Jürgen Klopp - Liverpool FC Manager

It was. Question is whether it can be used in the modern game over the course of a whole season to win major honours.

The game is so fast now, especially in this league, that it might not be physically possible. Not without heavy rotation anyway.

There seems to be less advantage using it here compared to the Bundesliga.

I believe it's possible. Get a damn good DM and a bunch of ball players and maybe it's possible?

I believe it's possible. Get a damn good DM and a bunch of ball players and maybe it's possible?

Can gave a display tonight that suggested he could actually develop into that position, it really was imperious.



3rd most in the league this season.

StatsAndSwearwords ‏@SimonBrundish  3h3 hours ago
Emre Can 7/9 tackles, 16 ball recoveries, 52/65 passes all highest in the game, 2/2 take ons, 4 int, a chance created too

Apparently has also played the most minutes for a player of his age too.

Just needs to do this consistently.

I believe it's possible. Get a damn good DM and a bunch of ball players and maybe it's possible?

It could be but it will be a big ask from my point of view. Having said that Rafa nearly pulled it off.

https://twitter.com/btsportfootball/status/705159876272480257


Excellent funny interview.

You take the stats twist them hypothetically and spin your own opinion on them to make the facts look better!

For a start, Sturridge had 7 full appearances from 38 games! And you discuss this like the number 7 means Sturridge was heavily relied upon.

Yes, Rodgers had a pre-season and bought the players. However:

The officials gifted us at least 3 of those points and Sturridge won us another 2[/b], whom you try to suggest wasn't even around under Brendan's time. That's just tackling the points, before we get near the level of performance, which as I've said before didn't even come close to justifying a 1.5 points per game ratio and to pretend that would have continued is self-delusion. We were extremely lucky to get away with 12 points out of those games and every single red fan knew it, that's a fact.
 

You are adamant that when the actual stats go up in favour of Mick's argument, you give your bias opinion to bend those actual stats. Like, "the officials gifted us 3 points", or the ratio of points per game was not justified at 1.5. That's your bias opinion against stone cold facts.

You like facts to support your argument, however, when somebody does the exact same thing you counter it with a little narrative added to the fact that your new found friend "context" is applied to every stat you oppose or need, whichever way your argument hinges.

Now let's consider training time, Brendan had 11 games at the start of the season from meaning he had a game every 5.8 days, Jürgen has had 33 games in 152 days or every 4.6 days. (for clarity I gave both a week before their first game, Jürgen had 2 weeks when he arrived but players were actually away on international duty, Brendan had an entire preason plus a 7 day gap, I think you'd agree that favours Brendan). This was also the most games any team in the whole of Europe had competed in over the same time frame

Training time, a notion you lambasted Rodgers for when he had European football and bemoaned this as pathetic excuse for him to use. However, now you want to excuse a World Class, considerably better manager with the notion of 'training time'? Your rank hypocrisy is there for all to see. However, time did favour Rodgers no doubt - but since the horse has already bolted (as you've already ripped Rodgers apart for the notion of 'training time'), you of all people, hardly have a leg to stand on when applying this excuse now.

Now you may ask why is that relevant, well it becomes more and more relevant the less players you have at your disposal. If you have a full squad you can rotate to accommodate but when you have a squad that is ravaged by injuries the less time in between games means that you have no training time at all (which Jürgen has already pointed to). Indeed not only did we have to play the kids in the F.A. Cup to manufacture 'rest' days for our overworked squad we had to not train in between games because of the injury crisis.

Unfortunately, that's the hand dealt to Klopp. Which also, can plausibly be argued that he went some way to hamstringing his own players, as was predicted before the event by others in the game.

What's even more ludicrous is as you go down your facts you try to discredit the goals scored on one side by saying "they were only against Villa and Norwich" when you fail to mention that 3 of our amazing 8 goals in the first 8 games was against Villa at home!

You call this ludicrous. However, if you were making this point it would be put across as "context". 

Then, to make it even more hypothetcally "ludicrous" you say this:

So just for fun let's remove those 6 and 3 and Villa from the equation see as you think it skews things in Jurgens favour.

Brendan would be at 0.625 goals per game
Jürgen would be at 1.41 goals per game

See, for fun!? You revert to skewing figures to make the stats appear more appealing in your argument. In other words, I wouldn't give your 'games of fun' the time of day. They're nothing but scenarios that dress your argument up, but they're not actual facts.

