Guardiola vs Klopp

[CognitiveNeuro]

I agree with this. No amount of context that could be applied would put Klopp ahead of Pep.
Guardiola has won 27 trophies, 17 majors.
Klopp has won 6 trophies, 4 majors.
Simeone on another hand has won 9 trophies, 6 majors. Would you put him ahead of Mourinho who has 25 trophies, 20 majors? Afterall, both are not exactly known for their swashbuckling footballing, but Mourinho outspent everyone at Chelsea, and walked into Real Madrid and Manchester United jobs? That is not how it works. Mourinho and Guardiola are far more successful managers, so they are easily above the other two.

Dude you have to understand that Klopp doesn't choose ready made clubs. He literally said he prefers clubs that are like sleeping giants where he has the time to build them up. If you want to judge him based on trophies then he needs to go to a team with players near the quality of City or Bayern when Pep went. He went to Liverpool with shit like Mignolet, Sakho, Allen, Ibe etc and had to replace them year by year.

He literally used up several years to build up a team by gradually replacing shit with a quality player or two each season and having to battle for a CL spot at first to get the money to do this.

They are different kind of managers so you can't use trophies to compare them. I do still think Guardiola is the best but you need to understand where Klopp is coming from.

I would put him ahead of Mourinho because I feel if given the same resources Klopp would win just as much as Mourinho. He literally gets the better of Mourinho most times (I said MOST) with much less resources when they meet. Look at the Dortmund-Madrid game where Mourinho was completely tactically owned (never saw Mourinho like that in the CL before). He has a better head to head record against Mourinho as well by far. I don't feel Mourinho would do anywhere near as well with the resources Klopp has had.

 

[Sky1981]

Dude you have to understand that Klopp doesn't choose ready made clubs. He literally said he prefers clubs that are like sleeping giants where he has the time to build them up. If you want to judge him based on trophies then he needs to go to a team with players near the quality of City or Bayern when Pep went. He went to Liverpool with shit like Mignolet, Sakho, Allen, Ibe etc and had to replace them year by year.

He literally used up several years to build up a team by gradually replacing shit with a quality player or two each season and having to battle for a CL spot at first to get the money to do this.

They are different kind of managers so you can't use trophies to compare them. I do still think Guardiola is the best but you need to understand where Klopp is coming from.

I would put him ahead of Mourinho because I feel if given the same resources Klopp would win just as much as Mourinho. He literally gets the better of Mourinho most times (I said MOST) with much less resources when they meet. Look at the Dortmund-Madrid game where Mourinho was completely tactically owned (never saw Mourinho like that in the CL before). He has a better head to head record against Mourinho as well by far. I don't feel Mourinho would do anywhere near as well with the resources Klopp has had.

Yeah... imagine what he can do with more budget mantra.

When was the last time it works?

 

[Schneckerl]

Yeah... imagine what he can do with more budget mantra.

When was the last time it works?

About 4 days ago.

 

[Raees]

Pep is well on his way to being regarded as one of the very best 3 managers in history (if not the best). Klopp is some way behind on that front.

If Klopp wins another European cup - he’s ahead for me (but it is marginal and subjective) considering the size of clubs he’s managed in addition to the way he as well as Pep have both revolutionised the modern game tactically.

 

[Mcking]

Dude you have to understand that Klopp doesn't choose ready made clubs. He literally said he prefers clubs that are like sleeping giants where he has the time to build them up. If you want to judge him based on trophies then he needs to go to a team with players near the quality of City or Bayern when Pep went. He went to Liverpool with shit like Mignolet, Sakho, Allen, Ibe etc and had to replace them year by year.

He literally used up several years to build up a team by gradually replacing shit with a quality player or two each season and having to battle for a CL spot at first to get the money to do this.

They are different kind of managers so you can't use trophies to compare them. I do still think Guardiola is the best but you need to understand where Klopp is coming from.

I would put him ahead of Mourinho because I feel if given the same resources Klopp would win just as much as Mourinho. He literally gets the better of Mourinho most times (I said MOST) with much less resources when they meet. Look at the Dortmund-Madrid game where Mourinho was completely tactically owned (never saw Mourinho like that in the CL before). He has a better head to head record against Mourinho as well by far. I don't feel Mourinho would do anywhere near as well with the resources Klopp has had.

