Has Klopp flopped in England

1 European Cup aswell. He got Liverpool to punch above their weight. They shouldnt be competing with the likes of Man City,Man Utd, Chelsea, and even Newcastle now.

Can't compete with teams buying 15-18 players.


Klopp has done the job, but how can they stay ahead
of man city long term?

Same as Arsenal and just about anybody else
these days, win an odd title, qualify champs league
and you are performing.

Pep... Hold my beer

England not Europe. You can't spend 60 million on a goalkeeper, 70 million on a centre back, 70 million on a striker plus a few 40 mil midfielders like Jota and Diaz and 40 mil for Konate and say they shouldn't be competing, seems to me Klopp's playing style has burnt them out, couple with the promotion on youngsters not quite good enough, Carvalho and Jones look like mid table players, Harvey Elliot however looks good enough to make the grade.

Mes out fishing again.

Very much they are burnt out, or close to it.

If they ain't in contention why get up every week
in league?... Its gone, more or less.

Big effort in cups, try to get in contention
in league again next season.


Oh, and World Cup is coming up, don't want to
be injured for that either.

Thing is, of course, if they don't pick up soon,
they'll be at max effort simply to make top 4.

Its a big loss to these teams if they miss that.

in a word, no.

Oct 22, 2022 -- 12:14PM, ----you-have-to-laugh--- wrote:

Can't compete with teams buying 15-18 players.Klopp has done the job, but how can they stay aheadof man city long term?Same as Arsenal and just about anybody elsethese days, win an odd title, qualify champs leagueand you are performing.Pep... Hold my beer

Yep, the likes of Liverpool have got no chance long term. They got lucky in finding the knack of scouting the right players before most others but they're all catching up now and copying their methods. When you add in City and Newcastle's spending power then it's inevitable they will be fighting for titles over the next couple of decades while the supporting cast will get lucky and have spells, sort of like how Benitez did v well at Valencia while both Barca and Real were in a slump. It'll only ever be temporary.

(amusing to see an Arsenal fan of all people avoiding net spend and going with the gross figure btw)

Klopps diddy double was when he was goin for the quad, to beat fergies perfect tweble back in '99

Now it's all very much mid-table mediocrity that will always rattle in a kopite 'ead.
(just ask porkypine)


Klopp should just keep on comparing all the brave docs n nurses whom refused the Jab as drunken drivers

net spend is political speak, you can't spend hundreds of millions on players, moving on dead wood, and say 'we can't compete Guv'. There was Coutinho, one player, went for 150 mil, Liverpool bought 4 players with it, Robertson, Salah, Van Dijk and Ox.

Klopp's left a big mark on the club, but in terms of raw success, 1 title and 2 cups in 8 years in England has been underwhelming, City bought Grealish for 100 mil, but he's largely been inconsequential. Foden much more important and he's homegrown.

I would think that if Fergie had of been in charge the last 8 years he'd have won quite a bit more silverware.

Aah, it's a trolling expedition. Feel a bit daft now. Over and out.

Not counting Champions League performanc as if it is a footnote invalidates this thread (if there was anything genuine about it to begin with).

Were Real Madrid disappointing in the 2010s because they only won 2 titles? They  won 4 CLs and they wouldn't have wanted to swap that around.

In any case Klopp won his 1 title against probably the most dominant team in English league history. And took it to the last day twice.

Also, you judge the success of a manager not just on what he won or competed for, but against what he was expected to win or compete for.

I recall on here, summer 2015, arguing with Liverpool fans who were saying that if Brendan Rodgers consistently finished 5th, with the occasional 4th, he should continue indefinitely, as that was the ceiling of Liverpool's potential, given the clubs who had more money.

which part of England do people not understand, not Europe, England. Klopp has not flopped at Liverpool, but in England 1 meaningful trophy in 8 years doesn't seem good enough, they've proven they can indeed compete with City with precious title races given the huge expenditure on players, Pep loses a lot of battles against Klopp but more often than not, wins the war.

No idea why you're singling & digging out Klopp.

Liverpool have done well keeping so close when Citeh are effectively state owned.

his constant whinging and excuse making has started to grate, nothing against the club. Pep is just a chequebook manager, Klopp less so, but he's managing a club knowing full well what the competition is all about, then starts to complain about them when he starts to fall away, poor form.

Bug English clubs are judged on what they do in the premier league and the CL, not just one or the other.

But even just taking the league only, how has Klopp been a flop? Which clubs have done better than Liverpool?

