Jurgen Klopp

[supercrystal7]

I could pull out a thousand instances where we were unlucky last season that 'if it hadn't been for' we wouldn't have needed Chelsea to do us a favour that day
-If Nasty and Hart hadn't fucked up in Stamford Bridge
-If we'd had a non-corrupt referee at Anfield
-If Fernandinho hadn't slipped at the Emirates and let Flamini get the shot away for the equaliser

etc etc etc etc

YOU WIN NOTHING WITHOUT A BIT OF LUCK, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE.

-If the scum hadn't collapsed against Everton in 2012
-If Defoe hadn't missed the open goal in Eastlands, same season
-If Begovic hadn't let a Yaya shot go straight through his hands in the Britannia.

You could turn all those things around and say them about our last manager, you could even say them about Mercer in '68. In fact, you can say them about every single side to win the Champion's League in the last 20 years bar arguably Barcelona in '94 and '11.

The fact remains that we finished top, because we matched Pool's atacking prowess but we were better defensively and we had far more firepower than the Chavs, ie we fucking deserved it and Manuel should get the credit he deserves for that. not be disparaged on here by you because you want us to get a fucking comedian in as manager.

You're right - Mourinho was very lucky to have strengthened by bringing in Fabregas, Costa, Matic and insisting on Courtois being his number one keeper.

I'm not a Pellegrini out by any stretches of the imagination. He's been a welcome relief after the fireworks of Mancini, but as a club we seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. I'm more than happy to amble along in the top 2 or 3 and compete in the Champs league and domestic cups. You won't find me throwing my toys out of the pram if we don't win the league this season or even next but i would like a manager, a leader, a symbol of the club, who is willing to engage more with the fans as the next City manager. And maybe Klopp is perhaps someone in between the histrionics of Mancini and the greyness of Pellegrini once Pellegrini inevitably moves on.

He was very lucky that Chelsea were more established than us at the time FFP came in and they weren't operating in the transfer market with tied hands, he was also lucky the scum and PSG paid him ludicrous money for Mata and Luiz allowing him to spend. He also blew the league last year with 6/7 games to go by getting his tactics disastrously wrong against Villa and Palace. Unlike our manager, who won the league.

Mourinho has managed Chelsea the second time with tied hands too, but it does not matter, because nobody can put together a team like he can. He got rid of their twice player of the season Mata, because he did not fit his plans and used the money for players he did want. He sold Lukaku and De Bruyne and once again brought in players he wanted. He got lucky with Courtois, but he made the bold decision to make Courtois the no 1 over Cech.

Neither did Chelsea really blow the league. Chelsea had a problem breaking defensive teams all season. It was nothing to do with Mourinho's tactics, but rather down to a weakness in the balance of the squad. They lacked some creativity in the midfield and a top class striker. The only team that can really be said to have blown the title, but even then that is pushing it is Liverpool. Not, because they lost against Chelsea, which is a tough game and anyone can lose, but in the manner of the loss. Mourinho unlike Wenger, who waits too long for the player he wants and Klopp who splashes out too quickly, sacrificed last season to do what was best for Chelsea in the long run. Sadly I think Van Gaal is likewise doing the same thing and will get Hummels and possibly Gundogan in the summer rather than getting inadequate replacements straight away.

Pellegrini has had things far easier than Mourinho and infinitely easier than Mancini. This City team is still Mancini's team except the players are better, because they are maturing. Aguero/Silva/Zabaleta naturally improved as they entered their primes. The club had the winning mentality installed in them by Mancini and were not bottlers. They knew what it took to win cups and league titles. Mourinho has to build a team and instil the winning mentality. Of course the situation is no where near as hard as Mancini, because even if that crop of players had not won a trophies, the club had.

That being said winning a league title is never easy and either is keeping the egos of top players in check. It's not true that any manager can win the league even if they have the best managers, but most top managers can and will. Pulis and Pellegrini were the two most impressive if we take the season in isolation. Pellegrini would have rightfully deserved manager of the year. The coming years will be a bigger test and if he in charge in 2 years then that will be his biggest test when he has to rebuild the squad.

 

[aguero93:20]

You're right - Mourinho was very lucky to have strengthened by bringing in Fabregas, Costa, Matic and insisting on Courtois being his number one keeper.

I'm not a Pellegrini out by any stretches of the imagination. He's been a welcome relief after the fireworks of Mancini, but as a club we seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. I'm more than happy to amble along in the top 2 or 3 and compete in the Champs league and domestic cups. You won't find me throwing my toys out of the pram if we don't win the league this season or even next but i would like a manager, a leader, a symbol of the club, who is willing to engage more with the fans as the next City manager. And maybe Klopp is perhaps someone in between the histrionics of Mancini and the greyness of Pellegrini once Pellegrini inevitably moves on.

