Pep or Klopp?

rob316

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Reminder of the table prior to the Etihad game:



As the BBC pointed out at the time, "Liverpool began 2019 with a seven-point lead at the top - no team has ever failed to win the title after heading into the new year so far ahead."

Show me how many teams dropped 3 points since the new year on the title run in.

chicorytip

If Klopp can be described in such terms on the basis of a single Champions League success it really puts into perspective the achievements of who I would describe as the greatest British manager of the past five decades - Bob Paisley.

GLaDOS

One manager in PL history has topped Klopp's points total. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he's a little unlucky that their reigns coincided and he ended the season without a PL title.

(Not a Liverpool fan.)

jpboard1

dfx- wrote: »

Guardiola. He is as much a guarantee of a league title as you can get, perhaps even for the weaker but still filthily rich Premier League teams outside the top 6.

You are saying that pep would win the premier league with a team outside the current top 6?

jpboard1

chicorytip wrote: »

If Klopp can be described in such terms on the basis of a single Champions League success it really puts into perspective the achievements of who I would describe as the greatest British manager of the past five decades - Bob Paisley.

Better than Alex?

Liam O

chicorytip wrote: »

If Klopp can be described in such terms on the basis of a single Champions League success it really puts into perspective the achievements of who I would describe as the greatest British manager of the past five decades - Bob Paisley.

Obviously Paisley was great but it's a little different winning it these days when you're not playing the likes of Club Brugge and FC Zurich as one of the 4 games to get to finals.

Harry Palmr

Paisley oversaw 13 major trophies in 9 years. Pep is the only one to have a better return interestingly but he did his by moving about - Bob had to keep one club side at the pinnacle which is arguably harder due to football atrophy

Football League First Division (6): 1975–76, 1976–77, 1978–79, 1979–80, 1981–82, 1982–83
League Cup (3): 1980–81, 1981–82, 1982–83
European Cup (3): 1976–77, 1977–78, 1980–81
UEFA Cup (1): 1975–76

and loose change

FA Charity Shield (6): 1974,[40] 1976,[41] 1977,[42] 1979,[43] 1980,[44] 1982[45]
UEFA Super Cup (1): 1977[51][52]

Richard Hillman

Guardiola has mental health issues and has always had the best teams, with the most money.

Klopp is saner and pound for pound gets the best out of his teams. Give me that man every single time.

redzerdrog

Don't see why people need to put one down to champion the other.

Liverpool fans wouldn't swap Klopp for anyone in the world

City fans wouldn't swap pep for anyone in the world

Every other clubs fans would give their left testicle to have either one of them in charge

redzerdrog

redzerdrog wrote: »

Don't see why people need to put one down to champion the other.

Liverpool fans wouldn't swap Klopp for anyone in the world

City fans wouldn't swap pep for anyone in the world

Every other clubs fans would give their left testicle to have either one of them in charge

Can't argue with that.

Mr.H

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The previous graphic shows the table prior to the Etihad clash - after Spurs had beaten Cardiff.

But you have not shown the graphic where liverpool where ahead by 7 points in the new year. Yes that graphic is after a game but that means that liverpool were not ahead by 7 points at the start of the year.

I mean they might have been. But you havent shown it and bbcs wrong tweet hasnt either

redzerdrog

redzerdrog wrote: »

Don't see why people need to put one down to champion the other.

Liverpool fans wouldn't swap Klopp for anyone in the world

City fans wouldn't swap pep for anyone in the world

Every other clubs fans would give their left testicle to have either one of them in charge

Nope. Again, Leeds fans only want Bielsa in charge. They would have zero interest in Pep or Klopp. In 35 plus years of following football I have never seen a manager gain the cult like adulation that Bielsa has at Leeds. Pep and Klopp's popularity is driven by success, Bielsa's is driven by his character, depite his relative lack of success.

redzerdrog

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope. Again, Leeds fans only want Bielsa in charge. They would have zero interest in Pep or Klopp. In 35 plus years of following football I have never seen a manager gain the cult like adulation that Bielsa has at Leeds. Pep and Klopp's popularity is driven by success, Bielsa's is driven by his character, depite his relative lack of success.

