Surprised he didn't mention our offside goal from 2 seasons ago as the reason we beat City.
Jurgen Klopp Sack Watch
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Klopp : "City had two results which maybe no-one really expected. They are human beings, thank God."
Pep : "No, They aren't, Klopp and you don't have to thank me, my child. For it is you Who will knock us out of the league of Champions. But fear not for We both play attractive football."
Kloop&Pep : "Unlike Jose."
And then They went on laughing, praising each other's play style while wishing each other Happy New Year and some shit.
Pep : "No, They aren't, Klopp and you don't have to thank me, my child. For it is you Who will knock us out of the league of Champions. But fear not for We both play attractive football."
Kloop&Pep : "Unlike Jose."
And then They went on laughing, praising each other's play style while wishing each other Happy New Year and some shit.
@RedMane
Your results from top to bottom are worse than ours. Your whole argument is based around Sevilla but upsets happen in Europe. Look at yourselves and City.
Liverpool aren't the story there, its Pep and his inability to adapt to Klopps tactics.
Well done but you argue as if you're on the Utd side but, in reality, you're the Sevilla of that scenario.
If Pep could adapt you would have nothing to point to, Thats on Pep imo.
From top to bottom your results are worse than ours. Oh the bravery!
Thus explains the cherry picking.
Your results from top to bottom are worse than ours. Your whole argument is based around Sevilla but upsets happen in Europe. Look at yourselves and City.
Liverpool aren't the story there, its Pep and his inability to adapt to Klopps tactics.
Well done but you argue as if you're on the Utd side but, in reality, you're the Sevilla of that scenario.
If Pep could adapt you would have nothing to point to, Thats on Pep imo.
From top to bottom your results are worse than ours. Oh the bravery!
Thus explains the cherry picking.
Over the course of a league or domestic cup campaign, anyone can beat anyone. There is no glory in losing to WBA or Swansea as opposed to Huddersfield/Newcastle or vice versa, so what sort of comparison is this anyway.
Sevilla was a massive feck up, but it happens in the CL. Congratulations to you for (all but) making it to the semis, but there is no guarantee Liverpool won't go out to a similar team like Sevilla in the CL next season. It is no reflection on superiority or inferiority.
I like how all arguments from rival poster sooner or later come down to net spend.
Usually just the dippers. They were also the undisputed kings of alternative tables but the Spurs fans have taken over that role in recent years.
I wonder if Liverpool folks realize that their net spend is so low because they can’t hold onto the players that could actually get them a league title.
Uh. In their first meaningful game Bayern twatted dortmund 3-0 away. They also beat them in the german cup final*. I seem to remember City outplaying liverpool and failing to win because of a very dumb penalty given up by Clichy and missing a staggering amount of sitters. And then the 5-0...
*result might have been different with goal-line technology
People need to stop talking about tactics as if they are the be all end all of football. Or more to the point, as if they are unrelated to the players
I meant this season.
Tactics are obviously important. Its bad when I can call how a match will go and be 100 percent correct!
I don't know why youre framing a tactical battle as some sort of pot luck aspect of football
You play Gundogan on the right to keep possession and Laporte as left back and both selections kills the support for the forwards that puts your side under more pressure..
That's on Pep.
You can't play two players out of position then blame those same players for underperforming.
Of course they do, but like all the folks on RAWK, they try to spin it in a positive way rather than accepting the real situation.
It's united fans as well lately. Some think that net spend is the most important aspect in football.
Tactics are directly linked to the players. Liverpool aren't the only team that pressed city like that this season, yet they're the only ones who beat them.
And unless you believe playing with Delph and Sterling wouldn't have caused City to have an Arsenal-Style collective mental meltdown after Salah's goal, Laporte and Gundogan had very little to do with their first half capitulation
They added nothing going forward, the attackers had no support from either side so they were forced to play the ball through midfield which played directly into Liverpool's pressing game.
You can't play players out of position, watch them fail at playing a way they're rarely played with and somehow share the blame with Pep. Imo thats all on Pep. Poor Sane had to go it alone so many times that it ended up becoming comical.
Pep simply got it wrong. There's nothing abhorrent about that, it just happens from time to time. His record away from home in CL knockouts has a sample size too large to ignore.
Jose got it just as wrong v Sevilla (before the yes, but Jose.. Automated Pep defence is made on here)
I struggle to think of a more redundant argument than net spend. It's all about self-gratification "my team spent less than your team and that allows me to sleep better at night" .
The argument itself is largely irrelevant and achieves nothing in the grand scheme of things
Spot on.
I am actually more than happy that the club I support is investing the generated income, which us fans contribute to.
