Liverpool 1-4 Manchester City - Sunday 7th February 2021

[Danny]

1 hour ago, LFCMike said:

Spend as much money as you want. Man City did that. They still couldn't follow up two 95+ point seasons with another title challenge

No they couldn’t, but that isnt irrelevant is it? You want Liverpool to do the best they can, not the best City can. To do that you prepare your squad appropriately, had your planning of not revolved around having less back up players than needed and your back up players not being injury prone you could be top of the table even with an injury problem.

You could still be where you are but with a healthier squad, who knows, but it’s strange to see fans of a side who have just won their first league title in decades be so ambivalent about defending it, something you would never really see from United, Chelsea or City fans in recent years. There are moves you could have made to be in a better position than you are, with how tight things are this season that could mean you not being 10 points off of the leaders who have a game in hand.

[Scouse_Mouse]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

He was absolutely right about us being bad champions. 

Really? Roy Keane is an out and out gobshite, a great player in his day but just another failed manager who couldn't cut it so spends his days criticizing those who can.

He should stick to selling his sensationalized books.

 

[Danny]

27 minutes ago, Lucas said:

Id be interested to know if Liverpool had a fully fit squad right now, would Thiago get in that midfield three or would they likely stick with Fabinho, Henderson and Wijnaldum.

Depends on the system doesn’t it? But I think Thiago needs more time to adjust, he’s looked good on the ball but defensively has been made to look amateur at times with his late tackles. I imagine an adjustment period is needed to get him up to scratch with the league from a defensive standpoint.

[LFCMike]

8 minutes ago, Danny said:

No they couldn’t, but that isnt irrelevant is it? You want Liverpool to do the best they can, not the best City can. To do that you prepare your squad appropriately, had your planning of not revolved around having less back up players than needed and your back up players not being injury prone you could be top of the table even with an injury problem.

You could still be where you are but with a healthier squad, who knows, but it’s strange to see fans of a side who have just won their first league title in decades be so ambivalent about defending it, something you would never really see from United, Chelsea or City fans in recent years. There are moves you could have made to be in a better position than you are, with how tight things are this season that could mean you not being 10 points off of the leaders who have a game in hand.

I'm not saying Liverpool have done everything perfectly squad wise for reasons we've been through a million times on here. I'm not going to start throwing my toys out the pram though and understand how difficult it is to go again. There's multiple reasons why Liverpool haven't hit the heights they did in 18/19 and 19/20. Not all down to not throwing money at it

[Mel81x+]

22 minutes ago, Lucas said:

Id be interested to know if Liverpool had a fully fit squad right now, would Thiago get in that midfield three or would they likely stick with Fabinho, Henderson and Wijnaldum.

I honestly think he would be in the squad. The problem right now is that we're looking at arguably two of our best pushing midfielders playing so far back they cant have any effect on the game. But, if we did have them playing in their actual positions then someone like Thiago just gives Klopp more options to play a different attack system. 

[LFCMike]

31 minutes ago, Lucas said:

Id be interested to know if Liverpool had a fully fit squad right now, would Thiago get in that midfield three or would they likely stick with Fabinho, Henderson and Wijnaldum.

Fabinho would probably start almost every game I think. The others would be rotated to keep things fresh.

[Scouse_Mouse]

2 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

I'm not saying Liverpool have done everything perfectly squad wise for reasons we've been through a million times on here. I'm not going to start throwing my toys out the pram though and understand how difficult it is to go again. There's multiple reasons why Liverpool haven't hit the heights they did in 18/19 and 19/20. Not all down to not throwing money at it

Liverpool proved last season that you can put together a team of great players without spending obscene amounts of money

Repeating was always going to be hard but no club could have had the sheer amount of injuries we have been dealt and not struggled to repeat.

*Cue the usual suspects......well but well every club has had injuries like Liverpool's.

[Danny]

5 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

I'm not saying Liverpool have done everything perfectly squad wise for reasons we've been through a million times on here. I'm not going to start throwing my toys out the pram though and understand how difficult it is to go again. There's multiple reasons why Liverpool haven't hit the heights they did in 18/19 and 19/20. Not all down to not throwing money at it

No one is asking you to throw a tantrum, it’s just strange that whenever a valid point is raised against how the team has been put together instead of going yeah, we fucked that up and now we are where we are, you’re all ignoring it whenever it’s mentioned. Or if someone gets annoyed at it, which is a valid emotion as a football supporter, to get annoyed at bad planning, you make him out to be mental and too sensitive. It’s just strange, Klopp will be the first manager to not get sacked after failing to defend a single won league title since Arsène Wenger 15 years ago. Clearly that means there is a long term plan under Klopp as it meant with Wenger, but clearly it also shows that when a team fails to defend a single title there are issues that should have been rectified in the defending season.

