Pep or Klopp?

rossie1977

Liverpool dropped just 13 points all season after their game vs City at Anfield on October 7th so the leading by 7 points stuff is quite silly unless you think Liverpool should have gotten 104 points. Both sides had remarkable league campaigns which will never likely be matched. Had Liverpool completely imploded like Newcastle in 96 fair enough but they didn't. They won 9 of their last 10 league games.

That split second ended up deciding league title

Mr.H

rossie1977 wrote:

Liverpool dropped just 13 points all season after their game vs City at Anfield on October 7th so the leading by 7 points stuff is quite silly unless you think Liverpool should have gotten 104 points. Both sides had remarkable league campaigns which will never likely be matched. Had Liverpool completely imploded like Newcastle in 96 fair enough but they didn't. They won 9 of their last 10 league games.

Stop trying to talk sense

Fair to say both City and Liverpool are more than happy with their managers :cool:

Good times

Mr.Nice Guy

rossie1977 wrote: »

Liverpool dropped just 13 points all season after their game vs City at Anfield on October 7th so the leading by 7 points stuff is quite silly unless you think Liverpool should have gotten 104 points. Both sides had remarkable league campaigns which will never likely be matched. Had Liverpool completely imploded like Newcastle in 96 fair enough but they didn't. They won 9 of their last 10 league games.

It's not silly in a league where it's a 2-horse race and the standard of the rest of the league is pretty dire. The final table showed the gulf between the top two and the rest.

Think the BBC's assessment on why Liverpool lost is more convincing:

No slips

Before 2018-19 there were two obvious English top-flight seasons where the top two had broken off and fought out a distant mini-league of their own.

In 1970-71 it was Arsenal and Leeds, with the latter finishing 20 points ahead of third-placed Tottenham (based on three points for a win) and the other is 2011-12 when Manchester City and Manchester United ended level on points, 19 clear of Arsenal in third.

As it stands currently, Liverpool are 23 clear of Chelsea and could make that vast margin even bigger on the final day.

To keep pace with an extraordinary City team Liverpool have had to show a ruthlessness in front of goal and their conversion of clear-cut chances (defined as opportunities where the attacker has at least a 50-50 chance of scoring) is running, pleasingly, at almost 50%, the best in the division.

Compare that to the bleak days of 2011-12 when Liverpool came eighth in the league with a big chance conversion rate of 29%, the third lowest rate in the division.

Until a team wins all 38 games there will always be room for improvement, though, and the three clear-cut chances Liverpool wasted away at Everton in March ultimately cost them two points and remains the last time they failed to win a Premier League game. Two points dropped in a title race where you trail by one. That's a big chance.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48231647

Robertson, when interviewed after the Everton game, said "They (Everton fans) are celebrating because they think they’ve stopped us winning the title."

Turns out they did.

ThunbergsAreGo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

rossie1977 wrote: »

Liverpool dropped just 13 points all season after their game vs City at Anfield on October 7th so the leading by 7 points stuff is quite silly unless you think Liverpool should have gotten 104 points. Both sides had remarkable league campaigns which will never likely be matched. Had Liverpool completely imploded like Newcastle in 96 fair enough but they didn't. They won 9 of their last 10 league games.

It's not silly in a league where it's a 2-horse race and the standard of the rest of the league is pretty dire. The final table showed the gulf between the top two and the rest.

Think the BBC's assessment on why Liverpool lost is more convincing:

No slips

Before 2018-19 there were two obvious English top-flight seasons where the top two had broken off and fought out a distant mini-league of their own.

In 1970-71 it was Arsenal and Leeds, with the latter finishing 20 points ahead of third-placed Tottenham (based on three points for a win) and the other is 2011-12 when Manchester City and Manchester United ended level on points, 19 clear of Arsenal in third.

As it stands currently, Liverpool are 23 clear of Chelsea and could make that vast margin even bigger on the final day.

To keep pace with an extraordinary City team Liverpool have had to show a ruthlessness in front of goal and their conversion of clear-cut chances (defined as opportunities where the attacker has at least a 50-50 chance of scoring) is running, pleasingly, at almost 50%, the best in the division.

Compare that to the bleak days of 2011-12 when Liverpool came eighth in the league with a big chance conversion rate of 29%, the third lowest rate in the division.

