There weren't that many posts commenting on the appointment at the time.
A few comments about the quality of the Barca side at the time.
Strange because all we hear these days is that they were already a great team and Shannon from Scunthorpe could have done what he did.
No mate. You are talking sense and truth and nobody want to hear that. I am sure they didn't have answer either. They tried to downplay pep hence talking this Klopp has no money.
.Well, but it takes great vision to identify key needs, come up with the right players to sign and also not be afraid to pay for the exact right players.
Ofcourse it does but this narrative that he's been penny pinching against the tide couldn't be further from the truth.
If you look at the net spend and the salaries, Liverpool is more comparable to Tottenham than City (or United).
Exactly.
They have a massive wage bill, don't they? Also, the net spend isn't really the point here, they hit gold with Coutinho but yeah overall the past years have spent a lot of money. Not comparable to Tottenham in that regard.
You have included a quote which kind of implies it was a great team, just not really gelling (which I think is accurate) really at that time you'd be hard pressed to say they didn't have the best or second best squad in the league:
I personally don't think anyone has much criticism of him for his time at Barca - certainly everyone would say that is still his best ever team though. I think what I find most weird is there's a certain section of fans who seem to think he essentially created tiki-taka and ignore how clever Pep was with his timing (which is a constant so far throughout his career) when you think he didn't just take over a team and then impose his style, he'd already been working with many of them in the youth team and even playing with some of them. Cruyff, LVG, LVG again and then Rikjaard essentially meant that from Cruyff in '88 to Guardiola coming in during 08, that 17 of 20 seasons had been under total football disciples of varying extremes. Lo and behold, you then have a raft of highly technical players all coming through over that period: Xavi, Iniesta, Puyol, Valdes all debuted under LVG, Marques (I think, might have been Antic stint)& Messi under Rikjaard and Busquets under Pep. That isn't to take away from what he did but it shows the importance of tactical continuity and planning and is part of how Enrique's team then went on to beat a number of Pep's records (but not his overall trophy haul). If you were to score Pep at Barca he'd be a 9/10 purely because there is no such thing as a 10
, however at Bayern and City would that score be so high?Why does it have to be black and white? Pool obviously spent big on VVD and Alisson, they got a hugely inflated sum for Coutinho and overpaid (back then) for both of those players, too. If City wanted him, I am 100% sure they'd have gotten VVD instead but they (as most other top clubs) didn't want to pay 75m from some unproven Southampton defender. Pretty sure you'd have gotten Alisson over Pool too but decided to pay even more for Kepa instead...
Klopp won would have literally won them all. Imagine his first XI with City's depth. Disgusting to even imagine it.
That's not how the word literally works.
I'm going to bite, and say "me".
The wage budge is not comparable to Spurs but the actual spend is.
But he might not have won a league at all given the budget Klopp has had at Liverpool.
Just checked. Pools wage bill is lower than Citys and ours but higher than Arsenals. Comparable to Chelsea really. I wrongly assumed their wage bill was lower. But still their bill is a step down from Uniteds and Citys.
I think Pep at Pool would have it harder than Klopp at City.
That assumption is not more realistic than assuming that he'd have performed in the league even better than Klopp, which he has done in all but one season, and not just in the PL.
That's fair enough, I think Klopp with KdB, Silva, Sane, Sterling, Aguero, Kompany, etc, at his disposal, and of course a further billion to buy VvD, etc, later would quite literally have win it all too.
Well it is, Klopp took a Liverpool team to Cl final in his second season and was a couple Karius blunders from having a good chance of winning it.
The question was not about the CL or cups, but about the league.
That 100 is literally a single point above pools maximum so far under Klopp. That really isn't saying much.The question was not about the CL or cups, but about the league.
And in terms of league football, the football Pep has his teams play is simply a superior strategy. He never relies as much on willpower as Klopp does, he never needs back to the wall heroics in big games. His football maximizes the probability to win the most points in a large number of games against various, mostly weaker opponents. The record is pretty clear, isn't it? 100 points in the PL? That's not a matter of squad quality as much as of a superior winning strategy.
Now, high profile CL away games, that's an entirely different matter
I think you'll find a hypothetical world works any which way we please.
It's still the league's historical record. The point is not to say that Klopp isn't a great league manager in his own right, the point is to counter this notion of Pep's league dominance being mainly due to his squad superiority (which is implied in the hypothetical of Klopp winning so much more titles with City, as if Klopp was the only one of the two who brings something extra to his team).
It all feeds back into the trope of Barry from Sheffield being able to manage City successfully (which is why Ole is doing so well at United with similar spending)
Yep.
Then let's simplify it for your sake.
Possibly, who's to say?
I don't see why either scenario is impossible. They are both excellent managers and coaches.
And if I claim that Klopp's underdog approach, play the same team every week, heavy metal football might have completely failed to stick at City with this City squad, what would you say?
You should be called Mr Context. Just for the irony. But if you're trolling us all, then bravo.
Still no though
That doesn't really make sense, but ok.
They are all good coaches and resources available to them are not the same. The comparsion is pretty meaningless to be honest.
Lets assume genuinely Poch given what he did with low budget Spurs making top 4 consistently in the toughest league sometimes top 2 and making a CL final was to take over PSG with Neymar Mbappe imagine how he would win the Ligue1 and CL without even trying. right?
Tell that to the Ronaldo vs Messi thread