He was very lucky that Chelsea were more established than us at the time FFP came in and they weren't operating in the transfer market with tied hands, he was also lucky the scum and PSG paid him ludicrous money for Mata and Luiz allowing him to spend. He also blew the league last year with 6/7 games to go by getting his tactics disastrously wrong against Villa and Palace. Unlike our manager, who won the league.

Mourinho has managed Chelsea the second time with tied hands too, but it does not matter, because nobody can put together a team like he can. He got rid of their twice player of the season Mata, because he did not fit his plans and used the money for players he did want. He sold Lukaku and De Bruyne and once again brought in players he wanted.1. He got lucky with Courtois, but he made the bold decision to make Courtois the no 1 over Cech.

2.Neither did Chelsea really blow the league. Chelsea had a problem breaking defensive teams all season. It was nothing to do with Mourinho's tactics, but rather down to a weakness in the balance of the squad. They lacked some creativity in the midfield and a top class striker. The only team that can really be said to have blown the title, but even then that is pushing it is Liverpool. Not, because they lost against Chelsea, which is a tough game and anyone can lose, but in the manner of the loss. Mourinho unlike Wenger, who waits too long for the player he wants and Klopp who splashes out too quickly, sacrificed last season to do what was best for Chelsea in the long run. Sadly I think Van Gaal is likewise doing the same thing and will get Hummels and possibly Gundogan in the summer rather than getting inadequate replacements straight away.

3.Pellegrini has had things far easier than Mourinho and infinitely easier than Mancini. This City team is still Mancini's team except the players are better, because they are maturing. Aguero/Silva/Zabaleta naturally improved as they entered their primes. The club had the winning mentality installed in them by Mancini and were not bottlers. They knew what it took to win cups and league titles. Mourinho has to build a team and instil the winning mentality. Of course the situation is no where near as hard as Mancini, because even if that crop of players had not won a trophies, the club had.

That being said winning a league title is never easy and either is keeping the egos of top players in check. It's not true that any manager can win the league even if they have the best managers, but most top managers can and will. Pulis and Pellegrini were the two most impressive if we take the season in isolation. Pellegrini would have rightfully deserved manager of the year. The coming years will be a bigger test and if he in charge in 2 years then that will be his biggest test when he has to rebuild the squad.

1. Courtious has let in more goals than Cech

2. Chelsea were in the lead with seven games to go and the easiest run in on paper, they were far too defensive in 3 games and had no plan B. They dropped points, they finished 3rd. Pelle fine tuned our tactics to suit the squad better with Aguero not fit and Jovetic/Negredo out of form and won 5 in a row to win us the league. Mourinho blew it, then Rodgers had his chance, but MP came out on top, despite a far more gruelling schedule involving winning the LC and going deep in the FA cup and injuries all season to key players, something neither Liverpool or Chelsea struggled with to anywhere near the extent.

3. Pellegrini had it far tougher, he was working with a new group of players (unlike Rodgers or Mourinho), implementing an entirely new style (unlike those two) and working in a league he had zero experience of, with a heavier schedule.

 

[hamad138]

He should never go to Looserpool.

He will have the same Problems once he made sturidge and sterling superstars and other players


1. They will leave

2. Looserpool have bad owners

3. Players dont come because of town




He is in Crysis at Dortmund but its ok 1 time in 5Years, considiring his players always gets bought off

 

[kupest]

You're right - Mourinho was very lucky to have strengthened by bringing in Fabregas, Costa, Matic and insisting on Courtois being his number one keeper.

I'm not a Pellegrini out by any stretches of the imagination. He's been a welcome relief after the fireworks of Mancini, but as a club we seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. I'm more than happy to amble along in the top 2 or 3 and compete in the Champs league and domestic cups. You won't find me throwing my toys out of the pram if we don't win the league this season or even next but i would like a manager, a leader, a symbol of the club, who is willing to engage more with the fans as the next City manager. And maybe Klopp is perhaps someone in between the histrionics of Mancini and the greyness of Pellegrini once Pellegrini inevitably moves on.

He was very lucky that Chelsea were more established than us at the time FFP came in and they weren't operating in the transfer market with tied hands, he was also lucky the scum and PSG paid him ludicrous money for Mata and Luiz allowing him to spend. He also blew the league last year with 6/7 games to go by getting his tactics disastrously wrong against Villa and Palace. Unlike our manager, who won the league.

Mourinho has managed Chelsea the second time with tied hands too, but it does not matter, because nobody can put together a team like he can. He got rid of their twice player of the season Mata, because he did not fit his plans and used the money for players he did want. He sold Lukaku and De Bruyne and once again brought in players he wanted. He got lucky with Courtois, but he made the bold decision to make Courtois the no 1 over Cech.