Until a team wins all 38 games there will always be room for improvement, though, and the three clear-cut chances Liverpool wasted away at Everton in March ultimately cost them two points and remains the last time they failed to win a Premier League game. Two points dropped in a title race where you trail by one. That's a big chance.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48231647

Robertson, when interviewed after the Everton game, said "They (Everton fans) are celebrating because they think they’ve stopped us winning the title."

Turns out they did.

So dire.... third and fifth competed in the final of the Europa League, and the team that finished fourth were in the Champions League final.

Mr.Nice Guy

naughtb4 wrote: »

So dire.... third and fifth competed in the final of the Europa League, and the team that finished fourth were in the Champions League final.

The third-placed team needed to win a penalty shootout against the 7th placed team in Germany. Look at the flak Sarri received this season, you think Chelsea fans were happy with him? Or Arsenal fans with Emery? And the 4th place team lost 13 games during the season (I'll give them a pass on that because they had issues like the stadium, injuries etc, but it is what it is.)

j8wk2feszrnpao

naughtb4 wrote: »

So dire.... third and fifth competed in the final of the Europa League, and the team that finished fourth were in the Champions League final.

Don't bother with him. With inane arguments like he posted, you know he's not looking for a rational debate.

naughtb4

naughtb4 wrote: »

So dire.... third and fifth competed in the final of the Europa League, and the team that finished fourth were in the Champions League final.

Fantastic year for 4 English clubs in Europe.

Can see another strong year next season.

the whole year inn

Mr.H wrote: »

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.

He played Delph left back he massivly improved him ,Zinchenko and Foden have premier league medals, why do you think they wont get into top 10 lineups , espically foden he is a class act.


Ill leave it at this Klopp was 6 finals and nearly 7 without a win. Pep has been winning trophys while he was losing.

ThunbergsAreGo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

naughtb4 wrote: »

So dire.... third and fifth competed in the final of the Europa League, and the team that finished fourth were in the Champions League final.

The third-placed team needed to win a penalty shootout against the 7th placed team in Germany. Look at the flak Sarri received this season, you think Chelsea fans were happy with him? Or Arsenal fans with Emery? And the 4th place team lost 13 games during the season (I'll give them a pass on that because they had issues like the stadium, injuries etc, but it is what it is.)

....and the sixth best team in England beat the Italian Champions and knocked out the French Champions.

Not sure I get the point. Both brilliant managers, prefer Klopp myself but can see the argument for Pep

redzerdrog

Nearly 7

Lol

the whole year inn

the whole year inn wrote: »

He played Delph left back he massivly improved him ,Zinchenko and Foden have premier league medals, why do you think they wont get into top 10 lineups , espically foden he is a class act.


Ill leave it at this Klopp was 6 finals and nearly 7 without a win. Pep has been winning trophys while he was losing.

Nearly

Mr.Nice Guy

naughtb4 wrote: »

....and the sixth best team in England beat the Italian Champions and knocked out the French Champions.

Not sure I get the point. Both brilliant managers, prefer Klopp myself but can see the argument for Pep

Are you really arguing United weren't dire? 😂

The point is that the rest of the league was nowhere near the level of the top two. To use the BBC parlance, "the top two had broken off and fought out a distant mini-league of their own."

I don't see how you can argue the rest of the league did well when the 2nd placed team were 25 points clear of 3rd!

Turtyturd

the whole year inn wrote: »

Ill leave it at this Klopp was 6 finals and nearly 7 without a win. Pep has been winning trophys while he was losing.

Your blue moon is showing.

noodler

The pathetic-ness of some on here.

97 points would have won the league every single time utd won the premier League yet nobody would be pushing the bottling angle if they'd lost to 97/98 points.

Who knew when city breached the 100 point mark a year ago that some would be demanding that sort of standard of challengers again to avoid accusations of having thrown it away .

magma69

If I keep talking about Liverpool being ahead at Xmas and not winning the league then I don't have to face the fact they had an objectively fantastic league campaign and are European champions.

If I keep talking about Liverpool being ahead at Xmas and not winning the league then I don't have to face the fact they had an objectively fantastic league campaign and are European champions.

If I keep talking about Liverpool being ahead at Xmas and not winning the league then I don't have to face the fact they had an objectively fantastic league campaign and are European champions.

magma69

Guardiola deserves to be ranked higher based on the amount of silverware he has won.