I know quite a lot of Leeds fans that would disagree several of which are season ticket holders but I do get your point. Same way there is an element of the Newcastle fan base that wouldn't swap rafa

~Rebel~

redzerdrog wrote: »

I know quite a lot of Leeds fans that would disagree several of which are season ticket holders but I do get your point. Same way there is an element of the Newcastle fan base that wouldn't swap rafa

Exactly... there's little motivation in moving away from something that is demonstrably working better than anyone could have hoped for.

It's exactly why Ole got the Utd job when he did... I think many fans would have objectively accepted that there were better, more experienced managers out there, but he was doing a great job in that moment so it's hard to jump into the unknown when things are going well. Of course, in many cases (that one in particular), switching is still the wise thing to do, but it's a tough leap to make.

Elsewhere, I'm not sure what the point is on all this "someone was ahead at some time"... a league is 38 games. it's not an arm wrestling contest where two direct opponants battle straight on - you go through a gruelling 38 game slog against 19 different opponents, and whoever gets the most points at the end of it all, wins. It's the interesting thing about a league - it's not a faceoff against your direct rival, it's a faceoff against everyone. Twice! Who's ahead at any given point is largely irrelevant. City did amazingly well, and got a massive total - the 2nd highest in history, something they should be hugely proud of given some of the incredible teams down the years who's totals they surpassed. Equally, Liverpool can feel pretty proud of themselves for managing the 3rd highest points total in history, again, keeping in mind all the historically brilliant teams they surpassed. Sucks for them that City managed to get 1 more, but meh, such is life.

MarkY91

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope. Again, Leeds fans only want Bielsa in charge. They would have zero interest in Pep or Klopp. In 35 plus years of following football I have never seen a manager gain the cult like adulation that Bielsa has at Leeds. Pep and Klopp's popularity is driven by success, Bielsa's is driven by his character, depite his relative lack of success.

Have you ever seen an single interview from klopp? There isn't a more charismatic manager in earth.

the whole year inn

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Guardiola has mental health issues and has always had the best teams, with the most money.

Klopp is saner and pound for pound gets the best out of his teams. Give me that man every single time.

Where are you getting that Pep has mental health issues?
You just making stuff up now?
If by trophies alone you have to give it to Pep.

Mr.H

the whole year inn wrote:

Where are you getting that Pep has mental health issues? You just making stuff up now? If by trophies alone you have to give it to Pep.

But would he be a success with a modest budget?

the whole year inn

Mr.H wrote: »

But would he be a success with a modest budget?

Clearly Yes. You would swear he went out and bought Messi, Ronaldo etc he bought good players and made them great.

Iused2likebusts

I think Pep is the greatest manager of this century. The football his teams produce is the best Ive ever seen. Its very rare you watch a game his teams play and think that they didnt deserve to win. Of course he has spent a lot of money but he really improves the players he has aswell. His work with Sterling in particular is highly impressive. Its also not easy to keep dominant teams and superstar players motivated this is something he seems to be able to do well.
Having said all that I dont think he would have done as good a job as Klopp has at Liverpool but its hard not to have Pep down as the number 1 manager in the world.

MarkY91

MarkY91 wrote: »

Have you ever seen an single interview from klopp? There isn't a more charismatic manager in earth.

I have. Charismatic is very subjective. If you are engaged by philosophical ruminations on the character of man, then Bielsa might be riveting. If you like the joking around, you have Klopp beaming and Bilic playing rock music etc. Our own Mick McCarthy is very charismatic in that sensible no nonsense way. And so on...

weldoninhio

Jurgen The German wrote: »

Both are obviously excellent coaches and excellent man managers. Klopps in game management isn't as astute as Peps but Pep has consistently inherited heavy weight squads and only had to make relatively minor tweaks to the personnel at his disposal. Klopp has built the current liverpool squad through a mixture of substantial investment and shrewd acquisitions of raw talent and in house youth.

