What's new

Jose Mourinho

How do you feel about Mourinho appointment

  • Excited - silverware here we come baby

    Votes: 666 46.7%
  • Meh - will give him a chance and hope he is successful

    Votes: 468 32.8%
  • Horrified - praying for the day he'll fuck off

    Votes: 292 20.5%

  • Total voters
    1,426

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Bit of a weird take there. Liverpool have clearly been a 'top' club for a long time, and have consistently won trophies up until Klopp's appointment.
I'm not denying that Klopp is a good manager, but I'm confused as someone could claim Liverpool were a 'non-top club' prior to his arrival.
They finished below us every season bar one in the 9 seasons prior to 18/19, winning one league cup and nothing more in that time. Unless you have a very loose definition of what it takes to be a top club, Liverpool have only most reached that point again in the past two seasons thanks to a transformation engineered by Klopp.

Pre 18/19, their league placements this past decade starting with 09/10:

  • 7th
  • (6th)
  • 8th
  • 7th
  • 2nd
  • 6th
  • 8th
  • 4th
  • 4th
The season in bold is Klopps first full season. The season in brackets, they also won the league cup.

Liverpool hadn’t been a top club in a long time time Klopp reversed the side. Former great? Absolutely. Huge fan base? Undoubtedly. Rich? Very. But an average position of 5th/6th across 9 seasons suggests that they had become a second tier club, and to say otherwise it’s to not recognise the incredible job Klopp has done.

We may have different criteria or opinions about what makes a top club, but to my mind a top club is one that can be reasonably expected to challenge for the title, or at the very least presumed a safe bet for top 4. Liverpool ticked neither of these boxes for a very significant period of time.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
They finished below us every season bar one in the 9 seasons prior to 18/19, winning one league cup and nothing more in that time. Unless you have a very loose definition of what it takes to be a top club, Liverpool have only most reached that point again in the past two seasons thanks to a transformation engineered by Klopp.

Pre 18/19, their league placements this past decade starting with 09/10:

  • 7th
  • (6th)
  • 8th
  • 7th
  • 2nd
  • 6th
  • 8th
  • 4th
  • 4th
The season in bold is Klopps first full season. The season in brackets, they also won the league cup.

Liverpool hadn’t been a top club in a long time time Klopp reversed the side. Former great? Absolutely. Huge fan base? Undoubtedly. Rich? Very. But an average position of 5th/6th across 9 seasons suggests that they had become a second tier club, and to say otherwise it’s to not recognise the incredible job Klopp has done.

We may have different criteria or opinions about what makes a top club, but to my mind a top club is one that can be reasonably expected to challenge for the title, or at the very least presumed a safe bet for top 4. Liverpool ticked neither of these boxes for a very significant period of time.
That's the reality of the Liverpool situation. What they've had that prevented that from being the actual story told about them is what I like to call 'narrative inertia'.

Their huge fanbase kept enough 'mass' (and now I'm painfully aware that I'm comparing football with physics!) to keep the inertia going for some time. When you have that many people insisting on them being a top-tier club it keeps the story going.

Now that they've won the CL and the League, more mass has been added to that narrative inertia. Short of relegation and a lengthy period in a lower league, they're going to be considered a giant for some time to come.
 

jay2040

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
2,670
4,257
That's the reality of the Liverpool situation. What they've had that prevented that from being the actual story told about them is what I like to call 'narrative inertia'.

Their huge fanbase kept enough 'mass' (and now I'm painfully aware that I'm comparing football with physics!) to keep the inertia going for some time. When you have that many people insisting on them being a top-tier club it keeps the story going.

Now that they've won the CL and the League, more mass has been added to that narrative inertia. Short of relegation and a lengthy period in a lower league, they're going to be considered a giant for some time to come.

Agree, people have short memories and will tag this onto their historical success and not acknowledge the huge void in-between.
 

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Feb 1, 2005
55,593
205,126
Bit of a weird take there. Liverpool have clearly been a 'top' club for a long time, and have consistently won trophies up until Klopp's appointment.
I'm not denying that Klopp is a good manager, but I'm confused as someone could claim Liverpool were a 'non-top club' prior to his arrival.
Exactly, look at United, who struggled for a long time until Ferguson arrived and were even relegated at one point. Without checking, i'm pretty sure Liverpool were in the old second division when Shankly arrived but since then, they've been a top club, the similarities are there.

I would guess that those two clubs have won somewhere approaching 100 major trophies between them. We consider ourselves to be a top club, I bet we haven't won half of what either of those clubs have won.

If those two aren't top clubs then there aren't any in this country.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,667
93,388
People were going absolutely wild after that first game and were ready to throw in the towel. As I said at the time, I think the lads needed that kick in the face.
I had a look back and couldn't believe what I was reading, I remember it was bad, but not 'We should sack Jose and bring in Sean Dyche/Scott Parker' bad.

It's surprising how many Spurs fans have jobs/hobbies that involve taking repeated blows to the head, that's the only explanation.
 