City have 4 titles.
Liverpool have 1 with 2 other title challenges that went to the wire.

Chelsea have 1 title, in 2017, and have not been a factor since.

No challenge at all from United or Arsenal.

Exactly tobe.

Mes can only be fishing.

Concedes that "Pep is just a chequebook" manager but expects Klopp to compete (why just him btw?).

Does Mes think that that every other manager in the EPL didn't rate Haaland or was it the £500k per offered by the oil state why he ended up at Citeh?

*per week

And we lost one title with 97 points, which was painful. And klopp has a won a few things that wenger can only dream about.

Liverpool under Klopp have more than enough money to compete. They made over £100m from last year's CL alone and not the first time he's got them to a final. Spending is not a guarantee of success. The likes of Klopp and Pep are. Newc don't have that and are still miles away from those two. City didn't before Pep and may not after he's gone. Pool should do everything to hold onto Klopp. He's worth about £200m a year to them.

He's tactically not great, but he did win a European Cup and he transformed an average team into World Champions.
I don't even think it's about players not "being up for it", they just aren't as good as people think they are
VVD for e.g. being touted as the world's greatest ever defender, one knee injury and he's a different player
Trent "the best right back of all time" cannot defend, and it's questionable even how good he is at passing etc.
they're still having to play Milner, he wouldn't get in a lot of PL teams.
The kids I agree, Jones, Elliott, Carvalho, all look good in isolation, one at a time, but 3 of them on the pitch
at the same time is overkill. Carvalho and Elliott I see as forwards playing in midfield
Really the main issue is the midfield. Henderson's legs went a couple of seasons ago.
The team seems tired, fatigued, bored, Salah is on the decline, the new forwards look ok. Nunez is a handful
Diaz I think is too selfish, he does have quality, but he'll never be on the same level as Sadio Mane in terms of goalscoring.
we're basically seeing a decline in every area. Even Robertson doesn't look as good now. Alisson is the only one maintaining his level.
That said, the money that City have, cannot be competed with. The Premier League should introduce a salary or transfer cap to try and
preserve the competitivity of the Premier League, however they won't do this.

They made over £100m from last year's CL alone

Maybe, but doesn't mean they get it to spend on players. FSG don't do that.

Yes, Liverpool might've made £100m but that was due to success on the pitch.

Citeh are state owned; their business model isn't reliant on continued success on the pitch.

Of course "spending is not a guarantee of success" but it certainly is the major factor in winning.

Why do you think Haaland ended up at Citeh rather than Liverpool?

Do you think Liverpool offered to pay him more than £500k a week & he opted for Citeh instead?

As for Newc, give them time. Took Citeh 4 years to win the EPL after being nationalised.

Klopp has been a huge asset to the Prem, his style of play, the only team to challenge City, without him the image would have been Pep coming over here and pissing over the league when in reality all the trophies he's won are perched up on top of a mountain of oil money. The point being this, Klopp has proven given what he has spent, 605 mil, is that he can assemble a team that could compete year in and out, but has 1 league title from 8 to show for it, City kept edging them. Therefore you can only reflect that his time in England in terms of trophies is poor and underwhelming, even the two cup wins were draws, only won on pens. If you want to talk about Europe then yes, the 2019 win was a great win as they came through a difficult group, they beat Munich away in the knockouts, thrashed Barca 4-0, thrashed Porto and were even the better team in 0-3 away loss strangely enough, the final was a given however.

He's won as many league titles as Ranieri and only 1 more than Hasenhuttl.

Stop fishing mes ffs.

Why you singling out Klopp?

How many EPLs have Arsenal, ManU & Spurs won having spent similar amounts to Liverpool?

In the Pep/Citeh era obviously.

.
https://www.footballtransfers.com/en/transfer-news/uk-premier-league/2022/02/manchester-united-news-man-utds-10-year-net-transfer-spend-tops-1bn

I don't think Liverpool were interested in Haaland and vice versa. Haaland is on a reported 800k+ a week if you include bonuses, partly because of the low release clause in his Dortmund contract (Nunez cost the same). Just because they can't compete with City financially doesn't mean they can't compete on the pitch, they have done that for the last few years.

I wouldn't say money is the biggest factor in the Pep/Klopp era, the manager is. Nobody else can compete with those two. And Klopp was able to compete with Pep on a net spend of something like £20m a year average by the time he won the league. United are the biggest spenders of the lot and haven't won the league in a decade.

Hence why mes was talking bollocks.