All things being equal ie both managers starting from the same base line and with the same funds at their disposal it would have to be Klopp for me although I dont agree with the OP overselling LFC's position when he took over. Everton, West Ham, Southampton and the like are consistent mid table teams, LFC had finished what, 2nd and 5th in the previous two seasons before Klopp came in and were 9th or 10th iirc when Rodgers got the boot. Thats not a mid table team and if a rival supporter made that kind of claim they'd be rightly ridiculed.

Still, what Klopp had achieved to date can only be admired.

Pep brought Barca's B team from the bottom league to Championship level in Spain. He got rid of Ronaldinho, Deco, E'too etc while at Barca.

Anyone that wouldn't pick Pep at this stage is nuts. Maybe Klopp will kick on from here, but Pep is the gold standard at this point in time.

weldoninhio

MarkY91 wrote: »

Have you ever seen an single interview from klopp? There isn't a more charismatic manager in earth.

Except when things don't go his way on the pitch.

j8wk2feszrnpao

weldoninhio wrote: »

Except when things don't go his way on the pitch.

So, just like every other manager then.

dundalkfc10

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I would pick Mick McCarthy

I would pick Stephen Kenny

j8wk2feszrnpao

I'd give the edge to Klopp. What he achieved with Dortmund and Liverpool, given the resources available to the teams he was up against, has been outstanding.
Can't fault Pep, amazing manager. But I'd like to see him take over an Arsenal (who are kinda like Liverpool when Klopp took over) or AC Milan and take them to serious title contenders or CL winners.

osarusan

I don't think we will ever see Pep taking over at any club that isn't already one of the richest clubs in the world.

I get the idea that he has never built up a lower level team into heavyweights, but I'm not so sure that his being in demand by the existing heavyweights counts against him.

BorneTobyWilde

Many managers have won the league with City with worse sides and weaker squads. I'm sure Hodgson would win the league with City if given the chance.

the whole year inn

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Many managers have won the league with City with worse sides and weaker squads. I'm sure Hodgson would win the league with City if given the chance.

But to do what Pep has done is next level, not many mangers can win the domestic treble , back to back Premeier leagues and break records along the way.

in fact no manger has ever done what Pep has done.

clubberlang12

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I'd give the edge to Klopp. What he achieved with Dortmund and Liverpool, given the resources available to the teams he was up against, has been outstanding.
Can't fault Pep, amazing manager. But I'd like to see him take over an Arsenal (who are kinda like Liverpool when Klopp took over) or AC Milan and take them to serious title contenders or CL winners.

First of all a disclaimer, I am a United fan, and taking nothing away from Klopp's CL run last season and this season along with a fantastic PL league campaign this year..........but i do think this line that gets trotted out making out as if Klopp is at a penny pinching club is well and truly void now. According to LFCHistory.net , Klopp has spent over €400m since arriving, including a world record fee for a defender, and at the time, a world record fee for a keeper. In a pre-Neymar transfer market the purchases of Salah, Mane, Gini were hardly cheap, along with the purchases of Keita and Fabinho. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising Klopp for spending......every manager who wants to compete has to do so, and the majority of his signing look to be money well spent, unlike the majority of my own teams signings!!! But i think the notion that he has to be buying from the bargain basket is countered at this stage!

Iused2likebusts

clubberlang12 wrote: »

First of all a disclaimer, I am a United fan, and taking nothing away from Klopp's CL run last season and this season along with a fantastic PL league campaign this year..........but i do think this line that gets trotted out making out as if Klopp is at a penny pinching club is well and truly void now. According to LFCHistory.net , Klopp has spent over €400m since arriving, including a world record fee for a defender, and at the time, a world record fee for a keeper. In a pre-Neymar transfer market the purchases of Salah, Mane, Gini were hardly cheap, along with the purchases of Keita and Fabinho. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising Klopp for spending......every manager who wants to compete has to do so, and the majority of his signing look to be money well spent, unlike the majority of my own teams signings!!! But i think the notion that he has to be buying from the bargain basket is countered at this stage!