Less players. (due to injuries)
Less time. (as proven above)
No presason.
No purchases of his own.
Without 3 years previous with this team.
He has us scoring more.
He has us defending better in open play.
He has us creating the 2nd most chances per game, much improved on Brendan's time.
He has us conceding one of the least shots on target per game.
He has us further in a European competition than Brendan managed in 4 years in only 5 months.
He has us further in a Domestic cup competition than Brendan managed in 4 years in just 5 months.
 

He had the opportunity to purchase his own - he chose not to, so that excuse is a bit thin.

As for the rest, I can't be arsed to check the stats because no doubt some of those are definitely true, however, I'd but my bollock to a barn dance you've omitted stats that don't represent Klopp's team in the best light. In other words, you've cherry picked the stats you like. I distinctly remember back in January Klopp's stats weren't favourable to Rodgers.

At Feb this year his PL win percentage was at 35% the same as Hodgson.

Rodgers was 52% with Kenny at 43% .

Liverpool made the most errors leading to shots, under Klopp with Arsenal second in 23 and so on, these stats can be researched too to give a much more objective analysis of Klopp's time.

So for all the stats you put up, I don't heed because you omit and cherry pick the stats you'd like to post up to sport your argument.

However, when the actual stats Mick put up regarding PPG, you dismiss this with only opinion and things like "officials gave us 3 pts". Your use of stats therefore, is skewed and people will be better warned to take your posts with a large clump of salt.

The facts speak overwhelmingly in Jürgen's favour and that is the truth. No distortion, no pretending that 'we only score against the weak sides' no pretending that 'Brendan might have had us doing the same' or that 'we've had it easy'. No, just the facts.

All your stats are distorted fella, either by omitting, cherry picking or narrating the way you want them read. And yet, you conclude we're doing better in the league under Klopp than we did with Rodgers, which as of yet is complete and utter bollocks and even some of your bessies have admitted this; why you can't just shows the level of maturity that avoids you.

For a start, Sturridge had 7 full appearances from 38 games! And you discuss this like the number 7 means Sturridge was heavily relied upon.

No I didn't, total bollocks here. I said Mick was wrong in stating that Sturridge wasn't involved at all and read at the end of the summary regarding Sturridge I told you it was 7 full appearances and 5 from the subs bench, facts clearly spelled out as they were, not distorted at all.

You are adamant that when the actual stats go up in favour of Mick's argument, you give your bias opinion to bend those actual stats. Like, "the officials gifted us 3 points", or the ratio of points per game was not justified at 1.5. That's your bias opinion against stone cold facts.

No, wrong again.

I said that we were lucky to get the 3 points against Bournemouth and as the sample size gets smaller so does the influence luck has increases. Unless of course you think there was no luck involved in the officials awarding us a goal that shouldn't have stood and crossing out a goal that should have stood. We were lucky in this instance, that is a fact unless you dispute either of these. I also illustrated that Sturridge had won us 2 points in that opening 8 games, again Mick pretending that Sturridge didn't exist, proving him and you wrong again here.

Training time, a notion you lambasted Rodgers for when he had European football and bemoaned this as pathetic excuse for him to use. However, now you want to excuse a World Class, considerably better manager with the notion of 'training time'? Your rank hypocrisy is there for all to see. However, time did favour Rodgers no doubt - but since the horse has already bolted (as you've already ripped Rodgers apart for the notion of 'training time'), you of all people, hardly have a leg to stand on when applying this excuse now.

Subtle difference which again proves you wrong, that difference being one had a squad to rotate the other doesn't hence why I went into great detail about the training time and the injuries, providing the reasoning for this. If you cannot rotate due to injuries then a lack of training time is forced upon you. Brendan moaned when we had 2 games a week even when he had the luxury of rotating. It's a clear and obvious difference. Just as now we're getting our players I'd expect Klopp to be able to handle it easier and hey presto tonight we were able to rotate some genuine squad players and we produce "our best home game of the season".

Unfortunately, that's the hand dealt to Klopp. Which also, can plausibly be argued that he went some way to hamstringing his own players, as was predicted before the event by others in the game.

That's up for debate but also why I give Klopp greater leeway because of the no preseason. It could easily be argued that he was given a group that simply weren't fit enough. We'll never truly know, we do know that given a preseason that these injuries, if they were caused by over training, wouldn't have occurred so often.