Neither did Chelsea really blow the league. Chelsea had a problem breaking defensive teams all season. It was nothing to do with Mourinho's tactics, but rather down to a weakness in the balance of the squad. They lacked some creativity in the midfield and a top class striker. The only team that can really be said to have blown the title, but even then that is pushing it is Liverpool. Not, because they lost against Chelsea, which is a tough game and anyone can lose, but in the manner of the loss. Mourinho unlike Wenger, who waits too long for the player he wants and Klopp who splashes out too quickly, sacrificed last season to do what was best for Chelsea in the long run. Sadly I think Van Gaal is likewise doing the same thing and will get Hummels and possibly Gundogan in the summer rather than getting inadequate replacements straight away.

Pellegrini has had things far easier than Mourinho and infinitely easier than Mancini. This City team is still Mancini's team except the players are better, because they are maturing. Aguero/Silva/Zabaleta naturally improved as they entered their primes. The club had the winning mentality installed in them by Mancini and were not bottlers. They knew what it took to win cups and league titles. Mourinho has to build a team and instil the winning mentality. Of course the situation is no where near as hard as Mancini, because even if that crop of players had not won a trophies, the club had.

That being said winning a league title is never easy and either is keeping the egos of top players in check. It's not true that any manager can win the league even if they have the best managers, but most top managers can and will. Pulis and Pellegrini were the two most impressive if we take the season in isolation. Pellegrini would have rightfully deserved manager of the year. The coming years will be a bigger test and if he in charge in 2 years then that will be his biggest test when he has to rebuild the squad.

Wait. Why has Mourinho had it easier than Pellegrini? Mourinho already knew the BPL, he already knew Chelsea, he knew a lot of his squad as well. City did not do much in 2012/13 just before Pellegrini took over.

Loaning out Lukaku was purely Mourinho's decision. Had he not done that they could have had the "top striker" they wanted. Also, this top striker theory is getting my mind in. Not my problem if Mourinho waited 14 months to buy one and decided to go on with players he din't prefer for the last season. If he was that good at assembling a squad surely he would have known from day 1 that he needed Lukaku.

Also sorry to hear that Chelsea lacked "creativity" in their midfield with Hazard, Oscar, Mata, Willian. That is probably the best creative midfield in the BPL together.

 

[GeekinGav]

how long has Pellers got left with his age being a factor? a few season's tops before he calls it a day himself? Not a manager to build a legacy on or around, Does the City 'project' need a younger manager to build a sustained period around?

i know City have gone the route when a manager change doesn't create any upheaval, so of the mind City will and change if its not working, without worry.

Pellegrini, hasn't inspired me. The way we play is suspect, too predictable and if it was for occasions when we've had world class players to bail us out, or other teams to slip up or in inconsistent form, we wouldn't be close to where we are now, let alone winning the double last year.

I'm not in the Pellegrini out camp, the owners will decide that when they know their Champions League and Premier League expectations haven't been met. Is Klopp the answer? Does he fit into this holistic approach? Is his style the type that Ferrano and Cheeky want as the Barca-City style?

Out of all the managers out there that could be available, i think he'll be heading the list for a number of clubs and if, in the summer we are looking, i'd welcome him to Manchester. But i suspect his on his way to North London in the summer anyways.

 

[supercrystal7]

1. Courtious has let in more goals than Cech

2. Chelsea were in the lead with seven games to go and the easiest run in on paper, they were far too defensive in 3 games and had no plan B. They dropped points, they finished 3rd. Pelle fine tuned our tactics to suit the squad better with Aguero not fit and Jovetic/Negredo out of form and won 5 in a row to win us the league. Mourinho blew it, then Rodgers had his chance, but MP came out on top, despite a far more gruelling schedule involving winning the LC and going deep in the FA cup and injuries all season to key players, something neither Liverpool or Chelsea struggled with to anywhere near the extent.

3. Pellegrini had it far tougher, he was working with a new group of players (unlike Rodgers or Mourinho), implementing an entirely new style (unlike those two) and working in a league he had zero experience of, with a heavier schedule.

1. Courtois is younger and has more potential. Actually I think at this time last season Cech had let in more goals. They had to change their style of play, because they were conceding too much and not scoring enough. Now with extra fire power they can attack more.

2. Chelsea did not have the squad to break teams down. It was the weakness in their team. Those are areas he addressed this season and we will see how it turns out. Mourinho also had the later stages f the CL to deal with. Liverpool messed up in one game where Rodgers got it wrong, but it's still a game they could have lost.

