There's an argument for that for sure.
Guardiola vs Klopp
- Thread starter Infordin
- Start date
You could argue that trying to have your team play the best possible football is a challenge regardless of where you do it. I get your point obviously, but why do we never hear people clamoring for Messi and Ronaldo to make a transfer to Everton to see if they can take them to the Champion's league. People in sports want to win stuff, so, when being presented with the option to go to the strongest possible team, why not take it?
Also, there is no such thing as the undisputed GOAT. People will always argue over it. The metrics aren't clear enough. Is it titles won? Dominance? goals scored? Longevity? Doing it with a shite team? He is seen by many people as at least one of the best trainers in history. I'm sure that's enough.
didn't mean to turn this into a passionate defense of Pep fecking Guardiola. I hope you're proud of yourself
I like Klopp more, but it's the intensity of Pep that's hard to see past. He's that mental, full on boss you never really want, but he so absolutely knows his shit and is so committed that you can't help but give 100%.
Klopp might be able to do more with lesser players - very commendable - but I don't think he'd be as successful with the big ego superstars of the game. Pep seems to be a lead by example guy, and I think everyone can buy into that. Just because someone can do well on a smaller budget doesn't mean they're better.
Pep for me. For as long as he stays motivated he'll be on top.
Klopp might be able to do more with lesser players - very commendable - but I don't think he'd be as successful with the big ego superstars of the game. Pep seems to be a lead by example guy, and I think everyone can buy into that. Just because someone can do well on a smaller budget doesn't mean they're better.
Pep for me. For as long as he stays motivated he'll be on top.
It was one season, his first ever season in English football and he improved the team by 12 points. Obviously everyone would need a little bit of time to reach the possible zenith, so using one season as a 'prove' does not really cut it. By that logic, Klopp is unable to manage a team that is not full of superstars, because he finished 8th in his first season at Pool with a team that finished two points behind the champions a few seasons prior.
Last edited:
Nah.
Way to go, just disregard all circumstances and only look at points total.
Hindsight. No one pegged him to break point and goal scoring records after his first season.
It is a valid point. Why were a side with geriatric fullbacks and a keeper lampooned on here, favorites for the title? Circumstances would dictate that probably City not sheer favorites for the title, but of course that's the narrative.
That's the key. He could have tried to play Big Sam football and he would have almost got Monaco relegated anyway, because he is a bad manager.
Saying Klopp had a bad first season because he finished on less points than we did under Rodgers is 13/14 is just stupid. Nothing more to the point I was trying to make.
I never took it a a slight on Guardiola that he didn't win the league in his first season or "only" got 78 points. You need time to install your principles on a team.
Possibly true.
But Klopp and Pep are currently on very different parts of the success curve and have been for years!
Liverpool might have been 10th when Rodgers was sacked, but they were only six points behind the leaders with eight games played. So Klopp had 30 games to do what he supposedly does best and work his miracle, but finished a further 13 points instead and needed some time and a few pounds which is completely normal.
Oh then we agree then.
It seems that in order to be rated here you'd have to do it on a wednesday nite at stoke.
Nathan Murphy (@nathanmurf) Tweeted:
Rarely has a manager tapped into the emotional spirit of a club like Klopp has with Liverpool. A mix of hope in hearts and hearts in mouth. He’s provided 2 seasons of wonderous football with a humour and humility not seen enough of in football these days. A great man. #LFC
People forget what a cnut Klopp is don't they. Absolutely fantastic manager, but humble? Blaming the wind for defeats? Snarling fourth officials faces? Talking about offside goals for over 2 years?
Great manager but a cnut.
Rarely has a manager tapped into the emotional spirit of a club like Klopp has with Liverpool. A mix of hope in hearts and hearts in mouth. He’s provided 2 seasons of wonderous football with a humour and humility not seen enough of in football these days. A great man. #LFC
People forget what a cnut Klopp is don't they. Absolutely fantastic manager, but humble? Blaming the wind for defeats? Snarling fourth officials faces? Talking about offside goals for over 2 years?
Great manager but a cnut.
....and saying that Pep proved anything other than his competence by improving the team by 12 points in his first season is even worse.
I have nothing against Klopp, just trying to counter the myth around Pep.
We spend too, but we aren't breaking records.
Ederson, Walker, Kompany, Otamendi, Delph, Fernandinho, Silva, De Bruyne, Sterling, Sane, Aguero were the most prominent members of Pep's XI in his second season, but only three were signed by him. The other 8 finished 4th on 66 points before Pep joined. He basically pumped the players up to his own level and orchestrated the greatest and most dominant EPL season of all time in just his second year.
