Given that in similar circs.we've signed sooooo many players who have failed to improve us in the 90s and since, I don't agree.
Sorry but better than our lot is definitely the point. How can we not be prepared to settle for second best when it comes to signing a new centre half but we are prepared to settle for the poor defenders we currently have. As far as value for money is concerned then how often do we get that anyway? Other teams manage to buy players without breaking the bank so why not us? Klavan cost 4 million and matip was a free signing so they were certainly cheap but does that represent value for money when neither of them are good enough. We overpaid massively on Lovren but he's still shit as well.Sigh.
For the zillionth time, "better than our lot" is not the point. The point is value for money - would the improvement one or more of these player might (MIGHT) make be worth the money we'd have to pay for them, especially given the fact that we'll have to pay a shedload for van Dijk when we go back in for him, hopefully in January? Klopp's clearly taken the view that, taking all those things into consideration and decided that the answer is "no", and none of us is qualified to think we know better.
You may be right, but I'd be less confident than you that my judgment of that was better than Klopp's.
Sorry I don't agree at all. We didn't need ox and that money could have gone towards buying a 2nd CB. How you can say that buying another CB even if he cost over 40m wouldn't be value for money when we have klavan starting games is beyond me.Sigh.
For the zillionth time, "better than our lot" is not the point. The point is value for money - would the improvement one or more of these players might (MIGHT) make be worth the money we'd have to pay for them, especially given the fact that we'll have to pay a shedload for van Dijk when we go back in for him, hopefully in January? Klopp's clearly taken the view that, taking all those things into consideration, the answer is "no", and none of us is qualified to think we know better.
Sorry but better than our lot is definitely the point. How can we not be prepared to settle for second best when it comes to signing a new centre half but we are prepared to settle for the poor defenders we currently have. As far as value for money is concerned then how often do we get that anyway? Other teams manage to buy players without breaking the bank so why not us? Klavan cost 4 million and matip was a free signing so they were certainly cheap but does that represent value for money when neither of them are good enough. We overpaid massively on Lovren but he's still shit as well.
And all this might not be good or might not be worth the money, well you could say that about any signing at any club so I don't think it's a valid argument. No signing comes with a guarantee that they will play well and that goes for VVD as well. The club were supposed to be prepared to play 60 million plus for him and he'd have to be the second coming of christ to represent value for money at that price wouldn't he?
People make this argument all the time and i think its peurile, and its ironically usually made by the same people who make the ' all managers make mistakes in the transfer market' argument.
How people reconcile both is a mystery
Okay I understand that he wanted VVD desperatley and is still hoping to sign him at some future date but if none of the centre halves we currently have are good enough and that seems to be the case as they all have looked poor this season and in past seasons (Lovren) then why were we only after 1 centre half? One player isn't going to make up for 3 shit ones is he? Klopp doesn't seem to like the idea of having a bigger squad which is madness considering how low on players we were at times last season when we didn't have European football.We're not "settling" for anything though. Klopp knows the defence needs to improve - that's why he's made such a point of insisting on van Dijk. What he's not having, rightly in my view, is this kind of unthinking "there must be someone better than" argument for going out and spending yet more money on second choices, soooooo many of whom have failed us over the years. It's true that there are no guarantees with transfers, but that's all the more reason not to fritter money away on panic signings which end up achieving bugger all.
Okay let's look at it from a slighty different perspective. If we were unable to add VVD in the summer and decided to stick with the current centre halves that we have why are they so poor?
Is it or style of play which puts so much empasis on attacking and seems to neglect the defensive side of the game?
Is it that Klopp or whoever trains the players doesn't know how to organise a team defensively? I have no idea but so far it hasn't been good enough i know that.
Is it that the players either don't understand what Klopp's trying to coach them or they can't because they aren't good enough? Quite possibly but then he's backed these players many times either by signing them or rewarding them with a new contract in Lovren's case.
