Why are Pep and Klopp so dominant in the EPL?

Andycoleno9

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
19,334
Location
Croatia
No offense but I think I'll leave it at that because now you guys are being intellectually dishonest.




The EPL has comfortably the best top 6-8 world wide, too. Beyond that it is very hard to measure that due to the absense of international competitions but looking at the financial capabilities, those clubs are stronger than ever. The EPL has 13 clubs among the world wide top 20 net spenders over the last 5 years e. g.
Ok, ok. Tell me this;
Mourinho, Lvg, Klopp, Fergie, Ancelotti. Rate them by (in your opinion) best to worst. No ifs or buts. Just make a list without explanation
 

BerryBerryShrew

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
288
The funny thing is that German posters are underrating SAF in comparison to Pep and Klopp when Heynkes already schooled them both when he managed the Bayern treble winning side. Funny how Guardiola took over from him, added Thiago, Götze and Lewandowski and still managed to make the team worse than it was under Jupp!

In that sense, it's a bit ridiculous to pretend that they are better than SAF because of points totals. Heynkes is the closest managerial personality that I can compare to SAF and he was clearly better than Pep and Klopp.
 

DoubleDinhos

Liverpool Fan
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
1,015
Location
The Dreaded Lubyanka
The league is weak, anyone telling you otherwise is not versed in what went before. We're in a time where Chelsea, Manchester United (*the* two powerhouses from Jose's time until just after Pep arrived, in Chelsea's case) being a shadow of themselves, and even the strongest teams of the very recent past being pale imitations of themselves (Spurs and Leicester).

Klopp and Pep are running roughshod over a weak league. That is the fault of neither, but it is the reality, add the disparity in squads (both peaking on top of being the strongest sets of individuals) and the tallies are, and should, be a given. Incidentally, the whole of Europe is on the slide until the next round of bolstering, so this really should be the time these two help themselves to the spoils if they are *that* good.

You cannot omit Pep's infinite budget and the relativity of failure in regards to his resources. No obstacles, no restrictions, constantly buying and failing to the point it's expected by now. All this cooing about how dominant he is in the league, yet when met with teams of equal quality in the CL, he comes unstuck. Again, and again, and again. That's a bigger mark against him than any Ferguson has; Pep's only time winning the competition until now is when he had the best of the best of the best lined up for him - those are not good reflections when extrapolated. Pep destroys a weak league with the strongest squad, but then is second-guessing himself and constantly making errors when those resources are negated.

His coaching is aesthetically pleasing, but is it his squad or his genius determining the league? Ferguson matched off with countless opponents with equal teams or superior squads and more than held his own, how many times do we say that about Pep?

I like elements of what he does, but deification belies circumstances and has created a myth or at least a coach who only has the good extracted from his CV with his constant failures brushed under the rug like they're not happening in real time.

Klopp is doing better than Pep in relative terms, and despite that, he isn't overcoming him - he has to do what Ferguson did with Jose, when a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut with superior resources and squad came along and had to be overcome for him to continue winning.

I find discussion about the football either play to be an aside in this discussion; Pep struggled mightily with 'apex' Jose's peak side (Chelsea), and Klopp's football would last about half a season before total burnout in times gone by where teams did everything in their power to accrue points, rather than naively open themselves up to crushing defeats by superior offensive forces. Klopp constantly bemoans teams that don't 'play' as they're the ones that he tends to struggle more against, so good luck when you have a host of teams doing their damndest to not 'play'. I don't believe he tallies like he does now in those iterations of the league.

Anyway, context is vital in objective discussion about their feats vis-a-vis Ferguson's, without it, the conversation is a redundancy with binary lines of thought that have zero nuance or caveats/asterisks to them.
I understand why United fans want to be attached to this notion, but it's nonsense. There's more English teams getting to the later stages of the Champions League than at any point.

There is also more talent spread across the league than ever. The teams in midtable are stacked with full internationals and poached from the strongest leagues about.