You call this ludicrous. However, if you were making this point it would be put across as "context". 

Then, to make it even more hypothetcally "ludicrous" you say this:

Quote
So just for fun let's remove those 6 and 3 and Villa from the equation see as you think it skews things in Jurgens favour.

Brendan would be at 0.625 goals per game
Jürgen would be at 1.41 goals per game

See, for fun!? You revert to skewing figures to make the stats appear more appealing in your argument. In other words, I wouldn't give your 'games of fun' the time of day. They're nothing but scenarios that dress your argument up, but they're not actual facts.

No that was simply taking Mick's assertion that our figures were skewed in our favour due to the goals against Aston Villa. So I removed both from the equation to see if his notion had any merit, which the figures prove it did not, it only made things look even worse for Brendan and better for Jürgen, fact.

As for the rest, I can't be arsed to check the stats because no doubt some of those are definitely true, however, I'd but my bollock to a barn dance you've omitted stats that don't represent Klopp's team in the best light. In other words, you've cherry picked the stats you like. I distinctly remember back in January Klopp's stats weren't favourable to Rodgers.

At Feb this year his PL win percentage was at 35% the same as Hodgson.

Rodgers was 52% with Kenny at 43% .

Liverpool made the most errors leading to shots, under Klopp with Arsenal second in 23 and so on, these stats can be researched too to give a much more objective analysis of Klopp's time.

So for all the stats you put up, I don't heed because you omit and cherry pick the stats you'd like to post up to sport your argument.

However, when the actual stats Mick put up regarding PPG, you dismiss this with only opinion and things like "officials gave us 3 pts". Your use of stats therefore, is skewed and people will be better warned to take your posts with a large clump of salt.

Quote
The facts speak overwhelmingly in Jürgen's favour and that is the truth. No distortion, no pretending that 'we only score against the weak sides' no pretending that 'Brendan might have had us doing the same' or that 'we've had it easy'. No, just the facts.

All your stats are distorted fella, either by omitting, cherry picking or narrating the way you want them read. And yet, you conclude we're doing better in the league under Klopp than we did with Rodgers, which as of yet is complete and utter bollocks and even some of your bessies have admitted this; why you can't just shows the level of maturity that avoids you.

Unfortunately for you you're wrong again PPG now:

Brendan 1.5
Jürgen 1.53

So he is now doing better than Brendan, so perhaps that argument can be put to bed too!

 

No, wrong again.

I said that we were lucky to get the 3 points against Bournemouth and as the sample size gets smaller so does the influence luck has increases. Unless of course you think there was no luck involved in the officials awarding us a goal that shouldn't have stood and crossing out a goal that should have stood. We were lucky in this instance, that is a fact unless you dispute either of these. I also illustrated that Sturridge had won us 2 points in that opening 8 games, again Mick pretending that Sturridge didn't exist, proving him and you wrong again here.

Yes, exactly you spin the stat with a narrative. We got 12 points from the opening 8 games - they are the stats! For all your opinion after that and whether or not they were justifiable does not change those stats. You attempt to discredit as much as you can, even when the stats are put forth to you. Fact.

Subtle difference which again proves you wrong, that difference being one had a squad to rotate the other doesn't hence why I went into great detail about the training time and the injuries, providing the reasoning for this. If you cannot rotate due to injuries then a lack of training time is forced upon you. Brendan moaned when we had 2 games a week even when he had the luxury of rotating. It's a clear and obvious difference. Just as now we're getting our players I'd expect Klopp to be able to handle it easier and hey presto tonight we were able to rotate some genuine squad players and we produce "our best home game of the season"

At the time you lambasted Rodgers for his comments re a lack of preparation time; you never mentioned squad rotation at all, you just attacked his comments; which is exactly what Klopp has been doing since he pretty much got here. However, now that he has had an injury list as long as your arm, in one that he practically contributed to with the amount of Hamstrings that went prior to Christmas time his comments about games coming thick and fast are excused.

He made the same comments Rodgers did, unlike you he didn't use injuries as his primary excuse, his point was, the amount of games played in England is a lot and preparation time is less. Fact.

No that was simply taking Mick's assertion that our figures were skewed in our favour due to the goals against Aston Villa. So I removed both from the equation to see if his notion had any merit, which the figures prove it did not, it only made things look even worse for Brendan and better for Jürgen, fact.

Which again, proves my point, it is the only reason you did it. Fact.