Couldn't understand why the finger was pointed just at Klopp when he has been the best of the also-rans.

Like slagging off anyone who came 2nd to Usain Bolt.

Haaland is on a reported 800k+ a week

Might explain why LFC weren't interested don't you think?

They don't have the oil & gas money of state behind them.

ffs United have had manager after manager after manager, each one wearing the clothes of the previous one, no stability, no time to mould the club into their own shape, Arsenal moved onto Emery then Arteta, the time and the money factor doesn't compare to Klopp's who's been afforded time and money, he can be compared directly to Pep, similar amounts of time charge, huge sums of money spent, 1 title in 8 years is a poor return, they should have won more, they already proved they could compete on the pitch for the last few years, but as said before, Pep kept edging him whilst picking up a bucket load of cups. Klopp fanboys need to reign it in.

So in short, an Arteta is great thread ffs

1 title in 8 years is a poor return, they should have won more,

Why should they?

I didn't make the point that Liverpool can compete with City in the transfer market, so I don't know why you keep harping on about Haaland not going to Liverpool.

I said they can compete with City which they clearly have done on the pitch for years.

Liverpool can't afford and wouldn't pay those wages even if they could. But I'd say Haaland living in Manchester as a young kid while his influential father played for City might have had something to do with it too.

City also offloaded the wages of Sterling, Zinch, Jesus, Fernandinho and Torres in Jan, so it's not as if they are bankrolling the wages from the owners. That's prob upwards of 600k a week they offloaded to make way for Haaland's wages. Liverpool elected to keep Salah and bump up his wages instead. They were never going to do that and sign Haaland. The real fee for Haaland is prob about €150m but with a €60m reported release clause you just pay him the extra €90m in wages over 5 years, that why the wages are so high and that's why Raiola negotiated those clauses. He did the same when he moved from Molde to Salzburg and apparently why United lost interest when he moved to Dortmund.

Oct 23, 2022 -- 4:45PM, mesmerised wrote:

ffs United have had manager after manager after manager, each one wearing the clothes of the previous one, no stability, no time to mould the club into their own shape, Arsenal moved onto Emery then Arteta, the time and the money factor doesn't compare to Klopp's who's been afforded time and money, he can be compared directly to Pep, similar amounts of time charge, huge sums of money spent, 1 title in 8 years is a poor return, they should have won more, they already proved they could compete on the pitch for the last few years, but as said before, Pep kept edging him whilst picking up a bucket load of cups. Klopp fanboys need to reign it in.

How is it Klopp's problem that other teams have changed manager?

The fact remains Citeh are state owned & have unlimited funds at their disposal.

You've even said Pep is a cheque book manager.

Give it up mes.

lurka,

& as I've asked, why are you & mes singling out Klopp?

Klopp has given Citeh a greater challenge than any of the other so-called big clubs.

Have a look at what I posted at 3:21.

So basically, although Citeh are a state owned club who can afford to pay well over the odds in transfer fees & wages to secure the best players, other teams without such resources, especially Klopp & LFC, should be ashamed for allowing them to monopolize domestic football?

Nobody said it was his fault they changed manager, you're not following.

The point is that because United have so many different managers and none them given as long as Klopp to build their own squad, you cannot then compare expenditure and success with Liverpool. The only two clubs you can do it  with, is City and Liverpool, both manager have completely their own squads, been at their respective clubs for 7/8 years and spent hundreds of millions, that's the fair comparison. Comparing them to United where each manager has had to keep working with the previous managers' players, is a false comparison.

Finally mes you have answered your own question. Klopp is still there while other clubs managers have come and gone. So the answer is YES. End of thread.

Or NO rather looking at the original question.

Liverpool could not defend for toffee pre Klopp or they would have won  the title in 2013/14 season under Brendan Rodgers.

Mignolet, Lovren and other low grade defenders and keepers in squad would too often implode and result in the loss of points against lesser opposition, the teams City would nearly always brush aside. Liverpool even with arguably the best player in the league at the time in Suarez were still thwarted by their shortcomings in defence.

So Klopp came in and the issue with a bit of patience was sorted with VVD and Alisson.Robertson was picked up for peanuts and TAA obviously came through the ranks. All of a sudden the defence was transformed. In TAA's case his main attribute was the transition from defence to attack which was potent in a high pressing high energy brand of football Klopp installed.

Salah 36.9 mill which was a club record transfer lol that tells you the vast chasm that has developed between Liverpool, City,Chlesea,Utd.