There's nobody better at taking over quality teams with huge resources and delivering the goods to clubs with high expectations.

He's not done what Klopp has in taking over average/good teams without endless resources and turned them into top clubs. I think its important to add that context.

If I was a Juventus or PSG fan, I'd want Pep.

If I was a Napoli or Lyon fan, I'd want Klopp.

Mr.Nice Guy

magma69 wrote: »

He's not done what Klopp has in taking over average/good teams without endless resources and turned them into top clubs. I think its important to add that context.

Also important to add the context that Klopp broke the transfer record for both a defender and goalkeeper.

magma69

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Also important to add the context that Klopp broke the transfer record for both a defender and goalkeeper.

With money from selling the team's best player. Not surprised you didn't want to add that context though.

ThunbergsAreGo

Double post

ThunbergsAreGo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

naughtb4 wrote: »

....and the sixth best team in England beat the Italian Champions and knocked out the French Champions.

Not sure I get the point. Both brilliant managers, prefer Klopp myself but can see the argument for Pep

Are you really arguing United weren't dire? 😂

The point is that the rest of the league was nowhere near the level of the top two. To use the BBC parlance, "the top two had broken off and fought out a distant mini-league of their own."

I don't see how you can argue the rest of the league did well when the 2nd placed team were 25 points clear of 3rd!

Great so we are in agreement both top teams were brilliant this year

Mr.Nice Guy

magma69 wrote: »

With money from selling the team's best player. Not surprised you didn't want to add that context though.

When was Salah sold?

naughtb4 wrote:

Great so we are in agreement both top teams were brilliant this year

I predicted Liverpool's brilliance well in advance.

Rezident

Both great but Pep has failed to manage some players (e.g. Zlatan - not easy to manage although!) and some of his team selections are plain wrong - starting that flippin kid who nobody can remember the name of now instead of Pedro in the Clasico (and losing) and then this season leaving De Bruyne and Sane on the bench when they needed a CL goal was deranged.

Klopp is looking like the best manager in the world right now, and a great guy. Great to prove Jose wrong too - Mourinho never rated Klopp - shows what he knows about attacking football

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

Pep took over Barca with some might say the greatest player ever to play the game and some of the finest footballer's of this generation or any generation.

Pep takes over the only team in a one horse race now in Germany who were just after winning the treble with an unbelievable team already in place. (Not the lesser domestic treble mind but the proper one.)

Pep takes over the richest football club in the world who it turns out have spent double what the second richest club have spent. (Drops a couple of 100 mill alone on fullbacks to put his spending in context.)

Pep still fails to make even the final of the CL since he no longer has the GOAT playing for him.

Everything Pep has done in his career should be expected based on the players and teams he has inherited and the unrivalled riches he has had at his disposal. Bar he should have won more Cl's

Id have Klopp everyday of the week over Pep based on what he has done with Dortmund and Liverpool. Won titles against the dominating giant that is Bayern and brought Liverpool back to the very top of European football after the mess they were in only a couple of years ago.

Oh and lol at man u fans in here talking about Klopp bottling the league. Tis a tough time for ye lads I know ye need something to cling on to however untrue it is, your club from top to bottom is in a right mess. City do the domestic treble, no CL footie for ye and Liverpool are European Champions again. Just nice from my point of view that fergie gets to witness it all. After all his years of hard work just,poof, gone.

Harry Palmr

The finals thing is hilarious for its false narrative. Liverpool and BVB started one of those finals as favourites the one that was won. The league cup was decided by a missed peno shot after two hours for Pete's sake.

Mr.Nice Guy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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.

Aha.

Was wondering how in the name of God could there be confusion over the gap in January, and see the issue now.

Liverpool were 7 points ahead of the eventual title winners. Think that would be the accurate way of saying it. Until they drew 4 out of 6 in February, when they bottl lost it...

noodler

54 points after the city loss (21 played).

Another 43 points from the next 17 games.

Extrapolating that 17 game form over 38 game and you get 96 points.


Liverpool's form post city loss was the same as it was before and it was exceptional.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

54 points after the city loss (21 played).

Another 43 points from the next 17 games.

Extrapolating that 17 game form over 38 game and you get 96 points.