Dyche has done it on cold weekends, finishing 7th and taking Burnley to the UEL, but he isn't rated that high here, because there are simply levels to everything. The likes of Poch might bask on being the underdog, but Pep is still the dominant force that they all aspire to surpass. There is a reason Dyche isn't as highly rated as Poch, and Poch isn't as highly rated as Klopp. Klopp shouldn't be rated more than Pep for that reason too if sentiments and bias are ignored.
So, tapped in to the club's personality greatly?
Difference with Klopp is he arrived mid season with less training time, no pre season and no signing.. It was well documented they dropped the league to focus on EL and other cup- still 2 finals and beat Dortmund and United with mediocre team is better than what City did in 16/17 campaign.
Last edited:
City's squad wasn't a 66 points squad. They were usually easily a 75-80 points squad before Pep arrived. The 66 points season was a complete outlier because Pellegrini completely lost the squad (and motivation) after it has been known that Pep will takeover the next season. Pep underachieved first season result-wise considering he invested that much and most of the key players were still in their prime or approaching it when he arrived. Performance-wise there were already glimpses of how well they could play together.
Considering that it was his very first season, he didn't overachieve and neither did he underachieve. He got 78 points which is firmly within your 75-80 points range. He had a decent squad but so has many teams in the EPL since 1992.
I only wish to argue in favour of Guardiola, so I'm not exactly trying to take a jab at Klopp or downgrade him. Klopp took over a team that didn't do particularly well the previous year and the team showed some improvement, but so did Pep. Klopp did reach the finals of two competitions and lost both - understandably, but Pep didn't really compete in one of those competitions. Why is Klopp then heralded as the miracle worker when he didn't actually win the quadruple in his first season, but Pep's first season is being used as a huge stick to beat him and support a baseless myth?
This myth has been disproven.
He came 3rd in his first City season, miles off the winners despite having a team that won the title a couple of years prior, and spending £200m in his first summer. He only started winning once he had spent a further £300m and assembled a near perfect squad of two title capable first 11s. At Bayern he was undoubtedly a bit of a failure. The Bundesliga is a procession, Heynckes assembled a squad that could win it without any manager at all. They won the CL the year Pep joined and then never got particularly close again.
There's a reason he only goes to the clear league leaders. You can bet your house PSG or Juve are next.
See @RobinLFC? Lack of context drives myths.
Speaking of myths, the Bayern squad that came second in the Bundesliga and CL, and won the lot the following season, was largely in place when Heynekes came on board in 2011. He brought in Neuer, Martinez, Boateng and Mandzukic over 2 seasons, but most of the spine of that team (Lahm, Schweinsteiger, Muller, Ribery, Robben) was already in place.
Klopp is not miracle worker however in less favourable situation he could handle it better. . Pep didn't compete in EL but was still big favorited to pass by Monaco and got eliminated. The CL was only secured on the last day if I'm not mistaken. I don't doubt he will implement his methods on smaller club but he requires some specifc players to win. That's very clear.
All in all its obvious there's debate to be had and its not conclusive as it will have seemed few years ago. Pep has failed to reach CL final for almost decade now and - Klopp has now one less CL and didn't manage the best team in history in it.
. In the leagues Pep has far more trophy count but building club from ground will certainly ensure no title challenging immediately. Which style of play is better is just preference( their qualities of football is equally good imo)but achievements wise Klopp is more impressive- even if Pep has mastered the league . The head to heads is also in favour of Klopp.
Last edited:
Exactly. Trying to say that somehow that squad he took over didn't include an excellent group already, is not doing it for me. Sure he improved players - that is a coaches job after all, but there where already fantastic players there and a fantastic base.
As people are obsessed with comparing the two, here's a comapison for you, look at the squads both men took over. How many of those players would the other top teams have been keen to buy if they could? So basically, what I'm asking is - how many really top class players where already at these clubs.
At Liverpool, there was maybe one - Philippe Coutinho. And that was it. Don't tell me 'ahh but Roberto Firmino!'. Nope, he had shown absolutely nothing in his short time under Rogers so far. And Sturridge was already well on the path to injury ruin. Then you had a group of solid players like Clyne, Henderson and Milner. But I doubt the likes of Barca, Bayern or Juventus would have had them high on their wants list.
In contract Man City had players like David Silva, Aguero, De Bruyne, Fernandinho, Kompany and Sane already on the team, Stirling too, although he would reach further potential under Guardiola. As well as a group of other players already with vast experience and trophy success behind them. The base was there to build on. A far more ready 'project' (not that it is much of a project when you have unlimited funds) that the one Klopp took over. So this is kinda why I can't stand the comparing. What are people trying to compare. The squads, the financial strengths, the recent histories of both clubs - where night and day, there was no comparison. Guardiola had it easy in contrast.
