Liverpool

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

If Emery has won 5 trophies over 9 years here I'd be ecstatic. 

Klopp has got Liverpool their:

- first title in 30 year's. 

- first FA Cup since 2005.

- two league cups.

- first Champions League since 2005 

Plus a super cup, club world cup and charity shield. 

In the 10 years before he joined in 2015, they had 1 League Cup.

Even without the 90+ points seasons and City being unique, he has clearly been a success for them.

So would I 

But I wouldn't claim he's up there with Fergie and Wenger 

I dont think klopp is overrated, I think he's class, but the cult up there have to take it a step further and proclaim him as something he's not 

Same with the players, VVD is a great player but them lot have to declare him as world class, best CB in world football, best CB in PL history 

They can't have it all ways, klopp is the best, salah is the best, VVD is the best, TAA is the best, Alison is the best but them "only" winning 5 trophies isn't a stick to beat them with 

If they're all as good as they are made out to be them lot and the media then questioning the trophies is fair game 

[Keyblade]

13 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Alisson - world record transfer fee at time and top keeper

TAA - one of best technical players in world

Robertson was a top full back 

Van Dijk most expensive defender in the world at the time. Some idiots have even declared him best defender in Premier League history

Salah/Mane/Firmino nothing needs be said

Coutinho/Thiago/Milner/Fabinho/Matip/Jota all good players

Then big signings like Nunez and Keita which were duds

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?

[Keyblade]

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.

[Zatman]

17 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

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?

not cherry picking as playersI mentioned were starters but net spend is flawed. They got nearly 20 million for Brewster, 50 million in Saudi money for a broken Fabinho and Henderson, not to mention the ridiculous Coutinho fee and scammed Bournemouth for a bunch of youngsters though Solanke is coming good 6 seasons later

[Keyblade]

6 minutes ago, Zatman said:

not cherry picking as playersI mentioned were starters but net spend is flawed. They got nearly 20 million for Brewster, 50 million in Saudi money for a broken Fabinho and Henderson, not to mention the ridiculous Coutinho fee and scammed Bournemouth for a bunch of youngsters though Solanke is coming good 6 seasons later

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

[Zatman]

4 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

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

and net spend is flawed as I said because of them ridiculous deals

Football is played on the pitch not the balance sheet and Liverpool had a team to win more trophies and didnt

[Davkaus]

Net spend may be flawed. As it happens they've overperformed on gross spend too  

[mikeyp102]

6 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

He isn't even Rijkarrd, never mind Beckenbauer. He would struggle to get in the top 20 of best Dutch centre  - halves. 

He’s overrated yes, but must be in top 20 Dutch cbs

[Keyblade]

12 minutes ago, Zatman said:

and net spend is flawed as I said because of them ridiculous deals

Football is played on the pitch not the balance sheet and Liverpool had a team to win more trophies and didnt

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.

[foreveryoung]

Arne Slot defo the new guy then?

[sheepyvillian]

47 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

He’s overrated yes, but must be in top 20 Dutch cbs

There's been some fantastic Dutch centre  - half's ever since the great Holland sides from the 70's. I wouldn't consider his inclusion a foregone conclusion. 

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

and net spend is flawed as I said because of them ridiculous deals

Football is played on the pitch not the balance sheet and Liverpool had a team to win more trophies and didnt

I imagine if it wasn’t for a certain Manchester City…

[Keyblade]

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.

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, Keyblade said:

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.

Or what they did spend they spent really well... 

That's a large part of the truth, they sold incredibly well hence the net spend stuff and then by and large they bought really well

Man Utd spent twice as much on a team half as good 

And again klopp is a very good coach, would deny that or argue against that... Up there with Fergie and Wenger and Pep? In the conversation for best ever PL manager? Not a chance, but that's what's happening already and is going to happen this summer, 5 trophies out of 36 in 9 years in the conversation for one of the best... In that context he's simply not won enough 

[Keyblade]

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

Or what they did spend they spent really well... 

That's a large part of the truth, they sold incredibly well hence the net spend stuff and then by and large they bought really well

Man Utd spent twice as much on a team half as good 

And again klopp is a very good coach, would deny that or argue against that... Up there with Fergie and Wenger and Pep? In the conversation for best ever PL manager? Not a chance, but that's what's happening already and is going to happen this summer, 5 trophies out of 36 in 9 years in the conversation for one of the best... In that context he's simply not won enough 

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.

[villa4europe]

Just now, Keyblade said:

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.

But their level of success is only 5 trophies in 9 years

[Jonesy7211]

I think people have a problem separating Klopp's team from their fanbase. Their fans are the most one-eyed, biased, and hypocritical fans there are. Klopp absolutely feeds into this to create an us and them mentality, which is a powerful motivator. This has been further built up by the ex Liverpool players in the media.

Great manager, total douchebag. Treats officials and anyone in the media not worshipping him as a revered messiah awfully. Definitely would have won more if not for City. Although you could say that about Fergie and Wenger, and Pep and Mourinho.

Klopp's teams have been bloody entertaining to watch though, and I'll miss that. You very rarely got a drab 0-0, especially when they had the front 3 of Salah, Firmino, and Mane.

He'll be missed, one of the top 10 PL managers no doubt, but ultimately he gets the extra hero status from Liverpool not only for the 1st PL title, but also because they saw him as someone who "gets" their club, whatever that means.

Edited April 25 by Jonesy7211
Their/There

[Zatman]

44 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I imagine if it wasn’t for a certain Manchester City…

Again they only finished 2nd twice to City and never lost a cup final to them. Actually City only knocked them out once in a cup game

[T-Dog]

He's not even close to Fergie, Wenger or Jose. Not even close. 

He's got a decent team, at a shit time in the Premier League, and achieved nothing close to the others. 

Has he made players better? Yes he has. Has he spent well? I'd probably say yes to that too. Has he achieved everything he should have during his time? Not a chance. 

It's the classic Liverpool bias. He's a rat, he's a whining piece of shit, he's achieved about as much as any of the 'top but not elite' managers could have achieved. 

Even Rafa did a decent job with them in his 5/6 years.

[choffer]

2 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Arne Slot defo the new guy then?

I read today it was José. Not a credible source, obviously.