Exactly, specially when there are million things you could ask him regarding the tie with City. However Klopp is also very bitter and a cnut of a man during these conferences, he didn't even need to answer those questions but whatever helps scoring with the pool fans.Why would anyone ask about decisions in the Manchester Derby in Liverpool's champions league press conference? Result and all is fine but decisions?press are getting desperate.
After they went 1-0 down. Before then they'd had little problem playing through the press and were starting to put real pressure on the liverpool defence
Didn't look comical before the goal, while Sane was looking very dangerous down the left flank and liverpool were struggling to contain city down that side. Sane started looking comical after he gifted liverpool their first goal and then blew a colossal chance to equalize 1 minute later...
We agree on that. We disagree on how and what he got wrong. Tactics weren't the problem, players' mentality was. Tactics only became a probem after the game turned against them, and agan the issue was one of execution which was affected by poor mentality more than an issue of personnel
Net spend needs completely canning as a concept. It gets to be all about preferring some selected data over other selected data all too quickly. I'm also not sure about its' purpose tbh - showing how great your Manager is if he isn't spending much money or relying purely on expensive buys I guess? Or to show your team is heroically over-achieving even when it isn't achieving as much as you want or very much at all, even.
So, if you want to do this comparison on a single season basis - which also seems to be the almost impossible ask of the exercise. Why not look at the ££££ spent on the 14 most appearing players or the first 14 first choices. you only get to put 14 players on the field in a game at the absolute maximum. I don't care about the cost of the 15th player - if it's wasted money or someone else's spending that's how it is. My idea says a Managers quality of work revolves around the regular players. All manager make bad buys, that isn't what we should be looking at for this. Also non-playing buys are not strictly relevant to the issue being queried - so one whopping bad buy actually corrupts the always fascinating debate. As does any hugely profitable sale, innit?
What's the value** of what you're putting on the park & how is it doing is what I'd be asking. Bin off the superfluous data.
**defined by last fee, whatever it is, whenever it was
You could also do graphs & everything for the longer serving bosses & see how the lines on the graph get along - the excitement & possible applications would be almost endless I think, for those especially interested in this performance vs. ££££ outlay question. You ain't getting nowhere with the net spend wittering olde bollocks, that's for sure.
So, if you want to do this comparison on a single season basis - which also seems to be the almost impossible ask of the exercise. Why not look at the ££££ spent on the 14 most appearing players or the first 14 first choices. you only get to put 14 players on the field in a game at the absolute maximum. I don't care about the cost of the 15th player - if it's wasted money or someone else's spending that's how it is. My idea says a Managers quality of work revolves around the regular players. All manager make bad buys, that isn't what we should be looking at for this. Also non-playing buys are not strictly relevant to the issue being queried - so one whopping bad buy actually corrupts the always fascinating debate. As does any hugely profitable sale, innit?
What's the value** of what you're putting on the park & how is it doing is what I'd be asking. Bin off the superfluous data.
**defined by last fee, whatever it is, whenever it was
You could also do graphs & everything for the longer serving bosses & see how the lines on the graph get along - the excitement & possible applications would be almost endless I think, for those especially interested in this performance vs. ££££ outlay question. You ain't getting nowhere with the net spend wittering olde bollocks, that's for sure.
Net spend is obviously part of the picture.
If club A buys a world class player for 100m, and club B buys a world class player for 100m, but only after selling another world class player for 120m, club A will obviously have strengthened more, even though their gross expenditure is the same.
It's not the whole picture, but it is a fair part of it.
If club A buys a world class player for 100m, and club B buys a world class player for 100m, but only after selling another world class player for 120m, club A will obviously have strengthened more, even though their gross expenditure is the same.
It's not the whole picture, but it is a fair part of it.
I never got the "Liverpool not spending much" concept tbh. Yes City is far apart from the rest because he's owned by a whole country, but it's impossible to say ant top English side doesn't have enough money to throw out in summer in the current era of Premier League at least with the TV revenue every season. If Liverpool didn't spend much, it's because they don't want so, not that they're forced to work with a low budget.
These arguments ignore the money spent before the coach took over. For example, Liverpool spent 250 Million in last 2 summers before Klopp took over, then they also signed players who were sold for good price.
Net spend argument will always be an incomplete argument and something that lacks context.
Indeed. It's basic economics.
Context is that our net spend is around £20m since the start of FSG's reign 8 years ago.
A significant part of that expenditure was funded by the (unwanted) sales of Suarez and Sterling. Again, an important context that gross spend will not account for.
And gross spend even more so.