Unfortunately for you you're wrong again PPG now:

Brendan 1.5
Jürgen 1.53

So he is now doing better than Brendan, so perhaps that argument can be put to bed too! 

This is the maturity level I was on about. Do you actually expect it to gripe that Klopp NOW has a slightly better PPG average?

Silly boy.

The fact is, you couldn't handle Mick highlighting Klopp's 1.44 PPG average, which was a worse stat than anytime under Brendan. And instead, came out with all sorts of bendy half arsed truths, and cherry picked stats.

 

Yes, exactly you spin the stat with a narrative. We got 12 points from the opening 8 games - they are the stats! For all your opinion after that and whether or not they were justifiable does not change those stats. You attempt to discredit as much as you can, even when the stats are put forth to you. Fact.

Incorrect, again. Fact.

I presented my reasoning why I believed that 12 points out of 8 games flattered us and how luck in 1 game made such a difference to the points per game ratio that was being lauded as the be all and end all. It's not a difficult point to understand yet you seem so at pains to protect it, the reasoning behind that is clear. (You and Mick should start to take down the Brendan posters now you know, it'll help you in the long run.)

At the time you lambasted Rodgers for his comments re a lack of preparation time; you never mentioned squad rotation at all, you just attacked his comments; which is exactly what Klopp has been doing since he pretty much got here. However, now that he has had an injury list as long as your arm, in one that he practically contributed to with the amount of Hamstrings that went prior to Christmas time his comments about games coming thick and fast are excused.

He made the same comments Rodgers did, unlike you he didn't use injuries as his primary excuse, his point was, the amount of games played in England is a lot and preparation time is less. Fact.

Wrong again. Fact.

Rodger's moaned about preparation time when he had a squad to rotate. He could train certain players for matches while still playing 2 games a week, as do all the squads that aren't ravaged with injury. The fact you can't understand the difference between having a full squad able to rotate and therefore train for the matches they are scheduled to play in and having only enough players to fill a match day squad and therefore not able to train is simply a failing on your behalf.

The difference is clear. Fact.

Which again, proves my point, it is the only reason you did it. Fact.

No I did it to prove Mick wrong, which it did. Fact.

Either the goals scored per game in entirety or without Villa both point to Jürgen having a much better record than Brendan. I didn't need or care to 'bend/skew' statistics at all, it was Mick who claimed that Villa skewed them in Jürgen's favour, I simply did the math and proved his assertions wrong. Simple, factual, yet you can't accept it, unsurprising given your reasoning above.

This is the maturity level I was on about. Do you actually expect it to gripe that Klopp NOW has a slightly better PPG average?

Silly boy.

The fact is, you couldn't handle Mick highlighting Klopp's 1.44 PPG average, which was a worse stat than anytime under Brendan. And instead, came out with all sorts of bendy half arsed truths, and cherry picked stats.

No my point all along was that the ppg ratio was virtually irrelevant because the two could not be equatable on that basis alone, it's an immature debate and the nature on which that single stat was clung to was embarrassing. It should and now hopefully will be judged on much more than just a single statistic, any rational person knows a single statistic is never basis for proof. Fact.

For your information and just to prove you further wrong, if Jürgen finished the season with 1.44 PPG I'd have still already seen enough in us reaching a cup final, progressing in Europe, doing the double over City in the league, thumping Southampton, wiping the floor with the Chavs at their place and tonking Villa by a higher scoreline than anyone else in the league could manage to know that we're headed in the right direction.

Check back on the expectations thread, things are progressing exactly as I thought they would back then, we had the bounce as I predicted, we then had the lull that was expected, the spanner in the works is the injuries but things are coming together nicely now. All looking good from the Jürgen Klopp hype train, hop on whenever you're ready, it's much more fun over here! Fact.

    

Incorrect, again. Fact.

I presented my reasoning why I believed that 12 points out of 8 games flattered us and how luck in 1 game made such a difference to the points per game ratio that was being lauded as the be all and end all. It's not a difficult point to understand yet you seem so at pains to protect it, the reasoning behind that is clear. (You and Mick should start to take down the Brendan posters now you know, it'll help you in the long run.)

Ah, so now you whinging that Rodgers had a bit of 'luck'. You really are desperate to discredit where you can.

Look, I understand you want to be the Klopp superfan on here now after the disrespectful way you aired your grievances about Rodgers, but as has been previously stated your penchant for talking bollocks makes you look like an over zealous try-hard.