In his defence he had to get the club in that position to be able to spend and to more importantly be able to attract those type of players they signed last year. The money he earned the club through consistent CL campaigns and the selling of Coutinho funded those transfers. He had to get the club to that stage. You have to cast your mind back to the type of players liverpool could attract before Klopp. The off season after they finished 2nd. The likes of lambert, llalana etc.
It was always why it was more important for liverpool to be top 4 in recent years ad not be overly concerned with domestic cups. They needed to build back up the prestige of the club and make it an attractive destination for players. Its much the same for Poch.

j8wk2feszrnpao

clubberlang12 wrote: »

First of all a disclaimer, I am a United fan, and taking nothing away from Klopp's CL run last season and this season along with a fantastic PL league campaign this year..........but i do think this line that gets trotted out making out as if Klopp is at a penny pinching club is well and truly void now. According to LFCHistory.net , Klopp has spent over €400m since arriving, including a world record fee for a defender, and at the time, a world record fee for a keeper. In a pre-Neymar transfer market the purchases of Salah, Mane, Gini were hardly cheap, along with the purchases of Keita and Fabinho. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising Klopp for spending......every manager who wants to compete has to do so, and the majority of his signing look to be money well spent, unlike the majority of my own teams signings!!! But i think the notion that he has to be buying from the bargain basket is countered at this stage!

Never made that argument, I said in comparison to the resources available to the teams he has faced (Bayern, City). Klopp wasn't getting VVD until Coutinho was sold, which also financed Allison.
Sakho went for near 30m as did Benteke, which Klopp re-invested.

Klopp has spent money, no doubt. But there has been sales to finance a lot of that buying, i.e. Mane/Gini came in for 60m, and Benteke/Ibe/Allen went out for 60m

RollieFingers

Klopp all the way, half pissed 20 minutes after the final whistle in Madrid, the mans a legend.

clubberlang12

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

In his defence he had to get the club in that position to be able to spend and to more importantly be able to attract those type of players they signed last year. The money he earned the club through consistent CL campaigns and the selling of Coutinho funded those transfers. He had to get the club to that stage. You have to cast your mind back to the type of players liverpool could attract before Klopp. The off season after they finished 2nd. The likes of lambert, llalana etc.
It was always why it was more important for liverpool to be top 4 in recent years ad not be overly concerned with domestic cups. They needed to build back up the prestige of the club and make it an attractive destination for players. Its much the same for Poch.

As mentioned, I'm not being a critic for spending money..........every manager will have to to compete, with perhaps Poch going against that notion!! No offence to Southampton, Roma, RB Leipzeg or Monaco.......but Liverpool are a bigger draw than them so I'm not sure those players would have needed too much convincing to join. You could argue that City were also in for VVD or PSG supposedly for Fabinho.....but it is extremely hard know for sure who is genuinely after who these days........just look at the amount of speculation each summer for most clubs. What I quite admire is the level these players seem to have climbed since joining.....add in the likes of Robertson, Firmino and TAA who are performing at a very high level consistantly. So just to pin my point to the mast.......I don't mind Klopp spending vast amounts if he can, it is the notion he was doing a Arsene Wenger on it during the Emirate's being built!!!

noodler

clubberlang12 wrote: »

As mentioned, I'm not being a critic for spending money..........every manager will have to to compete, with perhaps Poch going against that notion!! No offence to Southampton, Roma, RB Leipzeg or Monaco.......but Liverpool are a bigger draw than them so I'm not sure those players would have needed too much convincing to join. You could argue that City were also in for VVD or PSG supposedly for Fabinho.....but it is extremely hard know for sure who is genuinely after who these days........just look at the amount of speculation each summer for most clubs. What I quite admire is the level these players seem to have climbed since joining.....add in the likes of Robertson, Firmino and TAA who are performing at a very high level consistantly. So just to pin my point to the mast.......I don't mind Klopp spending vast amounts if he can, it is the notion he was doing a Arsene Wenger on it during the Emirate's being built!!!