Mane 34 mill from southampton at the time in 2016 relative peanuts compared to other clubs.

Diaz 37 mill up to 45 mill add ons more recently and of course the big one Nunez 64mill with around 21 potentially in add ons are these in the context of pretty low spends over last few seasons really meaning Liverpool should be winning titles regularly??

The FACTS of spends and net spends over the past 5 seasons 2018/19 to 2022/23 inclusive...

1. Manchester United
Spent: £701.39m
Received: £156.09m
Net spend: £545.3m

2. Arsenal
Spent: £563.77m
Received: £123.39m
Net spend: £440.38m

3. Chelsea
Spent: £808.19m
Received: £425.17m
Net spend: £383.02m

4. West Ham
Spent: £478.71m
Received: £123.02m
Net spend: £355.69m

5. Tottenham Hotspur
Spent: £472.32m
Received: £140.87m
Net spend: £331.45m

6. Newcastle United

Spent: £394.34m
Received: £78.27m
Net spend: £316.07m

7. Aston Villa
Spent: £431.79m
Received: £171.83m
Net spend: £259.97m

8. Wolves
Spent: £442.31m
Received: £193.95m
Net spend: £248.36m

9. Liverpool
Spent: £408.56m
Received: £191.94m
Net spend: £216.61m

10. Manchester City
Spent: £616.96m
Received: £413.06m
Net spend: £203.9m

I suppose the OP is going to tell me that despite City spending over 200 mill more on players in last 5 seasons it's a slightly better net spend which makes them a more efficient club let alone most of the other clubs in that list that have spent more total and net expenditure.

Klopps missed out on 2 titles by 1 point getting 90+ pts in the process which would always previously win the competition pre Man City/PEP.He's got to 3 champs league finals the first before the defence was sorted then the win and a disappointing final last season which should have been winnable.

I think all in all this is a pretty ludicrous thread on any real logic. If I were the OP I'd just enjoy the season with his team after their spending spree in recent times, Perhaps Aresenal need to be winning titles and champs leagues on those figs with the OP's logic.

Net spend is fine, but then you need to add in wages.


And agents fees..

I think mes has garnered a decent haul tbf.

Klopp is a failure cos he's stayed in his job 7 years & although he's brought relative success to LFC, he hasn't been more successful than state owned Man City.

City were an average/mediocre outfit until 2008. Now they dominate English football.

What do you think changed mes?

I put forward the simple notion up for debate that Klopp may not have been as successful in England as people make out after winning 1 solitary league title in 8 years after spending 605 million on players (incl add ons etc) and people come back at waving a bit of paper with Net spend on it and selective 5 year timeframes

I'd rather Liverpool win the league than City, Chelsea, spuds and United, nothing personal people.

Klopp's brand of football has been an asset to the league, but I remember one German journalist saying when he took over when asked the question about how Klopp is perceived in the country, that he was seen as a 'less intelligent version of Mourinho' (Jose had peak credibility back then), and when you look at lack of plan B's, you do wonder, he's now started to change formation and dropped TAA to steady the ship, which takes out a huge attacking threat, he'd be better off just deploying Trent as a winger as the legs in midfield that used to fill in for him are getting older and more injury prone. Van Dijk hit a worldy of a pass cross pitch in the City game, but his movement doesn't look the same as it did still.

Kind Regards.

It's hardly selective timeframes but what matters is usually the most recent rather than the past the last 5 years spending in football is a lot more relevant thatn 10 years ago.

What do you think the figs show going back 10 years that liverpool total or net spends are bigger than city,chelsea or utd ROFL.

One fo the worst arguments and illogical arguments for a thread on here for sometime which takes some doing

the legs in midfield that used to fill in for him are getting older and more injury prone.

I think the above from your post is spot on though added to mane's missing pressing energy.

There is NO argument logically about the money side of things MES , Liverpool have punched above in that regard in challenging City.

You can have your own opinion about JK tactically that's fine but I can't have on any level the finances argument.

Fair play to mes, he's bagged a decent haul.

lewague title, European cup, fa cup, league cup and you say he is a failure

His net spending and wage budget well below the likes of City, Chelsea and Man Utd.

ffs United have had manager after manager after manager, each one wearing the clothes of the previous one, no stability, no time to mould the club into their own shape, Arsenal moved onto Emery then Arteta, the time and the money factor doesn't compare to Klopp's who's been afforded time and money,

cart before horse logic here.

United have had manager after manager because none of them did a good enough job. Klopp is there after 7 years because he has done a brilliant job.