Guardiola also went to City with shit and past it players like Zabaleta, Mangala, Fernando, Delph, Hart. What matters is the team they currently have. Klopp does an impressive job of building teams, but the team Pep has built at City is also impressive. If it comes down to comparing both, then you could sentimentally put Klopp alongside Guardiola but not ahead of him with the vast difference in quantifiable achievements between them. It is 27 against 6 in this situation, and no amount of context should put 6 ahead of 27. Because Klopp won 6 with Dortmund and Liverpool does not mean he is going to win 27 with Bayern, Barca and City. Ranieri won the EPL with Leicester, but didn't win it with Chelsea.
Klopp might excel at being the underdog - though 6 consecutive finals defeats does not help his case, but he still has a long way to go to get to Mourinho. Mourinho won:
- Porto's first UCL title in 18 years.
- Chelsea's first two EPL titles in 51 years.
- Inter's first UCL title in 46 years + the treble.
He is Chelsea's most successful manager, the only manager to have beaten Pep to a league title, one of the fews managers to have won the treble, and he did it with Inter. If there's any manager that really excels at being the underdog, it is Mourinho.
The head-to-head record is a good argument to bring to the table, but you've to note that most of Klopp's games against Mourinho were when Mourinho was likely past his peak. I'd like to see the record too.

 

[Sky1981]

About 4 days ago.

Eh? Did i miss something?

 

[GM K]

I'll pick Pep over Klopp. Not just because of his incredible trophy haul (which can be argued has been helped by massive spendings) but also for two other important reasons:

1. Pep has developed and almost established a philosophy and pattern of football which he has tried, tested and proven across three top leagues with three different teams to the extent that one day, the word 'Guadiolaistic' will be in the world football dictionary, widely used and accepted. This, in my opinion, is what sets Pep apart from most other top managers including Klopp.

2. Pep has managed, successfully, more GOAT candidates than Klopp has ever done. Even than most other managers alive.
Okay, I admit this is a subjective point but I personally believe that the type of egos and talents you manage successfully as a manager is a major determinant of how good you are and what your rating should be.

Credit to Klopp but Pep is in a different league.

 

[Swarlos]

Man City signed theirs for 1.7 million.

You mean their backup LB after spending 52m on Mendy?

What's your point? Mine was that there's a level where how big a budget a team has is relatively meaningless. Liverpool's budget allowed them to go out and spend 70 million on Alisson and 75 million on van Dijk. It's never held them back and has allowed them to go out and spend all sorts of money on world class players.

The point is that it's ridiculous to always use Alisson and VVD as examples of Klopps spending, when they are the outliers. Liverpool bought both after selling arguably their best player. When Klopp first arrived he bought the likes of Klavan and Karius, and ended up with with a positive net spend of 5m. Guardiola upon arriving went ahed and bought the most sought after CB in England for 50m, and this was before Neymar destroyed the transfer market.

Yes Klopp has spent big on a couple of players recently, but that is only after proving himself with far less resources than the teams he has been up against. Guardiola has spent big sine day 1. To say that money has never been an issue, and never held Liverpool back is just recency bias. Since Klopp arrived Liverpool has spent less than 4/5 teams above them, and still closed the gap on or surpassed everyone. To ignore that makes no sense, as the complete rebuilding of the team is the most impressive thing Klopp has done so far.

 

[Pow]

Maybe he would just spend a world record for a goalkeeper instead.

You mean after they sold their best player for over 100 mil you mean.

 

[Schneckerl]

Eh? Did i miss something?

Winning the CL and finishing 2nd with 97 points the first season after Klopp finally had a massive transfer budget and made high profile signings.

 

[Sky1981]

Winning the CL and finishing 2nd with 97 points the first season after Klopp finally had a massive transfer budget and made high profile signings.

Lvg better than klopp. He won with peanuts

 

[Schneckerl]

Lvg better than klopp. He won with peanuts

Ok? What's your point?

 

[Mcking]

Winning the CL and finishing 2nd with 97 points the first season after Klopp finally had a massive transfer budget and made high profile signings.

So he didn't do it on peanuts afterall.

 

[Schneckerl]

So he didn't do it on peanuts afterall.

Of course he didn't. Who are you arguing with?

 

[Cait Sith]

He actually did it on "peanuts". Of course you can ignore things like Liverpool losing the most promising English player and a generational striker in consecutive seasons followed by losing their best attacking midfielder yet again while Guardiola was busy orchestrating City transfers while still at Bayern but it doesn't change reality. Liverpool has less net spend than Everton in the past 5 seasons while City have 3 times the net spend while being in a better position in the first place and without losing key players. Likes of Pellegrini and Mancini won the league with City. It's not a big achievement.

This Liverpool team winning the CL is a miracle, absolutely no one would have claimed that 5 years ago while City players were talking about "quadruple" before Pep had even arrived.

 

[Dec9003]

A miracle.

 

[adexkola]

A miracle.

Can you imagine

Just making shit up now.

 

[Cait Sith]

A miracle.

