Why are Pep and Klopp so dominant in the EPL?

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,374
Supports
Liverpool
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.
I’m referring to the fact that he’s hitting points tallies that normally walk the league. If you’re presenting Klopp as anything other than brilliant then I wholeheartedly disagree.
 

matt10000

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
1,098
Location
Salford UK
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.
Do you think 49 trophies spanning four decades , consistently building teams and winning from 1976 to 2011 is damn luck being sold as genius?

St Mirren
Scottish First Division (1): 1976-77.

Aberdeen
Scottish Premier Division (3): 1979-80, 1983-84, 1984-85.

Scottish Cup (4): 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86.

Scottish League Cup (1): 1985-86.

European Cup Winners' Cup (1): 1982-83.

European Super Cup (1): 1983

Manchester United
Premier League (13): 1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13.

FA Cup (5): 1989-90, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1998-99, 2003-04.

League Cup (4): 1991-92, 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10.

Charity/Community Shield (10): 1990 (shared), 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011.

Champions League (2): 1998-99, 2007-08.

European Cup Winners' Cup (1): 1990-91.

European Super Cup (1): 1991.

Intercontinental Cup (1): 1999.

FIFA Club World Cup (1): 2008.
 

He'sRaldo

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
3,114
Main reason is tactical fouling. It's the key aspect that allows the top teams to keep a clean sheet while still pushing 6-7 players up into the attack.

"Dominant" football nowadays goes like: Push almost every player up, when you lose the ball try to win it back immediately, and if the opponent breaches the first line of pressure then simply foul/roughhouse them and reorganize defensively during the resulting freekick. Then when the freekick goes nowhere, regain possession and start all over again.

If football ever decides to stop being disingenuous and award every tactical/unsportsmanlike foul with a yellow card, the whole high press possession tactic will become much less potent than it currently is. The result will be a lot more "upsets" where talented players from lesser teams will actually be able to counter attack into acres of space without the attack being immediately snuffed out.

That really should be the next football evolution. Reducing the potency of the fouling & reorganizing tactic.
 

SportingCP96

Full Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
8,185
Supports
Sporting Clube de Portugal
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.
At what point do do stop calling peps CL failures as bad luck?

At what point is it a re occurring theme?

This is fact, Pep success includes coaching the greatest club side of all time, the richest and best team in Germany by a large margin, and coaching one of the richest clubs in the world with infinite resources. For as good of a coach as he is (an all time great) he is also overrated when it comes to comparisons with the GOATS.

Do you think Pep would do Jack shit at United without the resources he is offered at City? United with pep still would not Have got top 4.

Klopp has more of a leg to stand on as he built BVB and LIverpool.
 

matt10000

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
1,098
Location
Salford UK
Do you think 49 trophies spanning four decades , consistently building teams and winning from 1976 to 2011 is damn luck being sold as genius?

St Mirren
Scottish First Division (1): 1976-77.

Aberdeen
Scottish Premier Division (3): 1979-80, 1983-84, 1984-85.

Scottish Cup (4): 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86.

Scottish League Cup (1): 1985-86.

European Cup Winners' Cup (1): 1982-83.

European Super Cup (1): 1983

Manchester United
Premier League (13): 1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13.

FA Cup (5): 1989-90, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1998-99, 2003-04.

League Cup (4): 1991-92, 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10.

Charity/Community Shield (10): 1990 (shared), 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011.

Champions League (2): 1998-99, 2007-08.

European Cup Winners' Cup (1): 1990-91.

European Super Cup (1): 1991.

Intercontinental Cup (1): 1999.

FIFA Club World Cup (1): 2008.
I agree with myself here, phenomenal record.
 

gorky_utd

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,618
Location
India
I’m referring to the fact that he’s hitting points tallies that normally walk the league. If you’re presenting Klopp as anything other than brilliant then I wholeheartedly disagree.
I am not saying he is not a good coach. But at the same time how do you compare teams from different era? Maybe 10 years ago he would have won all the league titles but at the same time he wouldn't have enjoyed sucess in champions league.
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,374
Supports
Liverpool
Do you think 49 trophies spanning four decades , consistently building teams and winning from 1976 to 2011 is damn luck being sold as genius?

St Mirren
Scottish First Division (1): 1976-77.

Aberdeen
Scottish Premier Division (3): 1979-80, 1983-84, 1984-85.

Scottish Cup (4): 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86.

Scottish League Cup (1): 1985-86.

European Cup Winners' Cup (1): 1982-83.

European Super Cup (1): 1983

Manchester United
Premier League (13): 1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13.

FA Cup (5): 1989-90, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1998-99, 2003-04.

League Cup (4): 1991-92, 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10.