Unless you think that if Van Gaal was still there he would have won a couple of titles by now.

Klopp/Pool's recruitment has been generally excellent but they have made a big mistake in not reinforcing the midfield since Wijnaldum left. They have an elite pairing in Fabinho and Thiago and are a different team with those two in there. But they are injury prone (Thiago especially who only plays about 1 in 2 league games). The cover in midfield is nowhere near the same level. They have spent big on defence and attack in that period but the midfield has been somewhat neglected.

It is all about money and what we see from Liverpool now is a perfect example, Klopp built a great side and was successful but the money spent on players was always funded by selling first.

Liverpool can't throw 80 millions around here and there to stock up the team again as nation state and United can, they have to be far more selective and gradual and they can't sell all their best players as it's just a case of 1 step forward and 2 back as the Mane sale has shown. Consequently it means that the side that was so successful is having to be rinsed way past its sell by date.

A poorer manager could succeed if money is no barrier but not at Liverpool, Klopp is a great manager who has worked wonders competing with the other big clubs who have a bottomless pit of funds but it is impossible for him to mimic something like fergie did in creating numerous teams without inhibiting success because they can't afford to create the depth needed and can't afford to spend big money without selling top players to create the finance.

Coutinho was one shining jewel in an otherwise largely unsuccessful team so by selling him their was a big upside unlike mow.

Klopp could very well create another great side but with less money there will likely have to be a fallow period as it is built.

just in terms of the players Klopp inherited - this was his first starting eleven
Simon Mignolet, Alberto Moreno, Martin Skrtel, Mamadou Sakho, Nathaniel Clyne, Adam Lallana, Lucas Leiva, Emre Can, Philippe Coutinho, James Milner and Divock Origi.

Pep inherited Aguero, David Silva, Kevin De Bruyne, Ferndhino

so we can all agree that Klopp had the biggest rebuilding job with less resources to do it

Man Utd's net spend is jaw dropping but I suppose the owners have always backed the managers in the transfer market

This fred needs to be binned & forgotten along with mes's Haaland EPL top scorer fred.

One of the few discussion threads on the forum.

Whatever the intent of the op, there's been some decent
contributions.

Cheers.

United have had manager after manager because none of them did a good enough job. Klopp is there after 7 years because he has done a brilliant job.


None of them were afforded the time two do a good job like Klopp was, that's the point, Klopp finished, 8th, 4th and 4th in his first 3 seasons. All those United managers never had the 3 years to get all the players they wanted in, and all the players they wanted out, is Ole's case, he was doing fairly well until he had Ronaldo foisted upon him, even had a great record against Pep compared to most, fist sign of a blip and he was out the door. Every club in Europe would have sacked Arteta last season, now Arsenal are reaping the rewards for 'trusting the process'. All United to do is hit panic stations at first sign of trouble because they're worried about their share price.

there's been some decent contributions.

Unlike that from the Arse team tonight...

OP must be desperately bored to persist with this obvious wind-up...either that or clueless

1-2 at home to Leeds. A new low.

I put it to you, that a man who's spent 8 years in England, spent hundreds of millions of pounds on players, has won 1 single league title, is a flop, and you ask ME if I'M on the wind up are you all smoking crack?

it's time people came to the realisation that Klopp's high octane football simply burns his players out, Pep's tippy tappy football is more productive in the long run, and I say that as someone who can't bare his style of football, but it's worked better. Klopp's won many battles against Pep but Pep often wins the war as born out in the number of league titles won.

As said before, this is just an observation and nothing against the club, I'd rather see Liverpool win the league than Man United, Chelsea, City, Tottenham, but it's looking like they will struggle to finish top 6 at the moment nevermind top 4. Why is Jurgen beyond reproach exactly - and especially odd coming from fans of other clubs on here leaping to his defence. Kind Regards.

to be fair they did create lots of chances and didnt put them away. Mane a huge loss to the team. but yes you make fair points.

think Klopp might be due a change

current form has alomost nothing to do with this thread.

some very valid points there mes

utter bollox imo

Liverpool to win the 2022/23 Champions League, Premier League, FA Cup and EFL Cup    2000/1    William Hill

"1 title in 8 years is a poor return, they should have won more,"

...

"Why should they? "

what's the average outright price for the league they have been under Klopp? Not least this fallacy that at different points in the era XYZ player has been the best in the world // best player in that position in the world

Freedom of the city. You dont get that by being a flop.