I don't understand why people are so dismissive of either. They obviously tell a significant part of the story. It is a vast difference that our expenditure reflects investment to replace some of our best players leaving, in contrast to city who spend with impunity. Likewise, it doesn't tell the full story in that United needed to spend more to stay relevant as their best players simply declined rather than went for large fees. And yet, it is also part of the picture that Liverpool simply wouldn't be able to afford the kind of net expenditures that United have made.
22 times, la.Anyway, Kloppy talking about us? Surprise, surprise. Did he mentioned that offside goal too?
I do wish both teams can drop out of CL...
I know, I know...
Selling club in net-spend shocker!
Keep saying this. The only real measure of a club's resources is the wage bill. Transfer spend, net spend, etc, they're all conditional and only show a very small part of the picture
FFS, milan spent more than anybody in terms of net transfer spend this season, nobody's saying they're richer than united or should have won the serie A
FFS, milan spent more than anybody in terms of net transfer spend this season, nobody's saying they're richer than united or should have won the serie A
Fair points.
We lost plenty of our best players since SAF retired. To put it precisely, SAF could have replace some of them properly when he's still here, but since he trusted his successors, who ruined the plan, it's understandable there would a spike in spending revamping the squad. So it points to our spending should be looked at when SAF was still at helm. For the club of our status. In the last 5 or so seasons, we heavily under-invested int he squad. It would take both time and momentary big spending to get it up to speed. You don't go compare spending X amount in couple seasons "rebuilding" to a team building on position of strength.
Madrid spent like 200mil almost a decade ago to get up to speed with Pep Barcelona. Then spend some big fees, but in recent years starting to spend less. That's how thing is done.
I just want to say you are one of my favourite posters
The wage bill is the most important thing for clubs. Transfer prices are massively influenced by contract lengths which are basically wages and bonuses.
The wage bill is also important for the long term financial health of the club.
I'd be saying the value of the teams is the same - compare the Managers on that.
When you do that earlier, the £ 120 M guy is a £ No Cost (say) - the Manager would have the credit for that if you compare then - because he isn't a £ 120 M at that time but presumably performs like one - manager gets that benefit when we compare back later.
The cash coming in gets reinvested or it doesn't, we only ever compare the outlays. Keep your outlay down but do well, you are the best. Net is irrelevant, I would argue. ''What are you putting on the table?'' is best.
I don't say that this is totally irrelevant but it's a different subject for me to how good your Manager is - how many splendid achievements you're not having & so forth - compared to the other teams that are.
''value of team on park'' is an orange - and easily compared with other oranges & how good Managers & Clubs are at using their oranges to win stuff (or not)
and
''net spend over x period'' is an apple - it's different
edit - look you're gonna win the aggregate tie easy enough tonight, the best we can do today is to have a bit of a WUM innit,
Last edited:
Aside from winning the grand prize of absolutely feck all, what is to be gained from winning the net spend argument? Genuine question that.
Net spend is simply a reflection of a football clubs ambition, nothing more nothing less.
Yes but that's something that adds advantage to Klopp as significant amount was spent just 1 month before he took over Liverpool.
No one is dismissive of the stat, it's just laughable to use Net spend as some sort of very important metric when there are so many articles which explains how it's not important at all.
Link some. I want to understand why so many are dismissive of a metric which at first glance seems commonsense to use.
It's simply a way of measuring resources, and there is an undeniable correlation between higher net spend (which equals more resources) and success.
Clubs who have higher net spend are able to buy more established players and hold bigger squads. Clubs with lesser net spent rely more on clever scouting with less margin for error, and smaller squads. To suggest that doesn't have an impact on the pitch is silly.
If you consider last 5 years, then Madrid's net spend is probably negative and made profit, do you think that's correct way to judge when they have already spent record breaking sum before 5 years and before market was inflated?
Could you explain how? Is there not a clear and important difference between PSG straight out spending £200m on Neymar and Liverpool spending £140m on VVD and Keita after selling Coutinho? (assuming his sale funded those two signings). Wouldn't Liverpool be stronger if they were able to have all three like PSG?
Madrid aren't a great example to use considering the amount they spent on building their current squad, and the amount of money they will spend again to rebuild in the near future.
Ofcourse it helps when you don't have to sell players but what time period are you going to consider? 2 years? 5 years? See Madrid to see how that argument falls flat.
For example, post SAF most ManUtd players retired and then were released, so obviously ManUtd had to spend without selling any player as they didn't have that sort of player. So is this even considered when people starts with Net spend argument?
Again coming to time frame, what time frame do you think gives proper results? Why only 5 years when that's the time ManUtd had to spend, why not last 10 years where ManUtd gained 80 million for Ronaldo?