If Barca funded their transfers by selling xavi one year, Messi the next then it certainly would be treated different.

Sales and prize money is what Klopp has spent. Prize money earned despite the sale of key players

chicorytip

jpboard1 wrote:

Better than Alex?

Liam O wrote:

Obviously Paisley was great but it's a little different winning it these days when you're not playing the likes of Club Brugge and FC Zurich as one of the 4 games to get to finals.

His achievements were of a much higher order than those of Sir Alex particularly in European competition.
The format was very different back then of course but more exciting. In their European cup winning years Liverpool beat the likes of Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Saint Etienne, Benfica and Roma along the way. These were all champions of their respective leagues at the time not runners up or qualifiers.

osarusan

chicorytip wrote: »

These were all champions of their respective leagues at the time not runners up or qualifiers.

I think the point is that the winners of one league aren't always as strong as the runner-up in another league.

I think the cross-generational comparisons are fairly pointless though. Managers like Paisley of Ferguson were faced with the football landscape of their time and they mastered it in comparison to all their peers.

If they were born at a different time, they would have faced a different football landscape but would likely have mastered it in comparison to their peers also.

Mr.H

the whole year inn wrote:

Clearly Yes. You would swear he went out and bought Messi, Ronaldo etc he bought good players and made them great.

Which good players did he buy and make great? He has improved sterling but he hasnt bought any average players to have to make them great.

He spent 200 million on full backs and doesnt really have a decent one between them.

He has never had to deal with average players let alone less than average. I doubt he would have bought an andy robertson for example

Mr.H

noodler wrote:

Sales and prize money is what Klopp has spent. Prize money earned despite the sale of key players

This is what people fail to realise when it comes to the net spend argument. If liverpool didnt sell coutinho they wouldnt have bought allison and vvd.

Liverpool have been selling players to buy players. City spend a couple of hundred million quid on a few players but didnt have to sell anyone. That is very different to liverpool buying a few players for the same price because liverpool had to sell players to do it.

While that logic doesnt work for the agendas how about looking at it like this. Liverpool had to drop quality to gain quality. City added quality to already quality.

the whole year inn

Mr.H wrote: »

Which good players did he buy and make great? He has improved sterling but he hasnt bought any average players to have to make them great.

He spent 200 million on full backs and doesnt really have a decent one between them.

He has never had to deal with average players let alone less than average. I doubt he would have bought an andy robertson for example

Really 2nd best defence in the league, last season best defense in the league and did not City break the record for least goals conceded.
He recognizes dead wood and gutted the team when he arrived, he has worked well with Delph,Zenchenko, Foden ,uped B Silva and Aguero game
.
Why dont you think he wouldn't buy Andy Robertson ,he bought Zinchenko for cheaper and both same position?

TitianGerm

the whole year inn wrote: »

Really 2nd best defence in the league, last season best defense in the league and did not City break the record for least goals conceded.
He recognizes dead wood and gutted the team when he arrived, he has worked well with Delph,Zenchenko, Foden ,uped B Silva and Aguero game
.
Why dont you think he wouldn't buy Andy Robertson ,he bought Zinchenko for cheaper and both same position?

Is your good defense down to good defenders or because you keep the ball for most of the game and have the opponent penned in their own half?

I'd say its mostly down to you keeping the ball do well.

correction

TitianGerm wrote: »

Is your good defense down to good defenders or because you keep the ball for most of the game and have the opponent penned in their own half?

I'd say its mostly down to you keeping the ball do well.

But that is their defensive strategy? Keeping their opponents pegged back so even if they do win it back they're too deep to effectively counter. I don't see what is wrong with that.

