Rodgers v. Klopp

[Rosco]

What I don't really agree with is the Klopp example, it doesn't verify anything other than he's feeling the pinch of his predecessors (and that piss poor committees) fuck ups. I think overall you can see marginal improvements, but you can only really assess his impact once he's had time to settle into the league, to see his tactics become second nature and the buy his own players.

I haven't said anything about Klopp.

If you wanted my opinion on what the figures show - the players are the most important factor, but things like the fixture list and luck are more influential on results than someone shouting on the sideline.

 

[mark1975]

The title mentions Klopp, Ross. As does your OP.

 

[mark1975]

I haven't said anything about Klopp.

If you wanted my opinion on what the figures show - the players are the most important factor, but things like the fixture list and luck are more influential on results than someone shouting on the sideline.

I'm not sure why you're getting so uptight about this subject. I offered a detailed, respectful reply earlier which you've chosen to ignore, instead getting involved in spats with posters over the point. If you didn't want to engage in debate, then I'm not sure why you constantly police thread protocol, to then post your own transparent attempts to troll over a point.

You've then just quoted half my next post, overlooking the other half which went out of it's way to acknowledge your view and to agree with it at least partially.

The thread point was obvious, that there's little to choose between Rodgers and Klopp this season. So you haven't just "mentioned" Klopp, he's central to your point. What you've chosen (again) to completely ignore is mitigating factors like how long the respective managers were in this league, who's "vision" they are playing with, their term in management at this club, etc.

There's a valid point in there like I said, but it completely lacks context or perspective. Seeing as you can't be arsed engaging over the point in what could have otherwise been a decent discussion, I'll leave it there. You're obviously more content bitching about the point without offering up any sort of detailed reasoned reply to anyone, which let's face it, was the point.

 

[Rosco]

People might be on to something about how arsey you are.

You've totally misunderstood the post. Just to clarify, yes I mentioned Klopp. I offered no judgment. Thats what you've missed.

I thought my reply to you cleared that up, but clearly it didnt.

Although i have to say i like the extent to which you have to wrap yourself up into knots arguing against a point i never made.

 

[mark1975]

People might be on to something about how arsey you are.

You've totally misunderstood the post. Just to clarify, yes I mentioned Klopp. I offered no judgment. Thats what you've missed.

I thought my reply to you cleared that up, but clearly it didnt.

Although i have to say i like the extent to which you have to wrap yourself up into knots arguing against a point i never made.

I acknowledged your point, I didn't argue against it, I said it lacks perspective, which is true. Your reply didn't really clear anything up, other than you've opted to take a small sample of stats from two environments with variables you've chosen to overlook, which you seem to think confirms your theory.

 

[manwithnoname]

I don't understand the argument. If there is one. It's Ross opening up a debate about the importance of managers, and how in most cases, their actual influence is overstated.

I don't think anybody would deny that the most important factor in winning titles is the players you have in the squad and how good they are, which is itself dictated by how much money you have to buy the best players, and pay the highest wages. There's always a team that can disrupt that, for a short time at least - Atletico Madrid, Valencia, Dortmund, Leicester whatever, but that's always with a whole bunch of other, additional factors; luck, form, injuries, keeping your best players etc etc

And I don't think anyone would deny that Klopp is a better manager than Rodgers, but expecting him to take this bunch of twats to the title is preposterous.

Finally, while the manager is only ONE contributory factor among many, and certainly not THE most important one, it's also very true that sometimes that alchemy for whaetever reason, doesn't work when they move on. Does anyone think AM will continue to challenge when Simeone leaves? And just look at what happened to United when Baconface fucked off. So I wouldn't overstate the importance of the manager, but nor would would I reduce it to negligible.

 

[Rosco]

I acknowledged your point, I didn't argue against it, I said it lacks perspective, which is true. Your reply didn't really clear anything up, other than you've opted to take a small sample of stats from two environments with variables you've chosen to overlook, which you seem to think confirms your theory.

Having the same squad of players isnt a variable. Its a constant.

If managerial ability had half the impact (simple) people think it did then we'd have seen a noticeable improvement in points won. I've pointed out that of all the factors involved in winning games, managerial ability is about the least important. Thats been proven over the last couple of months.

What is also statisticslly proven is that very often a team will have a bounce from a change of manager - and thats usually just regression to the mean rather than anything the manager has done.

We havent had a bounce because we werent far from the mean. The average squad we have produced average results. Under a better manager the injury ravaged squad has performed slightly less than average.

 

[mark1975]

We havent had a bounce because we werent far from the mean. The average squad we have produced average results. Under a better manager the injury ravaged squad has performed slightly less than average.

I think Brendan's just explained it well, like I said, I get your point to some degree, as I explained similarly in my initial post.

But the point you make here contradicts the theory a bit. We've performed more or less the same (the difference is negligible) to how we did earlier in the season, under a new manager, with half the squad to choose from. Since then we've lost Gomez, Skrtel, Coutinho, Lovren, Sakho, Henderson, Milner, Firmino, Benteke, Origi, Ibe and Ings for various lengths of time. That's over a dozen of the players who played a significant part in early season team/squad. Like I say, if you consider the variables, then the difference in playing field between Rodgers & Klopp during those spells is determined by:

• length of time in the job
• length of time in English Football
• Squad available
• Time to implement ideas and playing style
• A team/squad to call their own
• Respective fixture congestion

The theory (in relation to us, which was your example) works on a level where you ignore those factors. But you can't really ignore those factors, otherwise it becomes selective.

 

[Hansern]

Its strange that you didnt use the full sample data as I provided. I guess thats because it didnt suit your views on the matter.

The first 100 days in charge have been more than average in total. Add to that a horrific injury list, fixture list, no pre season and no transfer window. I think you'll find Klopp has made a difference. A positive difference.

 

[tony]

Sorry Ross but you should know that statically to get the most accurate results you should use the same fixtures last year to compare against Klopp's this season. He has one more point than Rogers over the same games which represents a 5.5% increase in points over the same fixtures than Rogers' results - so progress has been made.

 

[Dreambeliever]

Do you want me to bump the thread you started about the difference Klopp was making ?

I hate doing that but that was the alternative

Klopp is making a difference and if you can't see that then that's on you.

The fact Sunday was our first defeat against a top 4 side from last season speaks volumes.

I've always said it will take Klopp time to mould the side around his style but the differences are very evident already.
As shown already in this thread, your stat is a load of bollox.

 

[Dreambeliever]

I haven't said anything about Klopp.

If you wanted my opinion on what the figures show - the players are the most important factor, but things like the fixture list and luck are more influential on results than someone shouting on the sideline.

Hahahaha

 

[tombrown]

Every time we have brought in a new manager the first season is a write off (league wise at least), then things improve, then we nearly challenge for the league, then we go back to mediocrity.

Above was more or less true for Uncle Roy, Houllier, Rafa & Rodgers. Hodgson was Hodgson & Kenny didn't get a run at it (justified or not is a different argument)

Obviously hope the last part of the sequence is not the case with Juergen