There's no credible argument for saying that, say, your best team in 2008 was playing in a harder league than now. Yes you and Arsenal are considerably worse now, but Liverpool and City are much better. Tottenham were just a bang average team back then, relying on Roman Pavlyuchenko up top, now they're managed by Antonio Conte and have Son and Harry Kane; there was no equivalent midtable team with the strength in depth of current Leicester, West Ham, Wolves, Newcastle.
 

darioterios

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
2,674
Had Buvac stayed and Pep Lijnders not replaced him to be the right-hand man, would Klopp have been able to stay close to (and one time surpassed) Guardiola over the last several reasons?
 

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
16,670
Location
Inside right
I understand why United fans want to be attached to this notion, but it's nonsense. There's more English teams getting to the later stages of the Champions League than at any point.

There is also more talent spread across the league than ever. The teams in midtable are stacked with full internationals and poached from the strongest leagues about.

There's no credible argument for saying that, say, your best team in 2008 was playing in a harder league than now. Yes you and Arsenal are considerably worse now, but Liverpool and City are much better. Tottenham were just a bang average team back then, relying on Roman Pavlyuchenko up top, now they're managed by Antonio Conte and have Son and Harry Kane; there was no equivalent midtable team with the strength in depth of current Leicester, West Ham, Wolves, Newcastle.
As I said in my post, Europe is not as it was and won't be until the next reloading of the superteams: Barcelona are gone; Bayern have dropped a level; Atletico are a pale imitation of themselves; Real are old and playing off of muscle memory and heart; Italian teams are non-entities and you're left with whom?

There are no battles of the titans in anything but name outside of few select ties. You cannot compare this to the mid to late 00's.

Naming a bunch of players or the wealth, when it's spent poorly doesn't mean much. All the stars of even a couple of years ago are fading. Things are not 'better than ever' there's a very clear decline across the board. Let's see what is or is not when these sides reload.
 

Andycoleno9

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
19,334
Location
Croatia
I understand why United fans want to be attached to this notion, but it's nonsense. There's more English teams getting to the later stages of the Champions League than at any point.

There is also more talent spread across the league than ever. The teams in midtable are stacked with full internationals and poached from the strongest leagues about.

There's no credible argument for saying that, say, your best team in 2008 was playing in a harder league than now. Yes you and Arsenal are considerably worse now, but Liverpool and City are much better. Tottenham were just a bang average team back then, relying on Roman Pavlyuchenko up top, now they're managed by Antonio Conte and have Son and Harry Kane; there was no equivalent midtable team with the strength in depth of current Leicester, West Ham, Wolves, Newcastle.
You forget about playing conditions. Football was more rough and tough in 90s. Now, i am not saying this in a way "in old days it was better" or how this is now snowflake era or something. It was just different.
Also in 90s and in early 2000s, teams had 15 or 16 players who played regulary and other were just a fringe backup players. Today every team have 22 internationals. For top teams it is much easier to get 90 points because of that. Today United, City or Pool have bench worth over 400mil.
 

united_99

Takes pleasure in other people's pain
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
7,899
I understand why United fans want to be attached to this notion, but it's nonsense. There's more English teams getting to the later stages of the Champions League than at any point.

There is also more talent spread across the league than ever. The teams in midtable are stacked with full internationals and poached from the strongest leagues about.

There's no credible argument for saying that, say, your best team in 2008 was playing in a harder league than now. Yes you and Arsenal are considerably worse now, but Liverpool and City are much better. Tottenham were just a bang average team back then, relying on Roman Pavlyuchenko up top, now they're managed by Antonio Conte and have Son and Harry Kane; there was no equivalent midtable team with the strength in depth of current Leicester, West Ham, Wolves, Newcastle.
2006/07 - 3 semi finalist
2007/08 - 3 semi finalists (and could have been 4 if Arsenal and Liverpool had not faced each other in the Quarters)
2008/09 - 3 semi finalists
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
45,921
Location
Canada
I understand why United fans want to be attached to this notion, but it's nonsense. There's more English teams getting to the later stages of the Champions League than at any point.

There is also more talent spread across the league than ever. The teams in midtable are stacked with full internationals and poached from the strongest leagues about.