Wrong again. Fact.

Rodger's moaned about preparation time when he had a squad to rotate. He could train certain players for matches while still playing 2 games a week, as do all the squads that aren't ravaged with injury. The fact you can't understand the difference between having a full squad able to rotate and therefore train for the matches they are scheduled to play in and having only enough players to fill a match day squad and therefore not able to train is simply a failing on your behalf.

The difference is clear. Fact.
 

More bollocks. Both managers (Klopp even more so) comment how thick and fast the games come in England. One gets lambasted for it, the other excused.

Hypocrisy. Fact.

No I did it to prove Mick wrong, which it did. Fact.

Either the goals scored per game in entirety or without Villa both point to Jürgen having a much better record than Brendan. I didn't need or care to 'bend/skew' statistics at all, it was Mick who claimed that Villa skewed them in Jürgen's favour, I simply did the math and proved his assertions wrong. Simple, factual, yet you can't accept it, unsurprising given your reasoning above

By now, it's pretty clear why you 'do the maths' and the statistics you do.

No my point all along was that the ppg ratio was virtually irrelevant because the two could not be equatable on that basis alone, it's an immature debate and the nature on which that single stat was clung to was embarrassing. It should and now hopefully will be judged on much more than just a single statistic, any rational person knows a single statistic is never basis for proof. Fact.

They were/are the bare stats though. Of course you didn't like them and had to use 'ludicrous' scenario's to swing opinion. Fact. And like they are now 1.53 to 1.5 in favour of Klopp, you are happy to oblige immaturity yourself. And if any rational person knows single stats are a never basis of proof, does that mean all the stats you've endevoured to throw up about Mignolet's poor shot stopping isn't a basis of proof then?

You're a walking contradiction who twists and turns stats you fancy and rubbishes anyone else's, except you've now inadvertently admitted the stats you threw up about Mignolet's shot stopping isn't a basis of proof. Fact.     

For your information and just to prove you further wrong, if Jürgen finished the season with 1.44 PPG I'd have still already seen enough in us reaching a cup final, progressing in Europe, doing the double over City in the league, thumping Southampton, wiping the floor with the Chavs at their place and tonking Villa by a higher scoreline than anyone else in the league could manage to know that we're headed in the right direction

I understand that for you it's all about proving people wrong. However, your opinion as above doesn't prove ANYTHING. It's an assertion you've made.

Check back on the expectations thread, things are progressing exactly as I thought they would back then, we had the bounce as I predicted, we then had the lull that was expected, the spanner in the works is the injuries but things are coming together nicely now. All looking good from the Jürgen Klopp hype train, hop on whenever you're ready, it's much more fun over here! Fact.

It wasn't as much fun on Sunday was it? Or against Watford, Leicester, Sunderland, West Ham x2, Man. U., Newcastle and WBA though was it?

But no worries, once Klopp reaches the lofty heights of averaging 2.21 PPG then the real fun will begin, however, until that time comes I'm not going to pretend our patchy results are the ducks nuts when the clearly aren't.

Ouch KL, put in context, you just got pwned by Bigmick and Beerbelly. Fact.

That's gotta hurt.

Excellent work guys - always good to see reasoned posts backed by strong evidence. Very hard to argue against. Thanks for taking the time.

The F**k are we still discussing Brendan for? Brendan's record is irrelevant, Klopp certainly didn't come to the club thinking " I must out do Brendan", no he came here with the intention of building his own empire here, and knew full well it would take a few seasons to get into that position.
It does him no favours when he's compared to a former manager, it simply distracts from the fact that Jürgen is basically using this season to find out what needs to be put in place by the start of next season.

HB head and shoulders in the lead to win again the Danths Law award........

Well at least if our points per game ratio is now 1.53 under Jürgen (it was 1.5 under Brendan this season, his worst return as Liverpool manager) we can at least all agree now, WE ARE IMPROVING!!! Three hundredths of a point isn't a lot, but at least it is now a statement of fact that with our current run, every time we played 33 games we'd get an extra point than we would have if we'd continued at the same rate we were under that "f****** idiot" Rodgers.

Of course the above paragraph is bollocks, win against Palace at the end and it might nudge up to a point better off every 26 games, lose and the world stops rotating again. The point being that as of yet and based on results, it isn't really true to say we have vastly improved, we haven't. Equally, it isn't really based on any kind of reality to say you are "baffled" that others can't see massive improvements, because as of yet there aren't any.