Charity/Community Shield (10): 1990 (shared), 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011.

Champions League (2): 1998-99, 2007-08.

European Cup Winners' Cup (1): 1990-91.

European Super Cup (1): 1991.

Intercontinental Cup (1): 1999.

FIFA Club World Cup (1): 2008.
Not sure how you’ve interpreted my post as a criticism of SAF. My point about longevity relates to your trophy count. However, my point about dumb luck is that random events happen in football and it’s reversed engineered as being an act of genius. Both SAF’s European Cup wins were unambiguously fortunate. That doesn’t take anything away from his greatness, but it’s true.
 

ShinjiNinja26

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
6,848
Location
Location, Location
Do you think 49 trophies spanning four decades , consistently building teams and winning from 1976 to 2011 is damn luck being sold as genius?

St Mirren
Scottish First Division (1): 1976-77.

Aberdeen
Scottish Premier Division (3): 1979-80, 1983-84, 1984-85.

Scottish Cup (4): 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1985-86.

Scottish League Cup (1): 1985-86.

European Cup Winners' Cup (1): 1982-83.

European Super Cup (1): 1983

Manchester United
Premier League (13): 1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13.

FA Cup (5): 1989-90, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1998-99, 2003-04.

League Cup (4): 1991-92, 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10.

Charity/Community Shield (10): 1990 (shared), 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011.

Champions League (2): 1998-99, 2007-08.

European Cup Winners' Cup (1): 1990-91.

European Super Cup (1): 1991.

Intercontinental Cup (1): 1999.

FIFA Club World Cup (1): 2008.
The man was an absolute genius. No one compares!
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,374
Supports
Liverpool
At what point do do stop calling peps CL failures as bad luck?

At what point is it a re occurring theme?

This is fact, Pep success includes coaching the greatest club side of all time, the richest and best team in Germany by a large margin, and coaching one of the richest clubs in the world with infinite resources. For as good of a coach as he is (an all time great) he is also overrated when it comes to comparisons with the GOATS.

Do you think Pep would do Jack shit at United without the resources he is offered at City? United with pep still would not Have got top 4.

Klopp has more of a leg to stand on as he built BVB and LIverpool.
Pep comfortably hits top 4 at United.
 

united_99

Takes pleasure in other people's pain
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
7,899
Not sure how you’ve interpreted my post as a criticism of SAF. My point about longevity relates to your trophy count. However, my point about dumb luck is that random events happen in football and it’s reversed engineered as being an act of genius. Both SAF’s European Cup wins were unambiguously fortunate. That doesn’t take anything away from his greatness, but it’s true.
How so? We dominated both finals and most of the other games. Yep Terry slip was lucky but so was Lampard’s goal. He also remained unbeaten in both seasons. Also being in the CL group of death in 99 was anything but lucky.

Now what I would call pure luck is the ref’s performance in the 2009 semi Barca v Chelsea or in 2011 semi red card against Madrid.
So Pep himself was extremely lucky at times and at the same time SAF like other managers including Pep unlucky in a couple of other seasons where they went out due to fine margins (red cards, wrong offside, away goals, etc.)
 

Andycoleno9

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
19,339
Location
Croatia
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.
They are? I missed that "fact"
 

fergies coat

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
2,119
Location
Wythenshawe, Manchester
Not sure how you’ve interpreted my post as a criticism of SAF. My point about longevity relates to your trophy count. However, my point about dumb luck is that random events happen in football and it’s reversed engineered as being an act of genius. Both SAF’s European Cup wins were unambiguously fortunate. That doesn’t take anything away from his greatness, but it’s true.
None of them Cl wins was lucky. 1999 we played Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Inter and Juventes and remained undefeated. We won the league in both our European Cup wins with Sir Alex.

You talk about Klopp's points total saying he would win the league if it wasn't for City, but he hasn't has he? So it's a stupid point which doesn't matter. United would of won two more European cups if it wasn't for Barcelona. Its all if's and maybe's
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
17,438
I’m referring to the fact that he’s hitting points tallies that normally walk the league.
For the record, I do think Klopp is brilliant - but this points tally thing is really neither here nor there in a historical context.

Fergie's treble team grabbed less points than Leicester '16.
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,374
Supports
Liverpool
For the record, I do think Klopp is brilliant - but this points tally thing is really neither here nor there in a historical context.

Fergie's treble team grabbed less points than Leicester '16.
The broader point is that Klopp would be winning leagues if not up against a sterile sports washing monster.
 

matt10000

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
1,098
Location
Salford UK
Not sure how you’ve interpreted my post as a criticism of SAF. My point about longevity relates to your trophy count. However, my point about dumb luck is that random events happen in football and it’s reversed engineered as being an act of genius. Both SAF’s European Cup wins were unambiguously fortunate. That doesn’t take anything away from his greatness, but it’s true.
For every time SAF was lucky there was another time when he was unlucky just the law of averages.