There's no credible argument for saying that, say, your best team in 2008 was playing in a harder league than now. Yes you and Arsenal are considerably worse now, but Liverpool and City are much better. Tottenham were just a bang average team back then, relying on Roman Pavlyuchenko up top, now they're managed by Antonio Conte and have Son and Harry Kane; there was no equivalent midtable team with the strength in depth of current Leicester, West Ham, Wolves, Newcastle.
That bit is nonsense TBF. The Premier league's peak was the 2nd half of the 2000's. Multiple years where all 4 teams reached the QF or had 3 teams in the semi's, a team in the final, all English final, etc. Between 2004/05 and 2008/09, there was an English team in the final every single year, and a total of 4 different English teams in the finals between that time.

The Premier League is only now getting back to that level, but there's nothing to suggest it's surpassed that level that it was in the late 2000's IMO. The barometer to judge is performances in Europe, and I'd say it's pretty much on par between the two?
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
45,921
Location
Canada
The answer to this question is the coaching/play style is better suited to getting dominance with a superior set of players. Obviously everything moves on and Pep and Klopp have learned from each other to get a bit more dominant, so the tactics are able to get more consistency out of the best teams than before where there was more randomness. If you have a top set of players with a good system nowadays, there really aren't as many upsets as there used to be, and you have to give credit to Pep and Klopp for their coaching in getting the dominance and consistency.

I don't think it has anything to do with player quality or league quality or squad depth. It's just the game has progressed as it always does, and while it's not major, it has progressed enough for teams to get a system that really enforces their superiority and promotes consistency. 2nd, they push each other on so that they keep the mental focus to get to that point (where in the past, some of our sides had some breathing space). It's the same as Sir Alex in the late 2000's finding out how to be more consistent compared to the 90's. It's just progression to give that extra 5% and turn superiority into dominance.
 

united_99

Takes pleasure in other people's pain
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
7,899
Both have like 10+ defenders. And I don’t remember us having 3 of Mahrez/Grealish/Sterling/B.Silva/KdB level players on the bench either.
We had Ronaldo who was better, apart from that the only time we had similar quality/luxury on the bench in any position was in 2008/09 when we had Ronaldo/Rooney/Berbatov/Tevez and the two years when we had Veron.
Apart from that our bench under SAF was filled with academy/bargains/cheap players such as Nicky Butt or Welbeck who were vastly inferior to the first team players.
 

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
5,765
The sad thing is that a lot of posters don't realize how unhealthy and unbalanced the current European footballing environment is and how so much that was brilliant about European football has been lost. Leagues that produced threats or difficult ties have been reduced to cannon fodder, players who should be strengthening rivals or other leagues are happy to sit on the bench or stands at one of the super clubs.

City probably have a stronger squad and more individual quality than any group Utd have had and the only real competition would be between 2007-2009. There is no achievement in this given the unlimited resources and the lack of consequences to a failed transfer, Pep can replace a flop in the next window, move on seamlessly. Brilliant coach, a huge influence on the game but also the most privileged manager/coach ever given players and finances available to him.
 

Hammondo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
4,284
Both have like 10+ defenders. And I don’t remember us having 3 of Mahrez/Grealish/Sterling/B.Silva/KdB level players on the bench either.
We had Ronaldo who was better, apart from that the only time we had similar quality/luxury on the bench in any position was in 2008/09 when we had Ronaldo/Rooney/Berbatov/Tevez and the two years when we had Veron.
Apart from that our bench under SAF was filled with academy/bargains/cheap players such as Nicky Butt or Welbeck who were vastly inferior to the first team players.
Our bench might be better, but our first 11 were quite a lot better. City really don't have an amazing first 11 overall. Compared to historical standout tea s that is.
 

Hammondo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
4,284
The answer to this question is the coaching/play style is better suited to getting dominance with a superior set of players. Obviously everything moves on and Pep and Klopp have learned from each other to get a bit more dominant, so the tactics are able to get more consistency out of the best teams than before where there was more randomness. If you have a top set of players with a good system nowadays, there really aren't as many upsets as there used to be, and you have to give credit to Pep and Klopp for their coaching in getting the dominance and consistency.