Here's the rub though. I actually think that before too long we WILL see big improvements. I think we WILL see performances like last night become more the norm than the exception, performances like Leicester at Home our default setting as opposed to Watford away. When that happens, I'll be the first one climbing the statues and p!ssing in the fountains with my scarf with a picture of Jürgen worn on me head like a bandana. I really think it will happen (the form not the bandana).

But until then, we don't need to pretend. We don't need to berate people who can't see the Kings outfit when at the moment it doesn't exist. It will exist one day, then we can ALL talk about "massive strides" and the like, until then let's console ourselves with the undeniable fact that our really good days are better than they were under the previous managers last season and a bit.

Typical response from a scrote like you who has lost the ability of self appreciation!

You along with that other soft lad Mick were slapping each other on the back about how you can't win anything with high pressing.............F**k off   

It's only a short post but even here you've managed a couple of errors and misinterpretations.

Firstly I didn't say you can't win anything with high pressing (although if you employ it in every single match you won't prosper in England IMHO), and secondly we didn't "win anything" last night, aside from the match I guess. If that though is our criteria for judging a system (that we win one match) then any system any of us could dream up is a winner. Play 2-2-6 and you'll win a match eventually if your forwards click, probably about 8-5 or something, probably against Villa.

My point though yesterday was that against average teams who want to rough us up, the high press may not work for us because as we swarm them they'll launch it and chase it. Not for the first time I'm a little surprised that a fairly basic idea seems completely out of John Barnes's wing where you are concerned. Most everyone who watched a lot of Dortmund (not me but people who did) said that contributed to them getting "found out". Even Bayern did it against them bizarrely. Then for more recent evidence numerous teams have done it against us this season too.

Now nobody is saying we shouldn't high press. Nobody is saying it shouldn't be our"style" or that we shouldn't do it a lot. Nobody is saying we won't win matches with it, not at all. If though you are going to do well in the Premiership you need to win a lot of football matches, and such is the diversity of the opponent (and the weather which I also think is a factor) it kind of helps if you have more than one way to win.

All IMHO of course.

I enjoy reading his posts on here.

An all-too-rare example of someone who actually engages his brain before posting.

Well in Mick, if only others could follow your example. 

Perhaps you could lead by example.

HB head and shoulders in the lead to win again the Danths Law award........

I'm a great dancer but I think you need to get your lisp seen to.

How can you not love the Man?

Perhaps you could lead by example.

I do try unfortunately the truth is unpalatable for some. They think that by shouting me down and blocking out reality it will alter the fabric of being. Sadly life doesn't work like that.

You claiming that our football is clearly miles better than under the last manager, for example, is conjecture that's not borne out by the facts.

I'm a great dancer but I think you need to get your lisp seen to.

Wiki is a good source for thicko's

Wiki is a good source for thicko's

Why would Wiki be a good source for sicko's? And what's it got to do with anything? Don't see the relevance?

In any case, our style of football currently relies on teams to come onto us so that we can use a pressing game against them. As mentioned above we need to show a bit more tactical flexibility to achieve success against the rest of the league.

Every player that Brendan signed!

 

I've been 'away' so (it appears) I've missed a lot buddy... 

Just to be clear [to avoid confusion, you know] - is it now the default position that we, honestly, believe that Brendan signed/sanctioned/had total control over transfers? 

Now obviously I have often (and F***ing always) argued that Company Policy dictated, directly or indirectly, who came and when but... for the purpose of harmony I'll readily accept the new default position that it was Brendan who was responsible for players signed in his time here. [Likewise Kenny, before him].

However, may I suggest: now that 'we' have decided on a new default position [re: 'Manager is responsible for signings'] - can 'we' just agree to F***ing stick to that?

I mean: 'we' can't keep using this F***ing ridiculous notion that it's okay to move the goalposts between the manager and 'The Committee' [Company Policy] to fit our argument. It is F***ing retarded.

One last thing Luke: the truth is that you (and others) told me that Jürgen would be able to get more, from this squad, than Brendan; yes? I mean; I'm not telling lies there am I?

Now - I have no problem with you all being wrong; you all acted in good faith but...

... you must then understand that, having made that statement; it's more than a bit retarded and F***ing absurd to try to wriggle out of the corner by using the feeble 'They're Brendan's players' excuse... it's way beneath you Luke... way, way, beneath you.