There is always an element of luck in cup competitions but you make your own luck by stacking the odds in your favour by being in a position to win in the first place.

Is it luck that his teams never gave up? No which is why they scored twice at the end in Champions league final, they scored late frequently because of the mentality he instilled.

You could say he was unlucky to lose two best players for the final? He was and they didn’t play great in that game but he still found a way to give them the maximum chNce to win by making the right substitutions and instilling the never give up mentality. That was not luck, what was luck was that it worked inthis game but it wasn’t the first time that we had seen this from utd by a long shot and that was because you an only get lucky if you create a situation where can get lucky

Luck and unluck averages out always.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
17,438
None of them Cl wins was lucky. 1999 we played Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Inter and Juventes and remained undefeated. We won the league in both our European Cup wins with Sir Alex.
He's not saying they were "lucky" in the sense that we had no business winning the CL, though.

More in the sense that we had that rub of the green you absolutely need in some cases - as in, it could have very easily gone the other way: both finals were decided by very fine margins.
 

Red the Bear

Something less generic
Joined
Aug 26, 2021
Messages
3,214
I prefer to put more weight on league achievements to be honest, there's just too much luck involved in cup competitions.
Anyway I prefer klopp as his club building has proven to extremely potent and he's done it on a relatively low cost as well.

Both great manager who i hope we screw over in the coming years.
 

matt10000

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
1,098
Location
Salford UK
The broader point is that Klopp would be winning leagues if not up against a sterile sports washing monster.
I agree about the sterile sports washing monster but you are assuming that if you remove the city squad then these players wouldn’t be making other teams more competitive.
 

united_99

Takes pleasure in other people's pain
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
7,899
I prefer to put more weight on league achievements to be honest, there's just too much luck involved in cup competitions.
Anyway I prefer klopp as his club building has proven to extremely potent and he's done it on a relatively low cost as well.

Both great manager who i hope we screw over in the coming years.
I’d also prefer Klopp to Pep if I had the choice who joined United now.
But Klopp does need more league titles if he wants to be considered among the best long term, because in 5, 10, 15 years hardly anyone will say “Klopp almost won the league in a couple of seasons and that’s why he is great”
Ancelotti has won more league titles than Klopp (Klopp still has enough time) and this is still held against him despite his 3 CL wins.
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,374
Supports
Liverpool
Definitely - but, again, that has nothing to do with points totals.
The points tallies are a good indicator of competitiveness. If Liverpool were finishing 2nd but 18pts off top then my point would carry less weight. Getting 97pts and not winning the league is extraordinary and worthy of note in the context of this debate.
 

gorky_utd

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,618
Location
India
The points tallies are a good indicator of competitiveness. If Liverpool were finishing 2nd but 18pts off top then my point would carry less weight. Getting 97pts and not winning the league is extraordinary and worthy of note in the context of this debate.
It could also mean that the other 18 teams are Cannon fodder and this is the worst EPL in terms of quality.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
17,438
The points tallies are a good indicator of competitiveness. If Liverpool were finishing 2nd but 18pts off top then my point would carry less weight. Getting 97pts and not winning the league is extraordinary and worthy of note in the context of this debate.
Yes, I agree with that. If you're comparing teams competing in the same league, at the same time, it's a useful indicator. Finishing 2nd on close to 100 points is obviously more impressive than what we did under Ole and Mourinho.

However, if you're comparing teams from different eras (or even different seasons within the same era) - it's largely...er, pointless.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
17,438
It could also mean that the other 18 teams are Cannon fodder and this is the worst EPL in terms of quality.
That clearly isn't the case, though. The overall quality of the league was much worse a few seasons ago. It was downright shabby for several seasons around the time when Leicester won it.
 

abundance

Full Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
362
Supports
Inter
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.
Well actually, you can very well compare today to the mid to late '00, what you say about current situation applies perfectly to that era as well.

Real and Bayern were at their lowest of the last 25 years, Rijkaard's Barcelona had a very short peak in 2006, Atletico were broke, Milan peaked in 2005 and after that was running on hearth and pride like Real nowadays, Juventus were erased in 2006, Inter were perennial underachievers/not fit for Europe until that perfect season in 2010...

(And btw, in those five consecutive finals, the only time an English club entered the pitch as favourite, it was when facing another english club...)
 

VeevaVee

despite the protests, wears Ugg boots
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
44,731
Location
Manchester
I think their motivational qualities are their strongest asset and often overlooked.