It was his first season at City as you said, and he was joining a team that finished on 79 and 66 points the two season prior. He improved the team by 12 points from the previous season and finished on 78 points - we have beaten that tally only once in 6 years, and Klopp has beaten it once in his past five seasons. What he proved is that he is a man, and that he needed more than a first season to turn the team into an all-conquering side. You seem to have bought into the myth and are basing everything on one season whilst ignoring context, the preceding and the suceeding seasons. Everything is not so black and white.
As for Bayern, there is a lot of luck involved in the UCL, every moment is decisive and a manager should not be actively expected to win one within three years. Ferguson won two in twenty-seven years and Mourinho the underdog couldn't win it with Madrid in three years too.
The bolded part reads as a joke, encapsulates the myth around Pep and puts into doubt if the other parts of your post really deserves to be taken seriously. It was the same team that couldn't even complete the supposed procession the year before Pep joined.
I'd say Klopp, he is getting more out of lesser players than Pep.
I'd like to see Pep with a smaller budget and lesser players, if he could get the best out of them then I'd say fair enough he's the better manager but I suspect Klopp could galvanise a lesser group of players better.
I'd like to see Pep with a smaller budget and lesser players, if he could get the best out of them then I'd say fair enough he's the better manager but I suspect Klopp could galvanise a lesser group of players better.
Why does that matter in evaluating who the better manager is? Klopp has been at Liverpool since 2015. He's brought in plenty of talent since then. Would his job have been less impressive if Salah, Van Dijk and Allison (who were acquired for large sums) were already at the club?
We're comparing the 2 managers and trying to see who's the better manager, based on their resume in the game to date. How does that boil down to the state of the squads when they both joined the club, and if that's the overall determinant of quality, why isn't Ranieri the best manager in the game right now?
All managers do. Klopp couldn't do much with Moreno and Mignolet and Karius, so he got Van Dijk and Allison.
Klopp isn't exactly doing it on peanuts either, and no one is citing his first or second seasons as a testament to his genuis or fraudulency. He is being praised for building a good team and winning the UCL, and you can't argue that he hasn't spent his fair share.
I don't know anything if it was disproven, but if it was, it does not matter really. That squad was definitely not a 66 points squad, simple as that.
Pep won more trophies, and his football is most dominate and expensive too. Let's face it, if you want to build an ultimate team with total domination on the pitch and greatest entertainment value, while having unlimited budget, you will want Pep over anyone else.
The way Klopp win things with Dortmund and Liverpool, against all odds, and the way they approach the game, with limited budget, is more impressive though.
The way Klopp win things with Dortmund and Liverpool, against all odds, and the way they approach the game, with limited budget, is more impressive though.
If Ranieri was able to replicate anything close to that Leicester season, he would be. Until now it was just one freak season. Of course the state of the squads matter when comparing managers. Pep would still be a better manager than Warnock if he was managing Huddersfield and won feck all and Warnock reaches top 4 with the current city squad.
What does that mean?
A 66 points squad is a squad that... wait for it... achieves 66 points in a season. How else do you assign a point value to a squad? Oh wait, you can't.
Plus, that squad you claimed downed tools, reached the CL semi-finals that season, narrowly losing to the CL winners.
If you want to do more with underdogs then go to Klopp. Make no mistake though, Guardiola is top. Look at this record in 12 years...
Barcelona B
Barcelona
Bayern Munich
Manchester City
Barcelona B
- Tercera División: 2007–08
Barcelona
- La Liga: 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11
- Copa del Rey: 2008–09, 2011–12
- Supercopa de España: 2009, 2010, 2011
- UEFA Champions League: 2008–09, 2010–11
- UEFA Super Cup: 2009, 2011
- FIFA Club World Cup: 2009, 2011
Bayern Munich
- Bundesliga: 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16
- DFB-Pokal: 2013–14, 2015–16
- UEFA Super Cup: 2013
- FIFA Club World Cup: 2013
Manchester City
- Premier League: 2017–18, 2018–19
- FA Cup: 2018–19
- EFL Cup: 2017–18, 2018–19
- FA Community Shield: 2018
Obviously both are great, but I find Guardiola's football to be more sophisticated and enjoyable to watch. Klopp's approach arguably works better for a relatively less talented team, but is very dependent on a psychological angle (underdog role, siege mentality). It is also largely based on huge mental and physical exertion, which is not sustainable.
The argument about discrepancy in resources is not convincing. There were many teams that were financial juggernauts in recent decades, but very few (if any?) of them reached even close to excellence and consistency that Guardiola always delivers. I find that to be a quality that is more rare than ability to make (relatively) less talented teams to overachieve for a period of time.
The argument about discrepancy in resources is not convincing. There were many teams that were financial juggernauts in recent decades, but very few (if any?) of them reached even close to excellence and consistency that Guardiola always delivers. I find that to be a quality that is more rare than ability to make (relatively) less talented teams to overachieve for a period of time.