When Klopp arrived, Liverpool finished 2 points above Southampton, 13 points below Arsenal, 25 points from the top and in 6th place. In the following season they finished 8th below West Ham. While losing their best players from season to season. What would you call it? Did you predict them to make 2 consecutive CL finals while trashing likes of City, Bayern and Barca 4 years ago? They were a JOKE, the RAWK Meltdown thread was one of the most popular on here year after year.

 

[Dec9003]

Can you imagine

Just making shit up now.

He'll be walking on water next.
It was brilliant for them to win the champions league, but not a bloody miracle.
Liverpool were smart, they brought in a good manager, and gave him all the time and signings he needed to succeed.

 

[Cait Sith]

Can you imagine

Just making shit up now.

I know, in your world taking 3rd place Barca full of world class players that won the CL 2 years prior but had 2 hangover years to 1st was a bigger miracle than making midtable serial losers Liverpool CL winners.

 

[Dec9003]

When Klopp arrived, Liverpool finished 2 points above Southampton, 13 points below Arsenal, 25 points from the top and in 6th place. In the following season they finished 8th below West Ham. While losing their best players from season to season. What would you call it? Did you predict them to make 2 consecutive CL finals while trashing likes of City, Bayern and Barca 4 years ago? They were a JOKE, the RAWK Meltdown thread was one of the most popular on here year after year.

I'd call it smart planning from a club that trusted their obviously good manager for years and giving him the funds he needed.
Calling it a miracle makes you sound utterly ridiculous.

 

[Cait Sith]

I'd call it smart planning from a club that trusted their obviously good manager for years and giving him the funds he needed.
Calling it a miracle makes you sound utterly ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous if you take the world "miracle" literally. It's evident what I mean. If Arsenal went on to win the CL within the next 3 seasons that would be a miracle as well (not literally of course).

 

[Dec9003]

It's only ridiculous if you take the world "miracle" literally. It's evident what I mean. If Arsenal went on to win the CL within the next 3 seasons that would be a miracle as well (not literally of course).

Ahh fair enough, my mistake for replying based on what you said.

 

[He'sRaldo]

The way I see it, in order to be the best you have to reach the highest level; not do the most with the lowest budget.

Would anyone actually say Klopp has reached the highest level in football by winning a single Champions League with Liverpool? Or two titles with Dortmund? It doesn't make sense to me.

Quite a few managers have gotten much better honours than Klopp (Mourinho, Conte, Allegri, Zidane, Rafa, etc.) and Pep is still considered comfortably above them, so I don't understand why Klopp is that highly rated. He's a superb manager of course, very good at what he does, but comparing him to one of the best and highest achieving managers of all time is too much.

 

[Sky1981]

Ok? What's your point?

Di matteo > klopp
Lvg > klopp

Unless you move the goalpost again

 

[Thunderhead]

Klopp is a top manager but surely for Klopp to be rated alongside Guardiola he has to win the league next season, or at worst win the FA Cup, go deep in the CL and be very close to winning the league again, winning 1 CL doesn't a great manager make.

Managers have won the CL on less resources than Klopp and they're not being lauded like he is.

 

[BlueMoonOutcast]

Did you know that a team wins the Champions League every year? But now that Klopp has done it after blowing £66m on Alisson and £75m on Van Dijk it's a miracle?

 

[Righteous Steps]

Di matteo > klopp
Lvg > klopp

Unless you move the goalpost again

LVG was a top manager in his day, he would be up there most certainly if he won the Cl in 2015 as opposed to 95.

 

[RobinLFC]

Did you know that a team wins the Champions League every year? But now that Klopp has done it after blowing £66m on Alisson and £75m on Van Dijk it's a miracle?

Nah, we've seen it six times by now, not a miracle by any means. Now if City ever wins one, on the other hand...

 

[BlueMoonOutcast]

Nah, we've seen it six times by now, not a miracle by any means. Now if City ever wins one, on the other hand...

We either will or won't. It'll be fun to find out.

 

[Sky1981]

LVG was a top manager in his day, he would be up there most certainly if he won the Cl in 2015 as opposed to 95.

Benitez > klopp?

 

[Righteous Steps]

Benitez > klopp?

In 05-09 yes...

 

[Sky1981]

In 05-09 yes...

So 2019 pep > klopp because... premier league?

Or that striker in italy better than Ronaldo?

 

[Treble]

Rafa Benitez won 2 La Liga titles in competition with Barca and Real (Real were full with galacticos at the time) and the CL with Liverpool while having a far worse squad in 2005 than Klopp. He has won also other European trophies. Does this make him better than Klopp? I doubt it. This 'winning with lesser players big trophies' argument is unconvincing.

The thing with Guardiola is not that he won the CL with great players but that he turned that group of players into the best ever at club level. This is the achievement, not the fecking 2 CL cups. And it is because of this achievement that he is widely perceived as one of the best coaches of all time (Mourinho himself expressed this view recently).

In the history book of tactical innovations, the Guardiola chapter will be long, the Klopp one a bit shorter. Part of Klopp's tactics came from Barca's high-pressing style.

 

[MackRobinson]

'Better' is a bit of a vague word that cannot exactly be absolutely quantified in many ways in terms of managerial skills. It is not exactly outrageous though nor totally subjective to say that Pep is better than Klopp or that Klopp should not be rated higher than Pep

You can't just redefine the word subective. If Klopp > Pep is subjective, then so is Pep > Klopp

'Afterall Pep comprehensively betters him in the most relevant and tangible thing for managers - trophies, and you can't exactly play the 'style of football' card in favour of Klopp either. Obviously, there's that little matter of context, and that is why Poch, Klopp, Pep, Emery can all be regarded as top managers even though some have never won a trophy.

The bolded has got to be a joke. Context plays a huge part. Expectations vs results are always taken into account. Imagine using a singular data point to draw conclusion/ make an analysis. The trophies argument is extremely lazy.

The highest rated managers are usually the most successful ones though, and the vast difference between the achievement of Klopp and Pep means that the one with less should not really be rated higher than the one with more.

- Appeal to accomplishments
- Cherry picking of evidence
- Hasty generalization

Until Klopp actually outdos Pep in that department, then he really shouldn't be rated higher.

- Circular reasoning
- False dilemma

Poch has done really well competing against teams that spend much more than him, Emery won three consecutive UELs with the not-so-almightly Sevilla, but there's a reason both cannot be placed above someone like Klopp in the EPL who does more while spending more, because there are levels to everything.Klopp is a top manager, but no amount of context would place him ahead of Pep with the vast difference in amount of trophies and quantifiable achievements between them.

- Red herring (pretty sure this is about current day Klopp vs Pep; Poch and Emery are irrelevant)
- More hasty generalizations

Your argument essentially boils down to trophies. Devoid of nuance, perspective, and context, but full of fallacies and circular logic. I can't really take your position seriously.

 

[MackRobinson]

So 2019 pep > klopp because... premier league?

Or that striker in italy better than Ronaldo?

So Klopp > Pep since Liverpool finished and 1pt behind City AND won the Champions League?

Unless you move the goalposts...

 

[Abe144]

Rafa>Pep and Klopp

He won a CL with a worse Liverpool squad and he ate a tremendous amount of peanuts

 

[Mcking]

It's only ridiculous if you take the world "miracle" literally. It's evident what I mean. If Arsenal went on to win the CL within the next 3 seasons that would be a miracle as well (not literally of course).

I don't think Arsenal will be spending a record fee for goalkeepers and defenders in the next three years. Their reported transfer kitty for this summer is barely above what Pool paid for Chamberlain.

 

[adexkola]

Rafa Benitez won 2 La Liga titles in competition with Barca and Real (Real were full with galacticos at the time) and the CL with Liverpool while having a far worse squad in 2005 than Klopp. He has won also other European trophies. Does this make him better than Klopp? I doubt it. This 'winning with lesser players big trophies' argument is unconvincing.

The thing with Guardiola is not that he won the CL with great players but that he turned that group of players into the best ever at club level. This is the achievement, not the fecking 2 CL cups. And it is because of this achievement that he is widely perceived as one of the best coaches of all time (Mourinho himself expressed this view recently).

In the history book of tactical innovations, the Guardiola chapter will be long, the Klopp one a bit shorter. Part of Klopp's tactics came from Barca's high-pressing style.

That he can be compared to the likes of Mourinho on the trophy comparison and Michels/Cryuff on the innovation comparison alone make him unique in today's game.

 

[Mcking]

You can't just redefine the word subective. If Klopp > Pep is subjective, then so is Pep > Klopp


The bolded has got to be a joke. Context plays a huge part. Expectations vs results are always taken into account. Imagine using a singular data point to draw conclusion/ make an analysis. The trophies argument is extremely lazy.


- Appeal to accomplishments
- Cherry picking of evidence
- Hasty generalization


- Circular reasoning
- False dilemma


- Red herring (pretty sure this is about current day Klopp vs Pep; Poch and Emery are irrelevant)
- More hasty generalizations

Your argument essentially boils down to trophies. Devoid of nuance, perspective, and context, but full of fallacies and circular logic. I can't really take your position seriously.

Well, Pep is better than Klopp at winning trophies. He has 27 trophies in 11 years, Klopp has 6 in 18 years. Pep has shown that he is able to win 27 trophies, and Klopp might well be capable of doing so, but he has not. Why would you put the one that has not ahead of the one that has, what is so hard to understand?