The quality of the league isn't determined just by how the big names are doing. Also, the likes of Chelsea (pre Abramovich) and especially Spurs weren't always that good during the PL years. Leeds, Newcastle and Villa might have been gone at times, but they've hardly been regularly good during the PL era, and others took their place.
He only came second to Man City twice, he finished behind us just as many times so when people say city prevented him winning so much more, that’s kind of false
It’s been pretty average since when Leicester won it. I mean if that wasn’t a big enough clue in itself, you then proceeded to see points totals from Conte, Pep and Klopp which were either close to or above the points records.
How?
Maybe it's because the top teams have also become stronger?
It's the exact opposite. The level of football is the highest it's ever been. Watch back some games from the 90s and 00s and see for yourself. It's miles behind today both tactically and in intensity.
By saying what he said. He’s won one league in however many years and finished behind us more times than he finished behind city. He’s done well for Liverpool but that’s it
A league can have the best team(s) and also be uncompetitive? That’s not exactly a crazy idea.
But that’s like me saying look at Pele, Best, Charlton etc. They’re gash players compared to today…everything is relative to its time.
His logic is basically what the bots in the Ronaldo Messi thread do. He scored x amount, but he scored y!
So you're saying there's a bigger gap between top title challengers and the rest of the teams, due to the high points totals of the last 7-8 years?
Not solely points totals but that is an indicator. My point (I don’t know if it was you originally who asked me) was the league was more competitive and teams were playing in a more cautious manner at the time. Now everyone plays out and presses and there’s so much space so the big teams can thrive on that.
The quality of the League is determined by how competitive it is and it was far more competitive in the 90's and 00's when there were multiple teams at the top all taking points off each other than it was when Liverpool and City were getting 90+ points with hardly anyone points off them.
Especially considering the start he had.
Not sure I agree about it being more competitive 15-20+ years ago. There's been seasons where Liverpool and City went on incredible streaks and almost didn't drop points for 20 or 30 games in a row, which allowed them to reach or get close to the 100 point mark. However, still anyone can beat anyone from the 20 teams, and a lot of mid-table sides and relegation candidates are actually pretty decent, well-drilled tactically, and every team in the league has a few players at least that could be of use to a top 6 side as well. I guess that's what you mean by teams being less cautious these days, but I feel like it's the rather the result of the tactical evolution of the last 10+ years. The general quality of managers has also gradually increased in the last 5-6 years, starting with the arrival of Klopp and Guardiola in 2015 and 2016, respectively.
The question is if it's uncompetitive because a lot of the teams are not good, or because while the league is very strong, one or two teams are historically strong.
There will have been periods of the league being less and more competitive but the wealth gap has never been bigger. You seem to not be grasping the idea of relative strength - I’m sure teams are more tactically knowledgeable now, coaching standards have really improved although I’d say it started long before Pep and Klopp and the big pioneer there being Wenger and then Mou after him.
The quality of the league is partly determined by the depth of it. If it has a lot of decent, good and very teams, and one or two who are extremely special and therefore are way ahead of the rest, then it might not be competitive - but it is quality.
The game was different then. You could be much more physical and tactics were more basic across the board. Pitches were also shite most of the season. All these things levelled out the advantage between high skill players and strong athlete. it wasn’t quite the Wimbledon days but there was much more of a sense that any team could beat anyone else on a given day.
I’m not sure because it ignores Conte’s Chelsea and how Leicester won the league. I don’t think anyone would dispute Pool and City (pending the result of the 115 charges) were/are great teams but it seems extremely coincidental. You can simply go work it out, I might be wrong, but if you calculate the standard deviation of points in each PL season it would show how competitive each season has been.
He had an amazing start in the PL, he won the fecking thing
Just goes to show how he was the GOAT.
He’d of wasted it. Look at the players he’s bought when he was allowed full control the last few years. As soon as Edward’s left and he began to have more of a say in players their recruitment got shitter. He didn’t even want Salah, he wanted Brandt instead. I don’t think his eye for talent is as good as it’s made out to be.
Both Klopp and Guardiola, despite being excellent coaches, have benefitted greatly from being at two of the best run clubs around. As you say, imagine Liverpool without Salah or with some of Klopp’s other preferred targets. It really helps to have a club that provides that support and expertise. The way City do business in the market is also excellent. I mean aside from being a bunch of cheating wanker a who deserve every trophy to be stripped off them, of course.
Same.
How did Liverpool perform the 2-3 years before Klopp came in though? After his slow start, he’s definitely got the best out of that club imo. I also think there will be a massive drop off for the next couple of seasons, if not more. Which will highlight his impact even more
Rogers nearly won the league, if it hadn't been for Slippy G, they might have.
You must be joking. That is not at all how the smaller teams approach games against the big six.
This entire site would've laughed their tits off had you said that about Liverpool pre-Klopp. So either he got incredibly lucky that his appointment coincided with us turning it around completely off the field, or you'd at least have to credit him with some of that turnaround. I know which one is more likely.
That was also before city's cheating really kicked in too though wasn't it? Maybe even before Guardiola came?
Yeah Guardiola even came after Klopp, but City's cheating started around ~2009 I believe. Think their regular team that season was something like this:
Going to state some obvious facts.
People will call you bitter, Liverpool fan in incognito etc
I've actually watched a fair few of your games this season and teams aren't sitting in against you compared to how the PL was 10+ years ago, mainly because of the influence your manager specifically has had on these teams who don't need to spend silly money to create an effective pressing system and make it difficult for bigger teams. There's a few Hennes graduates who have left a huge imprint on the league across teams at both ends of the table but Klopp is the poster boy.
I agree with this, I disagree that city stopped him dominating the league and he would have won so much more talk
He's clearly among the best managers the league has seen, and is certainly among Liverpool's own list of great managers, but I think the general point is that it's a bit of a myth that he'd have cleaned up without City. He's finished second to them twice, which is the same number of times we've finished second to them in that timeframe.