I don't think it has anything to do with player quality or league quality or squad depth. It's just the game has progressed as it always does, and while it's not major, it has progressed enough for teams to get a system that really enforces their superiority and promotes consistency. 2nd, they push each other on so that they keep the mental focus to get to that point (where in the past, some of our sides had some breathing space). It's the same as Sir Alex in the late 2000's finding out how to be more consistent compared to the 90's. It's just progression to give that extra 5% and turn superiority into dominance.
Yea I agree. It's less about individuals and more about the collective unit
 

Charrockero

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
204
Supports
Chivas de Guadalajara
Wenger wouldn't have won the league if Klopp or Guardiola had been around back then.
I’ve never been a fan of Wenger, but give him at least credit for what he achieved at his first 10 years at Arsenal.

Liverpool and City are the equivalent of Arsenal and Man Utd from those ages. But the most successful was United obviously. Wenger tried best as he could and only reached the CL final once.
 

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
5,765
You forget about playing conditions. Football was more rough and tough in 90s. Now, i am not saying this in a way "in old days it was better" or how this is now snowflake era or something. It was just different.
Also in 90s and in early 2000s, teams had 15 or 16 players who played regulary and other were just a fringe backup players. Today every team have 22 internationals. For top teams it is much easier to get 90 points because of that. Today United, City or Pool have bench worth over 400mil.
The squad depth is the key issue, top teams of eras before always had significantly weaker players rounding out their bench or sometimes even in their starting line up. Meant they were far more vulnerable to randoms variables, fatigue, a key player succumbing to injury or a loss of form.

Football was much more fun when the talent was spread more evenly, maybe the very top level was not as high, but the overall product was more interesting. CL football between say, 95-05 was fantastic, numerous challengers every year, upsets, new teams coming up, different styles of play, very few walkovers as we see so often these days.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
46,440
Location
Munich
I understand why United fans want to be attached to this notion, but it's nonsense. There's more English teams getting to the later stages of the Champions League than at any point.

There is also more talent spread across the league than ever. The teams in midtable are stacked with full internationals and poached from the strongest leagues about.

There's no credible argument for saying that, say, your best team in 2008 was playing in a harder league than now. Yes you and Arsenal are considerably worse now, but Liverpool and City are much better. Tottenham were just a bang average team back then, relying on Roman Pavlyuchenko up top, now they're managed by Antonio Conte and have Son and Harry Kane; there was no equivalent midtable team with the strength in depth of current Leicester, West Ham, Wolves, Newcastle.
2004-2005: one EPL team champion, another one in semis
2005-2006: one EPL team in the final.
2006-2007: one EPL team in final, 2 others in semis
2007-2008: one EPL team champion, 1 other in finals, 1 other in semis
2008-2009: one EPL team in final, 2 others in semis.

In terms of doing well in UCL, end of that decade was peak EPL.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
43,434
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
The funny thing is that German posters are underrating SAF in comparison to Pep and Klopp when Heynkes already schooled them both when he managed the Bayern treble winning side. Funny how Guardiola took over from him, added Thiago, Götze and Lewandowski and still managed to make the team worse than it was under Jupp!

In that sense, it's a bit ridiculous to pretend that they are better than SAF because of points totals. Heynkes is the closest managerial personality that I can compare to SAF and he was clearly better than Pep and Klopp.
1 season doesn't make a manager. Otherwise I'd be well within my right to rate Heynekes poorly given he lost in the final to the football genius that was Di Matteo the previous season...

Excellent season by Heynekes the following season... That's it though
 

BerryBerryShrew

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
288
1 season doesn't make a manager. Otherwise I'd be well within my right to rate Heynekes poorly given he lost in the final to the football genius that was Di Matteo the previous season...

Excellent season by Heynekes the following season... That's it though
Highlighted an important bit there. How often has Guardiola been in a CL final for two successive years?
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
43,434
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Highlighted an important bit there. How often has Guardiola been in a CL final for two successive years?
None. He also has 2 trophies. I think most people arguing against Liverpool's dominance, in this thread, would also agree the metric of "how many times have you been in consecutive finals" is a useless one unless those appearances come with a trophy. I'll show you. Zidane has appeared in 3 CL finals back to back. SAF has not done that. Zidane > SAF. See?
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
43,434
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
I think it's important to note that SAF proved that he could rise to the challenge of opponents able to get high point totals in the league. He proved it with Mourinho's side. So I have no issues giving him the benefit of the doubt in that he'd be able to compete with Pep and Klopp given time and resources.

