago, Mic09 said: If Pep run Liverpool, I'd hazard a guess they'd be more successful. No chance. Liverpool's net spend in Klopp's time is closer to Bournemouth than it is Spurs, let alone the likes of City and Chelsea. Pep's continually complainin that he "only" has £150m worth of player on he bench, he wouldn't have lasted 5 seconds at Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 hours ago, villa4europe said: maybe I'm wrong then, this liverpool team with their best manager in the world, best RB in the world, best CB in the world, best GK in the world, best striker in the world, best left back in the league, team littered with world class players winning 4 trophies in 7 years hasnt underachieved.... ...maybe they're just overrated... If you think Liverpool have the best GK, CB, RB and ST in the world whilst having the best left back in the league, I can see why you hold the views you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 49 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said: No chance. Liverpool's net spend in Klopp's time is closer to Bournemouth than it is Spurs, let alone the likes of City and Chelsea. Pep's continually complainin that he "only" has £150m worth of player on he bench, he wouldn't have lasted 5 seconds at Liverpool. Sure, they spent peanuts. 172m this summer, 142m last summer. Don't buy into this "plop don't spend" narrative please. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 20 minutes ago, Mic09 said: Sure, they spent peanuts. 172m this summer, 142m last summer. Don't buy into this "plop don't spend" narrative please. still spending that coutinho money... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 8 hours ago, Mic09 said: Sure, they spent peanuts. 172m this summer, 142m last summer. Don't buy into this "plop don't spend" narrative please. Like I said, since Klopp took over, their net spend is closer to Bournemouth than it is Spurs. Even if people want to go by just spend, which ignores the need to sell to faciliate purchases in the first place, they're 6th in that time - a good half a billion of the Manchester clubs and Chelsea. We have a higher net spend despite spending 3 years out of the PL. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 It’s a pretty remarkable job Klopp has done. It’s no wonder everyone hates him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calcifer Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 2 hours ago, LondonLax said: It’s a pretty remarkable job Klopp has done. It’s no wonder everyone hates him He is a perfect fit for Liverpool, he is just like an average Liverpool fan, moan moan moan, plays the victim card. Always in the 4th officials ear busting his dentures Proper word removed! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calcifer Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 7 hours ago, kurtsimonw said: Like I said, since Klopp took over, their net spend is closer to Bournemouth than it is Spurs. Even if people want to go by just spend, which ignores the need to sell to faciliate purchases in the first place, they're 6th in that time - a good half a billion of the Manchester clubs and Chelsea. We have a higher net spend despite spending 3 years out of the PL. I will highlight this Liverpool 119 departures and 547M Villa 156 departures and 299M from them (100M of that is prob Grealish so it just shows how awful we have been with selling players) Liverpool can sell their dead wood for a much higher premium than us 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts