Pep vs Klopp argument

pep changes football across leagues and countries, klopp manages to get his team up to nearly win titles, a great motivator, better motivator than pep ? ,i would say with our close titles pep comes out on top in that as well.

absolutely no contest
 
I can appreciate why someone would like to watch Klopp's style over Pep's, but the assessment of their managerial abilities is always way off the mark. Pep could easily manage a team without money and be successful. The number of players who peak under his management is as long as my arm, and you can see the decline in the majority once they go elsewhere. To say he's a chequebook manager is just lazy, he's transformed football in this country from the top to grassroots.

Klopp has a high intensity high energy style which can blow teams away. But it is a short term strategy which leads to an inevitable decline. He took Mainz up and did brilliantly with them, then it collapsed he was relegated and he failed to get them promoted again. They did get promoted the next season when he'd left it's worth noting. Dortmund a similar story, they fell off a cliff at the end of his reign. It doesn't matter that Bayern were dominant, he didn't finish 2nd!

At Liverpool he's won everything there is to win, but he's never managed to oversee a sustained period of dominance. He's lost a few finals, he's seen them pipped to the title by us and he's seen them finish down the table and out of the CL places.

They're both top quality managers undoubtedly, but Pep will deliver a sustained period of success whereas Klopp will see some fantastic seasons and some poor ones because of his approach. And Pep could bring more success to a team down the table than Klopp. How much you spend is irrelevant, it comes down to the quality of the acquisitions a lot of the time and that doesn't just sit with the manager. We spent a fortune on CBs and they were largely shite, and then someone like Akanji comes in for a steal. Look at the rags if you want to see how far money can get you on its own.
 
Klopp is obviously a fantastic manager, but Pep is generational. One thing that never comes up when talking about money is that the best managers always have the biggest budgets because they've shown themselves trustworthy. So you have to ask why has Klopp never been offered one of these jobs? Or if he has, why hasn't he accepted it? If he's so good, he could have matched Pep's trophy count by taking the Real Madrid job, or getting PSG their elusive Champions League. You can't choose to stay at Liverpool and then moan that you don't have as much money as the very biggest spenders (even when in reality, you do).
 
We've spent just under £100m more than Liverpool in the past 4 seasons according to net spend figures available. Ignoring that we have received greater prize money during that period, and so arguably have a higher sustainable spend anyway, that's essentially one grealish difference. If grealish signed for Liverpool, maybe to replace Mane, would they have won anything last season? If grealish was out for a whole season for us, would that factor alone be a reason we finish below Liverpool? I suggest no to both.

In that same period of the last 4 seasons we have won the league three times, and finished second once, whereas Klopp has won the league once and otherwise finished as varied as 5th, 3rd and, 2nd. Pep has also picked up 2 league cups, an Fa Cup and the champions league, Klopp one league cup and one FA cup.

In terms of success and consistency, Pep is the winner even if we just take this short period. We can talk about money, but one grealish is not the difference here, especially when you think of the effort required to man manage a squad of human beings through a barrage of games or huge importance and stress. Pep has done that better, the trophy cabinet simply says this is the truth, and every transition of his team has still won silverware, found solutions and evolved its tactics. Mentality wise, they call Liverpool the mentality monsters but it is city who are feared for going on winning runs stretching half a season.

If we extend it to the start of them both coming to England, it's much the same picture. If fact, no it's worse for Liverpool as the silverware didn't kick in until 2019 under Klopp. So we could argue that it only took pep on season to adapt to England, but took Klopp 4 years to be successful. Yes, city were a better team arguably then, with more recent success, but 4 seasons to win any trophy? Surely the best in the world doesn't need 4 seasons?

If we talk directly about wining football games, surely the basic measure of any manager:
Since arriving on England, Pep has taken change of 445 games, has won 332, a 75% win percentage, his teams have scored 1095 goals and have a goal difference of +726.

Klopp has taken charge of 463 games, so quite similar, winning 282 giving a win percentage of 61%. Not bad at all, but he's still won less games despite playing more matches. His teams have scored less goals too in that time 128 less at 967, giving a goal difference of 499. So, according to the figures, city are a more exciting team to watch too, if we use goals as the marker?

If expand it to their wider careers outside of England, but I know Liverpool fans say that not fair because Klopp battled away at Mainz and Dortmund and had to wish upon a star for a new player to coach, whereas Pep walked into Barcelona and Bayern and won things even our grandma could have won. In fact, the fact he was successful in Spain and Germany is actually proof that Pep has not been successful, apparently. Go work that one out.

Think too of all the big players lost, and how it was handled. For City, losing David Silva, Gundogan, Kompany, Aguero, Sane, Sterling, Mahrez...big players who cound not be replaced directly, but the success kept coming. You can buy whoever you want but if they don't gel, don't fit in, then it's a waste. Look at poor Kalvin. And that is on the manager to perform. Resting on your laurels just doesn't work, no matter how successful you are. Just ask United or, erm this is awkward, Liverpool FC post 1990.

For Liverpool the only big example I can think of is Mane, and they finished 5th the season they lost him. Maybe sterling too? If so they dropped for 6th to 8th, and I think the intended replacement never worked out (in fact the intended replacement is now playing at ebbsfleet united at the age of 28). Again, yes finance has an influence on who you can get, but so does the boss. Not only does he influence how the money is spent, he also then gets his hands on the goods directly to shape and mould into his vision.

If we look at ability to develop and bring on young players , Pep wins here for me too. If we exclude measuring success by numbers of players who came through the youth system and won a trophy (because city won the league due to money, right?) and instead generously allow our Scouse cousins to use a marker of number of players nurtured from being a teenager at the club to winning an international cap, ding ding city still win. What about young players given a debut by Klopp or Pep who still play premier league football? Yep, city still.

"But it's all down to money" they'll say. "City have a bigger academy and can pay more to secure young talent, plus have an outstanding scouting system that we definitely didn't hack, it was just an unassociated payment". Ok, so by that logic they're eating themselves, because surely if players are not going to Liverpool for the money, and city only win things because of the money, then they only way they can win anything is to pay more, and if they do then is football ruined again?

Ask a pool of 100 young players who do they want to play for. I guarantee you that City or Pep will feature higher, with Real and Barca, than Liverpool or Klopp.

Then there is the last factor, totally not success related but somehow important for me - who is the nicer bloke. Well, I know one manager who always congratulates a team that beats us, does admittedly sometimes step over the line in open displays of passion for the game, and another who gets in the face of ball boys, reporters and officials when decisions don't go their way. One who, where VAR is concerned, ask his players to be better to eliminate the chance of officiating or mistakes impacting results, and another who demands replays if they don't agree with the officials.


No doubt both are very successful managers, and either club seemingly could win the league this year, and there is no way to appease either side with just facts and figures, there will always be a counter argument.

But personally I am confident we have the better manager. I wouldn't change him for the world.

Ask for Simon Jordan, what's his football expertise exactly? What's he won, what's he overseen? Yep, thought so. Shove him in the Spitty and Steve G drawer of chancers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.