I also do think SAF's strength was as a manager, and in pure coaching Pep and Klopp (and others past and present) are better than him when it comes to coaching. I don't think that is debatable. And in the grand scheme of things, he won enough trophies that his position on the managerial tier is secured, so others being better than him at pure coaching doesn't matter.
 

PepG

Full Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
906
Supports
Ajax
Not sure if you're serious, but Heynckes is hardly a one-season wonder.

He won multiple BL titles and a CL with Real Madrid in what would've normally been his prime.
He is not a one season wonder but he is one of the most overhyped managers exactly because of this short period. He had 30 plus year career as a coach and most of it was nothing to remember. Even when he won the first CL for Real Madrid after over 30 years he finished 4th in La Liga with a team that was a champion of LA Liga the previous season with Capello. Heynckes got sacked from Real despite the Europian Cup because he was just not good enough to be a coach of Madrid. His failures in various countries are not worth mentioning.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
43,434
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Not sure if you're serious, but Heynckes is hardly a one-season wonder.

He won multiple BL titles and a CL with Real Madrid in what would've normally been his prime.
I'm not saying he is a one season wonder. I'm saying that he gets a lot of credit for that "lightning in a bottle" season from Bayern (part Heynekes, part team fueled by the embarrassment of the previous season just running over all opposition), and his failure the previous season gets barely mentioned. That's all.

Of course overall Heynekes was a quality manager.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
17,438
I'm not saying he is a one season wonder. I'm saying that he gets a lot of credit for that "lightning in a bottle" season from Bayern (part Heynekes, part team fueled by the embarrassment of the previous season just running over all opposition), and his failure the previous season gets barely mentioned. That's all.

Of course overall Heynekes was a quality manager.
I don't disagree with any of that - just wasn't sure whether you actually believed he was some kind of Di Matteo style manager (you can never know around these parts).
 

Stretfordender

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
855
Klopp is doing well for Liverpool but one league title in six years is hardly domination.

Anyway surely you can’t include the ‘COVID league title’ as being a success, it’s like winning the league during the war years!!
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
6,120
Supports
Chelsea
The sad thing is that a lot of posters don't realize how unhealthy and unbalanced the current European footballing environment is and how so much that was brilliant about European football has been lost. Leagues that produced threats or difficult ties have been reduced to cannon fodder, players who should be strengthening rivals or other leagues are happy to sit on the bench or stands at one of the super clubs.
The clashes of the big boys with Porto compared to the 00s the main case in point to that.

Back in the Jose Mark 1 era we played at The Dragao twice and lost 1 drew 1. United iirc won 1 lost 1 around those years (and Porto got draws in both games at OT). I think Arsenal played a few times there in that period with no win aswell.

By modern day comparison Klopp's Liverpool have played in The Dragao three times and the aggregate score is 14-2.
 
Last edited:

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
5,765
The clashes of the big boys with Porto compared to the 00s the main case in point to that.

Back in the Jose Mark 1 era we played at The Dragao twice and lost 1 drew 1. United iirc won one lost one around those years (and Porto got draws in both games at OT). I think Arsenal played a few times there in that period with no win aswell.

By modern day comparison Klopp's Liverpool have played in The Dragao three times and the aggregate score is 14-2.
How much more interesting would be the CL be if the footballing environment allowed teams like that Ajax SF squad to grow and develop together or the Mbappe Monaco group, or any of the promising Dortmund squads that have been immediately ripped to bits and absorbed into super squads. Feeder teams in Feeder leagues that we should we impressed with Super teams beating?
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,374
Supports
Liverpool
The sad thing is that a lot of posters don't realize how unhealthy and unbalanced the current European footballing environment is and how so much that was brilliant about European football has been lost. Leagues that produced threats or difficult ties have been reduced to cannon fodder, players who should be strengthening rivals or other leagues are happy to sit on the bench or stands at one of the super clubs.
Similarly, the era of 00s CL is a far cry from 70s/80s European football where provincial clubs (Forest, Villa, Malmö’, Hamburg, Steaua Bucureșt) made waves in the European Cup. Make no mistake, the dye had been cast by the late 90s / early 00s. While matches may have been closer with more upsets happened, I’m not in the spirit of pretending the last 20 odd years have been some kind of egalitarian utopia.
 

matt10000

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
1,098
Location
Salford UK
Who cares, nobody will dominate like Fergie did with Utd.