3. Pellegrini had it easier, because he had better players. Players win matches and tournaments at the end of the day. Pellegrini had significantly better players than Liverpool and better players than Chelsea. Pellegrini did not implement an entire new style. He simply removed the defensive restrictions and the greater balance Mancini had in the team. Silva and Nasri no longer had to track back put in a shift defensively. Zabaleta and the other full back were allowed to bomb forward.

You cannot have it both ways. On one hand you are arguing that Silva should be in the team of the year and then on the other hand you are saying a manager with Silva, Aguero, Yaya, Kompany, Zabaleta, Dzeko has it harder than other managers?

Wait. Why has Mourinho had it easier than Pellegrini? Mourinho already knew the BPL, he already knew Chelsea, he knew a lot of his squad as well. City did not do much in 2012/13 just before Pellegrini took over.

Loaning out Lukaku was purely Mourinho's decision. Had he not done that they could have had the "top striker" they wanted. Also, this top striker theory is getting my mind in. Not my problem if Mourinho waited 14 months to buy one and decided to go on with players he din't prefer for the last season. If he was that good at assembling a squad surely he would have known from day 1 that he needed Lukaku.

Also sorry to hear that Chelsea lacked "creativity" in their midfield with Hazard, Oscar, Mata, Willian. That is probably the best creative midfield in the BPL together.

The group of players Mourinho had were finished. He had to build a new team with a new style and a new focus. That's why Lampard, Cole, Essien and Kalou all left before the start of the new season. Mourinho's squad was not good enough and he had to rebuild it. Pellegrini took over the best group of players in the league and then strengthened the squad in their weak areas. He had factors against him, but he had the most important thing in his favour: the best group of players. If you were making a top 10 players of the Premiership last season before a ball was kicked half of them would be City players at the very least. Even with Mancini by accounts falling out with half the team they still had come 2nd the year before and should have won the cup. Had RVP had an injury prone season and Ferguson retired early then City probably still would have won the league the year before.

Nobody is saying your problem if Mourinho decided to not buy an average striker, but wait for the player he wants, but it might turn out to be the right decision. Should Costa help Chelsea to 3 league titles at his time there then I would say the decision has paid off. There is no point bringing the wrong play for a short term gain.

Midfielders need movement to work off. They also needed creativity from a deeper role, someone who could move the ball quickly and create openings. This is precisely why Fabregas plays alongside Matic. Their results this season are evidence enough of the problems.

 

[Ray78]

We don't have the players to fully implement Klopp's philosophy and our owner and board members are favouring the Barcelona model.

 

[BobKowalski]

We don't have the players to fully implement Klopp's philosophy and our owner and board members are favouring the Barcelona model.

I'm going to shoot the next fucker that uses the word 'philosophy'.

Our squad doesn't suit Pellers philosophy, Pep's philosophy or Klopp's philosophy so just whose philosophy do they suit? Can't be Mancini's as I don't recall him having one except 'win lots of shiny things'. Yet in the absence of any philosophy we have won 2 titles and two cups.

Philosophy. Seriously who fucking needs it and why the hell would we employ a manager who bangs on about...which is odd as I don't recall any manager banging on about philosophy except Brendan 'look at my fucking gnashers' Rodgers and the lest said about that perma tanned weirdo the better

 

[Ray78]

We don't have the players to fully implement Klopp's philosophy and our owner and board members are favouring the Barcelona model.

I'm going to shoot the next fucker that uses the word 'philosophy'.

Our squad doesn't suit Pellers philosophy, Pep's philosophy or Klopp's philosophy so just whose philosophy do they suit? Can't be Mancini's as I don't recall him having one except 'win lots of shiny things'. Yet in the absence of any philosophy we have won 2 titles and two cups.

Philosophy. Seriously who fucking needs it and why the hell would we employ a manager who bangs on about...which is odd as I don't recall any manager banging on about philosophy except Brendan 'look at my fucking gnashers' Rodgers and the lest said about that perma tanned weirdo the better

Sheikh Mansour wanted more than defensive based tactics......

 

[BobKowalski]

We don't have the players to fully implement Klopp's philosophy and our owner and board members are favouring the Barcelona model.

I'm going to shoot the next fucker that uses the word 'philosophy'.

Our squad doesn't suit Pellers philosophy, Pep's philosophy or Klopp's philosophy so just whose philosophy do they suit? Can't be Mancini's as I don't recall him having one except 'win lots of shiny things'. Yet in the absence of any philosophy we have won 2 titles and two cups.

Philosophy. Seriously who fucking needs it and why the hell would we employ a manager who bangs on about...which is odd as I don't recall any manager banging on about philosophy except Brendan 'look at my fucking gnashers' Rodgers and the lest said about that perma tanned weirdo the better

Sheikh Mansour wanted more than defensive based tactics......

Thats nice. He never tells me things. I ring. I text. I facebook him. Nothing.