Why do you keep saying throwing money at it? You have just spent (will have when you buy Kabak) a reported £30m or so on 3 centre backs. That is not throwing money at it, that is strengthening your squad. Do you really believe these were all moves that couldn’t have been done before the season started? Or last season?

[Danny]

4 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Liverpool proved last season that you can put together a team of great players without spending obscene amounts of money

Repeating was always going to be hard but no club could have had the sheer amount of injuries we have been dealt and not struggled to repeat.

*Cue the usual suspects......well but well every club has had injuries like Liverpool's.

Liverpool have spent £500m+ since the season Klopp came in, I’m not sure what your definition of obscene is but £500m is up there.

[Scouse_Mouse]

7 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Fabinho would probably start almost every game I think. The others would be rotated to keep things fresh.

The first player on my team sheet would be Fabinho, world class, the best holding mid since Mascherano. 

Id love to see him play with Henderson and Thiago, obviously with something remotely resembling a defence behind them.

[Scouse_Mouse]

5 minutes ago, Danny said:

Liverpool have spent £500m+ since the season Klopp came in, I’m not sure what your definition of obscene is but £500m is up there.

Our net spend is a fraction of that, and it's been less than most clubs in the division since Klopp took over.

 

[Danny]

Just now, Scouse_Mouse said:

Our net spend is a fraction of that, and it's been less than most clubs in the division since Klopp took over.

 

But you still spent £500m+, you didn't get the players for free, you spent £500m+. So when you talk about not spending a lot or not spending obscene amounts, you are lying. Net spend and expenditure are two separate things, one helps highlight profit/loss and how money is accrued, the other highlights what you actually spent, money you gave to clubs for their players. Which is over £500m+.

[LFCMike]

10 minutes ago, Danny said:

No one is asking you to throw a tantrum, it’s just strange that whenever a valid point is raised against how the team has been put together instead of going yeah, we fucked that up and now we are where we are, you’re all ignoring it whenever it’s mentioned. Or if someone gets annoyed at it, which is a valid emotion as a football supporter, to get annoyed at bad planning, you make him out to be mental and too sensitive. It’s just strange, Klopp will be the first manager to not get sacked after failing to defend a single won league title since Arsène Wenger 15 years ago. Clearly that means there is a long term plan under Klopp as it meant with Wenger, but clearly it also shows that when a team fails to defend a single title there are issues that should have been rectified in the defending season.

Why do you keep saying throwing money at it? You have just spent (will have when you buy Kabak) a reported £30m or so on 3 centre backs. That is not throwing money at it, that is strengthening your squad. Do you really believe these were all moves that couldn’t have been done before the season started? Or last season?

Sure Liverpool were quoted over £30m for Kabak in the summer. They've now got him on loan and will pay £18m if they sign him permanently. Given the way the deals for Jota and Thiago were done in the summer, I don't think the deal for Kabak could have been done within the framework Klopp and Edwards have to work in, no. 

The way Liverpool have done their business since Klopp came in has helped put them in a position to win a league title, come within a whisker of winning one the year before and getting to two European Cup finals, winning one. It's also why they won't dominate over a number of years (who will apart from City though?) But we all know how FSG work so it's pointless moaning about it after every defeat.

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Sure Liverpool were quoted over £30m for Kabak in the summer. They've now got him on loan and will pay £18m if they sign him permanently. Given the way the deals for Jota and Thiago were done in the summer, I don't think the deal for Kabak could have been done within the framework Klopp and Edwards have to work in, no. 

The way Liverpool have done their business since Klopp came in has helped put them in a position to win a league title, come within a whisker of winning one the year before and getting to two European Cup finals, winning one. It's also why they won't dominate over a number of years (who will apart from City though?) But we all know how FSG work so it's pointless moaning about it after every defeat.

Genuine question - is this not what you would want?

[Scouse_Mouse]

13 minutes ago, Danny said:

But you still spent £500m+, you didn't get the players for free, you spent £500m+. So when you talk about not spending a lot or not spending obscene amounts, you are lying. Net spend and expenditure are two separate things, one helps highlight profit/loss and how money is accrued, the other highlights what you actually spent, money you gave to clubs for their players. Which is over £500m+.