Pl title went
SAF vs Daglish - SAF won out.
SAF vs Keegan - SAF won out.
SAF vs Wenger - SAF won out.
SAF vs Jose & Chelsea's billions - SAF won out.
SAF vs Whoever City had & all their billions - SAF won out & retired.

I have no doubt that SAF would find a way to beat these two gowls too if he were still around.
Exactly, SAF built team after team, won 13 league titles at Utd and don’t forget he won 3 league titles at Aberdeen at a time when no one but Rangers and Celtic ever won.

Would Plop or Pleb achieve the same at Aberdeen?
 

SportingCP96

Full Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
8,185
Supports
Sporting Clube de Portugal
Probably because both are better coaches than Ferguson and in Pep's case also because he has ridiculous funding behind him.
They are both not better then Ferguson….one hasn’t won a CL in 10 years and his only accomplishments are with goat sides while Klopp has a grand total of 1 league title in like 7 years.
 

2 man midfield

Last Man Standing finalist 2021/22
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
38,516
Location
?
Weaker than when?
15-20 years ago. West Ham went down with 42 points at one point - they had Di Canio, Kanoute and Defoe up front with Joe Cole feeding them. Apart from the odd exception like Sunderland and Derby now and again there weren’t any real properly shit teams that rolled over every week. It goes in cycles of course, but the temptation to say that more TV money must equal a stronger league isn’t necessarily true in my opinion.
 

Bobski

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
5,765
Similarly, the era of 00s CL is a far cry from 70s/80s European football where provincial clubs (Forest, Villa, Malmö’, Hamburg, Steaua Bucureșt) made waves in the European Cup. Make no mistake, the dye had been cast by the late 90s / early 00s. While matches may have been closer with more upsets happened, I’m not in the spirit of pretending the last 20 odd years have been some kind of egalitarian utopia.
You are not wrong, it was trending that way with the Bosman ruling being the beginning of the death rattle of pure European competion, though as a viewer I did enjoy the early CL years with more frequent matches between strong teams. Maybe that makes a hypocrite of me to decry the current state but the final point were the competitive nature of the sport was irretrievably ruined for me was Abramovich.
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,374
Supports
Liverpool
They are both not better then Ferguson….one hasn’t won a CL in 10 years and his only accomplishments are with goat sides while Klopp has a grand total of 1 league title in like 7 years.
There’s a strong argument that neither is better than SAF, but the arguments you’re presenting aren’t anywhere near the most important or interesting points to make as they’re lacking any context eg. Klopp would be walking titles in any other era, Pep has been the victim of the crapshoot of bad luck in the CL.

The better argument for SAF is related to longevity, rebuild, man management, working with kids etc. Reducing things to cold data lacks context and ignores damn luck which is often sold as genius.
 

gorky_utd

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,607
Location
India
There’s a strong argument that neither is better than SAF, but the arguments you’re presenting aren’t anywhere near the most important or interesting points to make as they’re lacking any context eg. Klopp would be walking titles in any other era, Pep has been the victim of the crapshoot of bad luck in the CL.

The better argument for SAF is related to longevity, rebuild, man management, working with kids etc. Reducing things to cold data lacks context and ignores damn luck which is often sold as genius.
Why? He didn't manage it in Bundesliga. His UCL victory so far has been against totenham. It can be argued that 10 years ago he would never win the CL trophy.
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,374
Supports
Liverpool
15-20 years ago. West Ham went down with 42 points at one point - they had Di Canio, Kanoute and Defoe up front with Joe Cole feeding them. Apart from the odd exception like Sunderland and Derby now and again there weren’t any real properly shit teams that rolled over every week. It goes in cycles of course, but the temptation to say that more TV money must equal a stronger league isn’t necessarily true in my opinion.
I think the mid-table mulch of the league is a lot stronger now.

Furthermore, England has all the best coaches, the best facilities, deep squads and a national team that is relatively successful. I think we are seeing a stronger league than ever. The fact that the top two are Europe’s best two adds weight to this.