Watching on has enlightening. Watching you all come to the realisation that no manager [whoever the F**k they are] can't polish a turd has been heartening.

Accept it, move on.

And... just to be clear, yet again - The new, default position is - we honestly believe Jürgen will be totally responsible for all transfers made during his time here: is that correct? 

By the way: I'm glad we have Jürgen Klopp as boss - big respect and lots of time for him... with a free reign he can make us great again (imho, obviously).

when the truth is that most knew it would take time, most are fully aware that the manager will have to adjust his style and vision to make it work..

Alright K78? I don't know how long you have been on the forum and I have no dog in this particular fight (tbh I'd vomit if it was thought I was sticking up for that tit) but really  "the truth is"...

On this forum 'most' tried to convince us that there would be instant improvement with this squad and only a 'few' of us knew it wouldn't be the case -  the posts are all there to be read/quoted btw - should the need arise. 

Now... whilst I, personally, find it heartening to see that 'most' now accept what the 'few' said; I can see how the change of tack (without acknowledgement to the fact) would puke the F***ing life out of some people. 

That is all.

No but some can take a little step back and realise that in the reality of life and football often you can't snap your fingers and expect immediate results

When a manager comes in and try's to impart his vision on a squad that isn't his own and had worked a different way over the last three years.

Also when that manager is working in a league for the first time, learning and adapting to that league and moulding a style that will work.

It's a fine balance and not all black and white. The truth as you see it can be seen as slightly pompous and a bit I'm right your wrong when the truth is that most knew it would take time, most are fully aware that the manager will have to adjust his style and vision to make it work..

It's not been perfect, it's not all gone great but we need a bigger sample size than so far to let the manager work to and show flexibility in approach

Everything is conjecture, it's what forums thrive on

The last manager had over three years to get his style across, to adjust and he had been around this league all his life..
The biggest frustration I had towards the end of Rodgers, and I liked the man, was him losing his identity, thoughout most of last season and going into this we were playing without identity and that's more damning after 3 years than to say Jürgen needs to adapt now, he's only in the job for a few months and I'm sure he knows better than you and me that if one approach won't work he has to adapt, it's far to early to suggest he can't see that or do it.

After 3 and a bit years it's easy to say that this is that managers team and it's clear he has had time to work and adapt. After 4 months with an inherited squad it's too early to judge.

Let's see where we are next March and if he hasn't adapted a style or found a way to make his work then maybe it's more a time to talk in black and white with evidence to back up on a decent sample size

Nobody's expecting us to do the domestic double in his first season.

But success or failure, when it does come, isn't an overnight process. We can see the seeds for either being laid well in advance of them blooming.

And so it's legitimate to examine what the manager is upto and whether his actions will result in eventual success for us. No-one is calling for the judgement of his reign to be made now but equally we don't need to shut down debate until next Summer or whenever you think is an acceptable time to pass it.

Shanks made mistakes, Paisley made mistakes, Kenny made mistake and Rafa made mistakes. They all achieved great success too. They are humans not computers. This forum should be a place where both aspects can be discussed otherwise what's the point of it? Why are we so scared of acknowledging the difficulty of the task ahead of us and savouring the triumph of overcoming the obstacles in our way?

Certainly it would make more sense to listen to posters grounding their opinions in reality rather than the superfans who are now tying themselves in statistical knots trying to prove that the manager is actually doing the best job ever. It allows us to pinpoint the real barriers rather than coming up with absurd justifications for not achieving our goals.

Our view is actually much closer to Klopp's. Watch his interview after the match; he says that the team has "shown what it is capable of". Exactly right. The talent is there, the question is how to unlock it. That can only be done by accurately pinpointing the problems in the first place.

He certainly isn't of the mindset that we "couldn't win" the final because we "lacked quality" or that we "consider the rest of the season a write-off" until his methods bed in or "it's not his players" so we can't expect to do well or any of the hundred other points that make the superfans burst into tears with whenever it is suggested that he isn't getting the desired results.

What a dull and superficial understanding view of the world it is to reduce the sport to "yeh we've got Klopp now, we just need the owners to shell out for Neuer, Kompany, Messi and Suarez and we'll be back to the top of the hill #YNWA."*

*I'm not accusing you of this - i'm just pointing out where I come from. As for thinking I'm right - well don't we all? Feel free to proclaim it, you won't hurt my feelings by saying so - it's the internet!