Last edited:

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,323
146,781
Bit of a weird take there. Liverpool have clearly been a 'top' club for a long time, and have consistently won trophies up until Klopp's appointment.
I'm not denying that Klopp is a good manager, but I'm confused as someone could claim Liverpool were a 'non-top club' prior to his arrival.

Arsenal weren’t exactly minnows when Wenger took over either.
 

wishkah

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
4,808
14,483
IMG-20201010-WA0004.jpg
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Exactly, look at United, who struggled for a long time until Ferguson arrived and were even relegated at one point. Without checking, i'm pretty sure Liverpool were in the old second division when Shankly arrived but since then, they've been a top club, the similarities are there.

I would guess that those two clubs have won somewhere approaching 100 major trophies between them. We consider ourselves to be a top club, I bet we haven't won half of what either of those clubs have won.

If those two aren't top clubs then there aren't any in this country.
I’m reticent to continue down this road because so much of this discussion relies on subjectivity, but I believe you’re conflating big club and top club with what you say. Of course Liverpool never stopped being a big club, that would be madness, that and United are the biggest clubs in England and Terri of the biggest in the worst. Third is probably Arsenal. We are arguably a big club too, and we’re on the verge of becoming a top club again under Pochettino, but ultimately until we become a regular trophy winner and a club who you’d always expect to challenge at the top of the league, we’re second tier.

That’s where in my opinion Liverpool were pre Klopp. No longer regular trophy winners (which was one of the points @sausage made) and not finishing any where near the top of the league since the previous decade, one Rodgers season side which was very much the anomaly. Obviously Liverpool never stopped being a massive club, but a top club does better than they had done for a generation worth of supporters. Until Klopp took over, Liverpool were having their equivalent of our nineties (though not quite as Bas in terms of league position, so comparatively speaking given how much bigger they are than us).
 

buckley

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2012
2,595
6,073
Talking about us having a squad I read that if we sign Rodan then he will go on loan for a year at Swansea . Myself with all the talk of us trying to get a centre half id does not make sense to sign someone then sending out on loan . Am I alone in thinking this makes no sense .?
 
May 17, 2018
11,872
47,993
Arsenal weren’t exactly minnows when Wenger took over either.
It's arguable that Rioch was unfairly sacked and Wenger claimed (not intentionally) a lot of kudos from him. People have used the argument to discredit Ranieri (with Pearson), but I've not really heard it being said about Graham's defence and Rioch's Bergkamp being a good basis of the earlier Wenger success.
Not taking away from Wenger too much there, but it wasn't like there was a night/day difference, and you could compare them to where Chelsea are at the moment.
 

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,323
146,781
It's arguable that Rioch was unfairly sacked and Wenger claimed (not intentionally) a lot of kudos from him. People have used the argument to discredit Ranieri (with Pearson), but I've not really heard it being said about Graham's defence and Rioch's Bergkamp being a good basis of the earlier Wenger success.
Not taking away from Wenger too much there, but it wasn't like there was a night/day difference, and you could compare them to where Chelsea are at the moment.

Didn‘t Wenger recommend the signing of Bergkamp while he was waiting to take over? I’m sure I read that somewhere. But yeah without that famous Graham back four, Wenger would have struggled to achieve what he did. He was never able to recreate it either once they’d all retired.
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Didn‘t Wenger recommend the signing of Bergkamp while he was waiting to take over? I’m sure I read that somewhere. But yeah without that famous Graham back four, Wenger would have struggled to achieve what he did. He was never able to recreate it either once they’d all retired.
I see this a lot and just don’t agree. The back four in their unbeaten season was Cole and Lauren at full back, Judas and Toure at centre back, with Vieira and Gilberto in front, Lehmann behind. The only remaining George Graham defender was Keown who started 3 league matches and came on 7 times, while in midfield Parlour started 16 matches.
 

DJS

A hoonter must hoont
Dec 9, 2006
31,266
21,766
Didn‘t Wenger recommend the signing of Bergkamp while he was waiting to take over? I’m sure I read that somewhere. But yeah without that famous Graham back four, Wenger would have struggled to achieve what he did. He was never able to recreate it either once they’d all retired.

No I think you’re thinking of Viera who arrived in the summer before he took over.

Bergkamp was under Rioch the summer before (his sole season in charge but doubt they were planning for Wenger at that point lol).
 
Last edited:

Rout-Ledge

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2005
9,636
21,816
Didn‘tBut yeah without that famous Graham back four, Wenger would have struggled to achieve what he did. He was never able to recreate it either once they’d all retired.

I’m not inclined to defend Wenger but he did achieve the only ever unbeaten PL season and that was without any of the Graham back four (presumably being Winterburn, Bould, Adams and Dixon)
 
May 17, 2018
11,872
47,993
Didn‘t Wenger recommend the signing of Bergkamp while he was waiting to take over? I’m sure I read that somewhere. But yeah without that famous Graham back four, Wenger would have struggled to achieve what he did. He was never able to recreate it either once they’d all retired.

Would be a bit weird if Wenger did, as Rioch took the job in around May 1995 and they signed Bergkamp in June 1995. I think it was a good 14-15 months later that Wenger joined.
 
Top