Coupled with a mixture of good staff (transfers, coaching), good tactics, and a club willing to buy players, their motivational qualities are what gets the most from the talent in the form of players doing what they’re supposed to and putting the required effort in.
 

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,374
Supports
Liverpool
Yes, I agree with that. If you're comparing teams competing in the same league, at the same time, it's a useful indicator. Finishing 2nd on close to 100 points is obviously more impressive than what we did under Ole and Mourinho.

However, if you're comparing teams from different eras (or even different seasons within the same era) - it's largely...er, pointless.
I agree about comparing eras. 90s PL was probably significantly weaker until about 1998 due to coaching, money, foreign imports - this was exacerbated by Russian money in 2003. The exponential growth in wealth since then means it’s unfair to compare certain eras to others.

I think the current PL is probably stronger from a mid table perspective. Most PL clubs are richer than many famous European clubs
 

gorky_utd

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
1,618
Location
India
Worst? Since 1888, 1992, 1999, 2010?

Worst is an absolute term.
My point is that you just cannot use point tally to determine that team x would be getting same points in 1900. If this was such unique achievement then how it is possible another team managed to outperform it?
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
6,121
Supports
Chelsea
How so? We dominated both finals and most of the other games.
The first half yes but the second half and ET was ours.

We got outplayed and won 4 years later so what comes around goes around and that but you didn't dominate the whole game.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
26,628
I think variety is dead in the EPL and it hurts the competition while making it easier for top sides to just plan A and nothing else since plan A works against so many similar sides now.
Wengers Arsenal would be utterly dominant in this era imo
 

united_99

Takes pleasure in other people's pain
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
7,899
The first half yes but the second half and ET was ours.

We got outplayed and won 4 years later so what comes around goes around and that but you didn't dominate the whole game.
Can’t find many stats at first glance on that game but based on the once I found the only stats where you were leading were corners, shots off target, shots blocked and fouls committed.
But yeah we weren’t clearly better or anything, rather slightly. I remember we could have been 2-0 up in the first half and instead conceded a 45 minute equaliser. After that we weren’t as dominant.

And agree, while you were lucky in that final against Bayern you guys reached a final and several semi finals previously where you lost out marginally/were unlucky. So on balance the win was “deserved/fair”.
 

Physiocrat

Has No Mates
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
7,350
Main reason is tactical fouling. It's the key aspect that allows the top teams to keep a clean sheet while still pushing 6-7 players up into the attack.

"Dominant" football nowadays goes like: Push almost every player up, when you lose the ball try to win it back immediately, and if the opponent breaches the first line of pressure then simply foul/roughhouse them and reorganize defensively during the resulting freekick. Then when the freekick goes nowhere, regain possession and start all over again.

If football ever decides to stop being disingenuous and award every tactical/unsportsmanlike foul with a yellow card, the whole high press possession tactic will become much less potent than it currently is. The result will be a lot more "upsets" where talented players from lesser teams will actually be able to counter attack into acres of space without the attack being immediately snuffed out.

That really should be the next football evolution. Reducing the potency of the fouling & reorganizing tactic.
I agree with that. There really needs to be a huge crack down on tactical fouls.
 

General_Elegancia

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2021
Messages
888
Location
Bangkok, Thailand
Supports
Liverpool, AC Milan
Main reason is tactical fouling. It's the key aspect that allows the top teams to keep a clean sheet while still pushing 6-7 players up into the attack.

"Dominant" football nowadays goes like: Push almost every player up, when you lose the ball try to win it back immediately, and if the opponent breaches the first line of pressure then simply foul/roughhouse them and reorganize defensively during the resulting freekick. Then when the freekick goes nowhere, regain possession and start all over again.

If football ever decides to stop being disingenuous and award every tactical/unsportsmanlike foul with a yellow card, the whole high press possession tactic will become much less potent than it currently is. The result will be a lot more "upsets" where talented players from lesser teams will actually be able to counter attack into acres of space without the attack being immediately snuffed out.

That really should be the next football evolution. Reducing the potency of the fouling & reorganizing tactic.

And that’s a key why City has almost 60 percents to 70 percents possessions every game. There are a lot of evidences to support my theory about Pep’s tactical fouls. You know that City’s attackers must learn how to defense, tackles, interception and making fouls in a proper way. They have specialist at this department for train their players to master the art of tactical fouls(let’s see Bernardo, KDB, Fernandinho or even Jesus),they have practiced for several years.

It’s probably a dark art but very interesting and worth enough to study or breakdown. I’ve been studied about this arts and found that it’s pretty hard to master at it ( City’s midfield structures are very different compare to Liverpool’s midfield structure).