They don't. Klopp didn't win the CL with Mignolet and Karius. He won it with purchases he made. So kudos to him for... spending money (very well, mind) in order to build an excellent squad. Is that something beyond Guardiola's capability?
Guardiola vs Klopp
- Thread starter Infordin
- Start date
They don't. Klopp didn't win the CL with Mignolet and Karius. He won it with purchases he made. So kudos to him for... spending money (very well, mind) in order to build an excellent squad. Is that something beyond Guardiola's capability?
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.
Err, I think you are smart enough to know what I meant. Take Klopp's Dortmund squad in his last season for instance which was 7th in the BL. It was not a 7th placed squad. Albeit different circumstances, that City squad would have reached much more than 66 points in most seasons, that's what it means. Of course you cannot assign an exact number of point value to a squad, but using the player's quality, you can pretty accurately say if a squad overperformed or not. Given that City has gotten much more points than that in previous seasons and no important players were sold, it is safe to say that it was not a 66 points squad, especially when someone like KdB who was the best player in the BL, or Sané who was the best young player there moved to City.
I don't know what you mean by the last sentence, English is not my first language. What squad do you mean?
Which CL final did Mourinho reach after Guardiola's last CL win in 2011?
Spending money is relative. Pep had Agüero, Kompany, KdB, Sterling, Silva, Dinho in prime form (and most of them are still in their prime) when he arrived. That's easily 500m worth of players in his starting XI alone in today's market and bar Sterling, all of them were established world-class players and in case of Agüero and Silva, already top 5 in their positions even before Pep arrived. He then added another 550m to those players (and the existing squad) without having to sell a single important player. Klopp had Coutinho and he wasn't even on the same level as Silva/Agüero, the rest were all mid table level or lower. He then sold Coutinho (which means he lost his single star player) and invested 450m in a shite squad. That is not even comparable in terms of money spent and squad quality.
Correct and even more so for Guardiola. Btw Klopp had reached CL final with Karius and 2 other finals with Mignolet, Moreno. Guardiola didn't get close to winning with better team but after the fullbacks was shipped out and depth was increased further he won. he is less adaptable and requires a more perfect conditions which is not the problem- not all the managers same.
Last edited:
Cup competitions in football are not much more than a glorified lottery. Any opinion that is based on their final results is misguided by default.
It's been said a few times but everything Pep won, Klopp would have won as well. No brainer. The other way around, Guardiola will never take a club like Liverpool to 2 consecutive CL finals. He didn't even manage it with prime Xavi-Iniesta-Messi-Alves-Puyol squad and since his Barca days has never reached a CL final with golden generation Bayern and Gazillion Dollar City teams.
Very convenient to say when Pep has not been succesful in CL for long period.
Alright.If anything, Klopp lost the lottery twice. He should have 3 CLs to his name by now. In 2013 he lost to possibly the best Bayern team of all time (after Heynckes copied the Dortmund pressing scheme) and last year he lost to the best Real Madrid team since the 50s - due to individual goalkeeping error + their MVP getting injured early.
5 years ago anyone who suggested Liverpool would reach 96 points in the Premier League and win the CL would have earned bucketloads of green smileys. It's almost like AC Milan winning the CL soon.
What? You think Klopp would not win Bundesliga with Bayern or La Liga with the best Barca squad of all time including Messi? Luis Enrique won the treble with a declined version of that team.
You said "everything". That does not mean winning each of those competitions once in a while, but dominating them with multiple wins in a row. Klopp has so far produced maybe two seasons of consistency similar to what you see from Pep's teams, 2012 and this year. Even their 2012 then-Bundesliga-record-season of 81 points has been surpassed by Pep twice in his three seasons at Bayern, and even Klopp's/Liverpool's best league result ever did not make the cut for taking the league.What? You think Klopp would not win Bundesliga with Bayern or La Liga with the best Barca squad of all time including Messi? Luis Enrique won the treble with a declined version of that team.