Liverpool's form post city loss was the same as it was before and it was exceptional.

But that's because you've included their great run from early March on.

Which obviously makes the run around February seem better than it was. That was when they drew 4 out of 6. Whether people wish to describe that as a dip or a bottle job, that's subjective. What's ridiculous is people being upset by how others characterise it.

~Rebel~

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

When was Salah sold?



I predicted Liverpool's brilliance well in advance.

?
Salah had only joined the club a few months before. Coutinho had been the key man for several years. His sale price being between 4 and 5 times Salah's purchase price backs up their respective standing around that time.

Even your choice of response hints at avoidance of the point. The reality is that Liverpool needed good clever deals to be able to build the team they have right now. Without sacrificing in attacking personnel, the defensive personnel don't improve so dramatically. Liverpool deals have to be done with the wider context of the club in mind. City deals can be exist in a vacuum - they can buy whoever they want without worrying about reapportioning resources, and trading off talent in one area for talent in another.

Net spend gets scoffed at for some nonsensical reason, but it's vital in understanding how a team is built through horsetrading and clever risk/reward analysis. When it goes right, you have Alisson and VVD bringing more than was lost through Coutinho. When it goes wrong, you have Balotelli and Lallana and Ricky Lambert bringing less than was lost in Suarez.

Mr.H

magma69 wrote:

Guardiola deserves to be ranked higher based on the amount of silverware he has won.

So youd take jose over klopp too?


Yup there goes that logic

noodler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But that's because you've included their great run from early March on.

Which obviously makes the run around February seem better than it was. That was when they drew 4 out of 6. Whether people wish to describe that as a dip or a bottle job, that's subjective. What's ridiculous is people being upset by how others characterise it.

Whereas I think the narrative those who choose to characterise it a certain way is what is ridiculous.

Anyway, I've always wondered how some fans would react to a period of reasonable success for Liverpool of it coincided with a slump in the fortunes of their own club.


Back OT, I think this is a bit of a silly willy waving thread regarding the managers. Both class.

Mr.H

noodler wrote:

Back OT, I think this is a bit of a silly willy waving thread regarding the managers. Both class.

What is the internet for if not willy waving

Iused2likebusts

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But that's because you've included their great run from early March on.

Which obviously makes the run around February seem better than it was. That was when they drew 4 out of 6. Whether people wish to describe that as a dip or a bottle job, that's subjective. What's ridiculous is people being upset by how others characterise it.

What do you class what happened with your beloved Bielsa. 6 pts clear in the promotion race at the halfway point to then end up only picking up 35 points from the final 23 games and miss out on promotion automatically and then also fail to make the play off final.

Rayne Wooney

I’m assuming this thread was concocted after a few beverages which makes it somewhat forgivable.

It’s taken Klopp 20 years to do what Mourinho and Pep did in their first two years of management.

/thread ffs

Iused2likebusts

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

What do you class what happened with your beloved Bielsa. 6 pts clear in the promotion race at the halfway point to then end up only picking up 35 points from the final 23 games and miss out on promotion automatically and then also fail to make the play off final.

Ouch

Iused2likebusts

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

What do you class what happened with your beloved Bielsa. 6 pts clear in the promotion race at the halfway point to then end up only picking up 35 points from the final 23 games and miss out on promotion automatically and then also fail to make the play off final.

An absolute collapse. Leeds fans have to accept the whole bottle job jibe and get on with it, it's not like the characterisation really matters. So I'm puzzled why a small element of Liverpool fans are so thin skinned about it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

An absolute collapse. Leeds fans have to accept the whole bottle job jibe and get on with it, it's not like the characterisation really matters. So I'm puzzled why a small element of Liverpool fans are so thin skinned about it.

I don't think it's thin skinned. It's just not correct. Bottling it means collapsing near the end, losing their **** at the last minute. This wasn't the case. If the last minute is 10/12 or so games out and a some draws count as collapse then every team bar champions must bottle it every season.

City had to win 14 in a row to win it. That were amazing, end of. Hats off to them.

redzerdrog

Quite frankly anyone who thinks it was a bottle job is an idiot

RoboKlopp

RoboKlopp wrote: »

I don't think it's thin skinned. It's just not correct. Bottling it means collapsing near the end, losing their **** at the last minute. This wasn't the case. If the last minute is 10/12 or so games out and a some draws count as collapse then every team bar champions must bottle it every season.