Is it that the 3 players we have at centre half (I'm not counting Gomez as he plays predominantly at full back) can't cope with the english style of play which is much more physical and competitive than in other countries? I think this explains some performances but not against city or sevilla as they play a more pass and move style than having a bullying centre forward.
It's a mess at the moment and we have until January before we can add new personnel to change it so until then Mr Klopp needs to get his defensive act together and sort it out.
Sorry I don't agree at all. We didn't need ox and that money could have gone towards buying a 2nd CB. How you can say that buying another CB even if he cost over 40m wouldn't be value for money when we have klavan starting games is beyond me.
I agree that we have seen plenty of improvement in an attacking sense under Klopp and it makes the games generally more exciting than they used to be but that shouldn't mask that we are still as poor at the back now as the day he took over and no matter what players he picks or teams we play against we rarely look solid at the back. Football is essentially about attacking and defending and no team prospers without both being able to do both.Good post and I agree with a lot of it. I do think Klopp has questions to answer about the defence and about the balance between our defence and our attack, and I understand - because I share - the frustration about aspects of our performance at the moment. What I think I'm saying essentially is that these questions won't be answered overnight and that I've seen enough improvement overall under Klopp to trust his judgment rather than any of ours at this stage.
I don't buy this idea that we shouldn't settle for anyone other than our top target either. By all accounts Mane was our second choice to Gotze and Salah was our second choice to Pulisic and they have worked out quite well so why should it be different with defenders? And what we did under previous managers and previous scouting systems should have no relevance on who makes decisions at the club at the moment, that's just scaremongering.
No, it isn't. The fact that everyone makes mistakes doesn't dilute the need to have decisions made by those best qualified to make them. If anything the opposite is true.
I'm not saying we shouldn't ever go for anyone other than our top target. I'm saying that, if Klopp decided in this particular case that doing so wouldn't be worthwhile, I'm prepared to trust his judgment.
By no means everyone at the club dealing with transfers is new since Klopp's arrival, so I disagree with that last bit.
Agree with the "without question" bit, but ultimately someone has to have the final say. I'd sooner that was the manager than anyone here (or anyone else at the club for that matter).
So what happens then if van dijk decides to go to Chelsea instead of us? According to klopp there is no one else.We expected to bring van Dijk in as well though. Klavan was supposed to be only a 4th choice, and he will be when van Dijk arrives, quite possibly in January.
I don't see the Ox as an automatic starter but I don't agree he's an unnecessary signing, not with the number of games we're going to have to play.
One thing... Klopp will look more depressed than what he does today. Seriously have you guys seen him in the post match press conference .. he looks like a defeated man.So what happens then if van dijk decides to go to Chelsea instead of us? According to klopp there is no one else.
One thing... Klopp will look more depressed than what he does today. Seriously have you guys seen him in the post match press conference .. he looks like a defeated man.
gk...someone has upset you on this forum..is it that Rosco fella. You are being too political these days.That's because, with minimal experience of computer games, fantasy football, football forums and pub discussions, he is ill-equipped to manage at the highest level.
Lascelles scored... Again.Off the top of my head, we could have made a move for Lascelles at Newcastle or Dunk at Brighton. Twice as good as Klavan.
Rafa knows his defenders.Lascelles scored... Again.
That's exactly why we should raid Newcastle.Rafa knows his defenders.
Well he's proving ill-equipped to manage a defence that's for sure.That's because, with minimal experience of computer games, fantasy football, football forums and pub discussions, he is ill-equipped to manage at the highest level.
Rafa dont sell cheap.That's exactly why we should raid Newcastle.
How many clubs in the history of top flight football have replaced 4 of the 5 at the back in one transfer window?Well 5 games in and its looking like the decision to not invest heavily in a new GK, Two CB's, a top class LB and a DM are backfiring massively.
5 games 9 goals shipped not to mention how worse it gets if you add Europe
Shambles
How many clubs in the history of top flight football have replaced 4 of the 5 at the back in one transfer window?