Spending money is both relative and absolute. Pep has spent more money than Klopp, and started from a better position (although you're overstating the quality of the side that he inherited, but whatever). That said, 3 points you're ignoring are
1. Money spent is no guarantee of success (as Jose has shown)
2. Klopp of his own, has spent a shit-ton as well. He spent 240M last summer.
3. Unlike Klopp, Pep had to replace a lot of aging talent (Zabaleta, Sagna, Clichy, Hart, Toure). Do that in one season without the benefit of transfer fees and that will be reflected in inflated spend totals. It's been stated on here multiple times that the record holders for keeper, defender, midfielder and striker spend are held by Liverpool and United.
There was a gulf in class between Dortmund who got picked apart every season and Bayern who did the picking apart. Dortmund replaced Lewandowski with freaking Ciro Immobile. Of course Klopp did not reach Pep's genius consistency with that.
Just once I would like to see Pep take a club like that with players like Immobile and Kevin Kampl to work with and see how it goes. It will probably go like Luis Enrique @ Roma.
Are these achievements worthy of discussion in this thread? If Klopp lost the final to Pochettino how many would still deem Klopp as the better manager? Not many, so why should those count?
He's won a CL trophy with Liverpool, after spending a lot to improve the quality of his squad. Plenty of managers have dragged mediocre squads to finals and semi-finals before.
What do you base that on?
I’ve said before, but comparing their achievements is practically impossible considering how different their starting points were. Guardiola has only managed the best or richest teams in the leagues he’s been while Klopp took over a struggling Dortmund and struggling Liverpool side.
Klopp’s done an amazing job, but even if Guardiola’s had better players, his consistency and trophies speak for themselves. Until they manage teams that are more less equally strong and Klopp gets a league title or two, Guardiola must be the best in the world. And unless Liverpool invest somewhat heavily in the summer, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Klopp’s done an amazing job, but even if Guardiola’s had better players, his consistency and trophies speak for themselves. Until they manage teams that are more less equally strong and Klopp gets a league title or two, Guardiola must be the best in the world. And unless Liverpool invest somewhat heavily in the summer, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
On reality. If Pep can't buy a CL final with the team that Heynckes left behind and Klopp wins the CL with Origi, Milner, Matip, Henderson then it's logical that Klopp with the better squad will not do worse but Pep with the worse squad will definitely do worse.
You'll never find out, because unlike Enrique, enough top clubs are convinced about Guardiola's quality that they won't let him go to Roma to test your theory.
Conjecture.
And this ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why noone compares to Pep. Klopp may well be capable of doing the same, but until he does so, he cannot be ahead of Pep. No way. Everything that is based on coulda, shoulda and woulda in football is complete nonsense.
Of course and we all know that Pep has already signed a pre contract with Juventus for 2021, the recent media noise about Juventus was about that, they just got the timing wrong. Another couple of autopilot league title wins before heading to PSG and then retiring.
Top clubs hiring Pep doesn't mean anything by the way. Top clubs hired Lopetegui, Tata Martino, Moyes, Kovac etc. in recent years.
Which one chokes the most in CL though?
Pep in QFs and SFs, and away KO games in general against far lesser sides at times, and Klopp in finals... though thinking about it, Klopp was the underdog on two of his finals, where he wasn't expected to reach there in the first place, so it's definitely Pep.
Pep in QFs and SFs, and away KO games in general against far lesser sides at times, and Klopp in finals... though thinking about it, Klopp was the underdog on two of his finals, where he wasn't expected to reach there in the first place, so it's definitely Pep.
And did they succeed?
If I manage a record laptime in a BMW M3 on Nürburgring and claim that I'll do even better with a Porsche 911 Turbo S it's not conjecture - it's logic.
Listing a bunch of trophies without context. What an argument indeed.