ThunbergsAreGo

weldoninhio wrote: »

Pep brought Barca's B team from the bottom league to Championship level in Spain. He got rid of Ronaldinho, Deco, E'too etc while at Barca.

Anyone that wouldn't pick Pep at this stage is nuts. Maybe Klopp will kick on from here, but Pep is the gold standard at this point in time.

He actually only won the third division with them. Enrique got the promoted to Segunda proper.

Only shows what a remarkable appointment it was by Barcelonea

Mr.H

the whole year inn wrote:

Really 2nd best defence in the league, last season best defense in the league and did not City break the record for least goals conceded. He recognizes dead wood and gutted the team when he arrived, he has worked well with Delph,Zenchenko, Foden ,uped B Silva and Aguero game . Why dont you think he wouldn't buy Andy Robertson ,he bought Zinchenko for cheaper and both same position?

Of course im not denying he is top class. My point is he hasnt exactly recruited average players and made them better.

Foden delph and even zinchenko. Do you really think they have improved? I would argue they would struggle to get into most top 10 starting line ups.

Aguero improved? Is that really down to pep or experience. The guy was already world class and now he seems to have adapted. May have improved because of pep but hardly an average player.

B silva was top class before he went to city.

I am not questioning him being a top manager. I am suggesting that he has shown nothing to say he woild have similar effect on a team of average players. He has done brilliant with teams full of cash and talent. Barca b, had barca players at the club!!! Barca had messi and not a bad midfield....... bayern biggest club in germany with the best squad before he arrived. City unlimited funds with spending huge amounts on squad players. Not exactly the cv of a man who took average players and made them better.

Mr.H

correction wrote:

But that is their defensive strategy? Keeping their opponents pegged back so even if they do win it back they're too deep to effectively counter. I don't see what is wrong with that.

Would never argue with that. Great strategy. They have struggled when attacked ala liverpool 12 months ago

j8wk2feszrnpao

correction wrote: »

But that is their defensive strategy? Keeping their opponents pegged back so even if they do win it back they're too deep to effectively counter. I don't see what is wrong with that.

It’s not just that, they defend from the front. Even when coasting against Watford, they still wouldn’t let them out easily. It was a trademark of that great Barca team as well. City have spent a lot of money, but the work ethic is there from every player, and that’s down to the manager.

ozzy jr

I doubt either of them would win the Scottish League with Aberdeen.

Mr.Nice Guy

Mr.H wrote: »

But you have not shown the graphic where liverpool where ahead by 7 points in the new year. Yes that graphic is after a game but that means that liverpool were not ahead by 7 points at the start of the year.

I mean they might have been. But you havent shown it and bbcs wrong tweet hasnt either

It's really not that difficult to work out. I'll walk you through it:

Liverpool were ahead by 7 points at the start of the year.



Then Spurs played Cardiff, winning 3-0, and leaving the table looking like this right before the City vs Liverpool game:



Liverpool vs City was each side's game in hand.

And so, yes, Liverpool were ahead by 7 points at the start of the year. There's no 'maybe' about it. And the BBC's tweet wasn't wrong either.

Mr.H

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

And so, yes, Liverpool were ahead by 7 points at the start of the year. There's no 'maybe' about it. And the BBC's tweet wasn't wrong either.

Ok so now you have finally shown it. The graphic you originally produced did not show that. Maybe in future when you try to be funny, show actual relevant stats instead if trying to get everyone to use their imagination.

Doff

Klopp is proven to deliver results without unlimited funding so he wins it for me.

Mr.Nice Guy

Mr.H wrote: »

Ok so now you have finally shown it. The graphic you originally produced did not show that. Maybe in future when you try to be funny, show actual relevant stats instead if trying to get everyone to use their imagination.

Did you really have to be spoonfed the information that the teams pictured showing 'Played 21' had played one game more than the two teams pictured showing 'Played 20'? It's hardly rocket science now, is it?