City had to win 14 in a row to win it. That were amazing, end of. Hats off to them.

No it doesn't.

You yourself have used it to describe simply getting one decision wrong (the ref bottled it) or one game (Swansea bottled it against ManU). It can just mean to fail or get it wrong.

To insist that it only refers to a collapse near the end of a campaign is to add an inference that need not exist.

jpboard1

Deleted User wrote: »

No it doesn't.

You yourself have used it to describe simply getting one decision wrong (the ref bottled it) or one game (Swansea bottled it against ManU). It can just mean to fail or get it wrong.

To insist that it only refers to a collapse near the end of a campaign is to add an inference that need not exist.

You can't just make up what bottling it means.:D That is not what it means.

Rayne Wooney

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I’m assuming this thread was concocted after a few beverages which makes it somewhat forgivable.

It’s taken Klopp 20 years to do what Mourinho and Pep did in their first two years of management.

/thread ffs

Seve OB

there really are some dim witted posts in here.

osarusan

If you took somebody who didn't know how the PL season had gone, and told them Liverpool were 7 points clear at the start of the year but had bottled it, the kind of results that phrase would conjure up in their heads would be much much worse than Liverpool's actual results.


I said this in a different thread - if you had offered Liverpool's exact position to them at the start of January, and told them what their results would be until the end of the season, and told them to take it or leave it, they would have taken it, as it would have meant that only the most incredible string of results for another team could take the title away.

Except Man City produced that incredible string of results.

magma69

Mr.H wrote: »

So youd take jose over klopp too?


Yup there goes that logic

If they both retired in the morning, Jose would be considered the greater manager. His achievements far supercede Klopps.

Right now I'd pick Klopp. There's no contradiction in that.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Some people trying to rewrite what bottling it is, just to cover up their envy; have to laugh at them

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Some people trying to rewrite what bottling it is, just to cover up their envy; have to laugh at them

Not much else to cheer about I guess!

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Some people trying to rewrite what bottling it is, just to cover up their envy; have to laugh at them

And I'm having a laugh at what I assume are younger and more sensitive fans who are so upset at an incredibly mild criticism that they want to change the language. To bottle is a synonym for to fail. That's just the way it is. It's silly to try and prescribe what words fans of other clubs can use to describe a failure to win.

Can you imagine if they heard the chants from terraces in the 80s...:)

rossie1977

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And I'm having a laugh at what I assume are younger and more sensitive fans who are so upset at an incredibly mild criticism that they want to change the language. To bottle is a synonym for to fail. That's just the way it is. It's silly to try and prescribe what words fans of other clubs can use to describe a failure to win.

Can you imagine if they heard the chants from terraces in the 80s...:)

Most people here aren't that young, many in their 40's-50's actually.

I have seen the 'Liverpool bottled it' tweets all over twitter last 3 months. You yourself compared Leeds who lost 10 Championship games (not counting playoffs) since start of 2019 to a team who lost one all season and dropped just 13 points total from early October until end of season.

Liverpool accumulated third highest points total in Premier league history..more than undefeated Arsenal side, more than Man Utd of 99 or 2009 (more than any Alex Ferguson title winning side actually), more than any of the Mourinho Chelsea winning sides. They did all that while also knocking out Bayern and Barcelona and eventually winning highest profile club tournament in football.

j8wk2feszrnpao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And I'm having a laugh at what I assume are younger and more sensitive fans who are so upset at an incredibly mild criticism that they want to change the language. To bottle is a synonym for to fail. That's just the way it is. It's silly to try and prescribe what words fans of other clubs can use to describe a failure to win.

Can you imagine if they heard the chants from terraces in the 80s...:)

Pathetic response, I’m 41, and well used to the likes of you.
If it’s to fail, then all PL teams bottled it, cause they failed to win the league. And all previous teams who failed to win, they bottled it.
You can use any word you wish; we’ll just laugh at the childish logic to justify the envy

Seve OB

osarusan wrote: »

if you had offered Liverpool's exact position to them at the start of January,...……….., they would have taken it.

if you offered 97 points to any team man city included either at the start of January or the beginning of the season they would have taken it.