No it is not logical, it is a fallacy. Because Klopp did it with Liverpool does not mean he would do the same with another team. Saying that Pep could have won a double or a domestic treble with this Liverpool team makes as much sense as saying that Klopp could have won the UCL with Bayern. They are both claims that are based on no factual evidence. Mourinho couldn't win the UCL with Real Madrid, but won it with Porto.
You are making an argument based on coulda, shoulda. Give me something tangible.
That supposed no-context argument is probably indeed the only factual argument that can be brought to the table. Klopp is a great coach, but until he is able to emulate Pep, he cannot be rated higher than him.
For eg
1. Messi has over 600 careers goals and 30 trophies. Hazard has over 100 goals and about 10 trophies.
2. But Messi has always played for Barcelona alongside better players, while Hazard dragged his team to most of his own trophies and plays next to inferior players.
3. Hazard could and would have done more than Messi has done if he was playing for Barcelona and not Chelsea.
4. Hazard's achievement is more impressive.
5. Hazard is better than Messi...
1. Fact
2. A combination of Facts and subjective opinion.
3. Conjecture.
4. Subjective opinion
5. Absolute nonsense.
If we were in a philosophy course, I would agree. You don't really know unless it happens. But we are talking simple football where it's evident that Klopp would win league titles with Barca, Bayern and City and discussing this in a philosphical manner is pointless.
Next we will be discussing how Messi will fail in England because there is no evidence that he ever won something outside of Barca so there is no tangible evidence that he would be the best player in England if he ever transfered.
You really aren't doing a very good job here.
Well, David May has won two Premier Leagues, two FA Cups and the Champions League. Was he a better player than Socrates, who never won anything? How about Matt Le Tissier, or Antonio Di Natale? Winning trophies is obviously massively important when we compare them, but context is also important. Guardiola has won a lot, but he has never taken a team from mediocrity to the top in the way that Klopp has, with two different teams now.
There was that one club called Barcelona
I wasn't arguing it! It's others who seem obsessed with that, as they think it's a slight on Guardiola that people dare bring up his incredible transfer spending all the time. The point is, is that these two have just taken totally different paths, which makes these threads utterly infuriating half the time. Klopp only got to spend heavily after 2 seasons and 2 summer windows of far more modest spending (Everton and Spurs outspent Liverpool those two years). Then after getting his club qualified for the CL two years running for the first time in years, he got to spend significantly last year. So totally different to Guardiola, who took on a far stronger team already in the CL year on year, with unlimited funds from the very start.
End of the day, both are clearly great coaches. Everyone has their favourites, I clearly have mine, you clearly have yours.
My problem with Guardiola is more his choice of employers, and that he's a grade A hypocrite, more than the fact he takes the easy jobs. That I don't have an issue with.
How is it evident?
That's a bit rich seeing that you've been doing nothing but conjecture in this thread:
You are inadvertently arguing in favour of Guardiola, and I have never said that Klopp wouldn't emulate Pep if he was managing Barca, Bayern or City.
Nah, they were a world class side in 2007-08. So goes the myth, anyways.
And Klopp only managed to win after he got to spend. So, no one should make it look like Klopp is the saint and Pep, the devil.
It’s like Klopp didn’t spend 70 million plus on a central defender and a goalkeeper each
What nonsense is this working on a lesser budget.
What nonsense is this working on a lesser budget.
Luck seem to be a common word within this thread, but that aside, I feel its more about what you spend rather than how much you spend, and in the main, how many success's of your signings, far outweigh how much you spend.
Simply put, you can have all the money in the world, but if you can't pick the right player to improve a) your team and b) themselves, then money is an irrelevance, as it's about having an eye, not a cheque book.
Simply put, you can have all the money in the world, but if you can't pick the right player to improve a) your team and b) themselves, then money is an irrelevance, as it's about having an eye, not a cheque book.
Why should they not be counted? The point made was working in less favorable situation to get some result was beyond Guardiola-.which obviously belong in Guardiola vs Klopp comparing thread.