Clearly that isn't the case. Does anyone really need to explain that squads are based on players bought and also players sold? If that wasn't the case we'd have played Suarez and Coutinho yesterday ffs.

The only way you can compare spending is net spend.Cities net spend per season since Klopp arrived is 101M per season Ours is 18.5M in 14th place.

I'm sure you knew this already but for some reason there always been those trying to make out that Klopp has succeeded because he had 500M to spend.

 

[LFCMike]

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

Genuine question - is this not what you would want?

Err, yes? I also understand that is very difficult to achieve and you have to accept that a system that has put us in the position to win trophies does have limitations up against a club that has a bottomless pit of money and can afford to go and buy another £50m full back if one doesn't work out. Liverpool can't afford to make many mistakes like that. 

[Cicero]

4 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Clearly that isn't the case. Does anyone really need to explain that squads are based on players bought and also players sold? If that wasn't the case we'd have played Suarez and Coutinho yesterday ffs.

The only way you can compare spending is net spend.Cities net spend per season since Klopp arrived is 101M per season Ours is 18.5M in 14th place.

I'm sure you knew this already but for some reason there always been those trying to make out that Klopp has succeeded because he had 500M to spend.

 

But you still broke the record for a CB and a GK at the time. You spent loads. 

We had this same argument with @LFCMadLad and he made it out to be we think this is a criticism of Klopp. Its not. 

 

[Burning Gold]

22 minutes ago, Danny said:

But you still spent £500m+, you didn't get the players for free, you spent £500m+. So when you talk about not spending a lot or not spending obscene amounts, you are lying. Net spend and expenditure are two separate things, one helps highlight profit/loss and how money is accrued, the other highlights what you actually spent, money you gave to clubs for their players. Which is over £500m+.

I think framing it as just a balance sheet issue is a bit simplistic. The money we've spent on players comes from taking value away from our squad. City wouldn't have had to sell Coutinho to bring in van Dijk and Alisson, for instance; wouldn't have had to sell Lovren to bring in Thiago, wouldn't have had to sell Ings. How much better would we be with those players still in the squad? I don't think it's ridiculous to say we'd have had a very good chance at the Champions League last season and we'd still be in the title race now, but we can't because we have to maintain some level of financial control.

Of course our net spend isn't a true reflection of the quality we've added/subtracted because we've got some ridiculous fees for players we've sold, and we've managed to get good value on players we've signed (although not always), but it's quite a serious constraint when you're trying to compete at the level we have for the last few seasons.

[Scouse_Mouse]

2 minutes ago, Cicero said:

But you still broke the record for a CB and a GK at the time. You spent loads. 

We had this same argument with @LFCMadLad and he made it out to be we think this is a criticism of Klopp. Its not. 

 

It might not be a criticism of Klopp (though 9 times out of 10 it is someone trying to degenerate his accomplishments) it's just silly and very misleading.

Any of our big signings like VVD or Alison have been funded in the most part by sales....ie players in/players out....money in/money out.

I can't believe anyone not understanding this, if you sell a 200M striker and buy one for 10M your not going to necessarily going to improve because your gross spend was 10M.

 

[Stan]

21 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Err, yes? I also understand that is very difficult to achieve and you have to accept that a system that has put us in the position to win trophies does have limitations up against a club that has a bottomless pit of money and can afford to go and buy another £50m full back if one doesn't work out. Liverpool can't afford to make many mistakes like that. 

Goes back to the point about buying sensibly then - I don't think any person here has said you need to spend obscenely like City do . Just to spend so you have yourself covered in various positions (like how you bought Thiago and Jota) and not leave yourself short. 

I'm not disagreeing with you that it's difficult to achieve, but it's not impossible.

[Cicero]

5 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

It might not be a criticism of Klopp (though 9 times out of 10 it is someone trying to degenerate his accomplishments) it's just silly and very misleading.

Any of our big signings like VVD or Alison have been funded in the most part by sales....ie players in/players out....money in/money out.

I can't believe anyone not understanding this, if you sell a 200M striker and buy one for 10M your not going to necessarily going to improve because your gross spend was 10M.

 

Right, but judging from your comments and Madlad's in the past, you are making it out to be that Klopp made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He didn't. He spent 75 million on a CB and 67 million on a GK. It doesn't matter where the money comes from (separate argument), the argument is what's spent.  Klopp has no control on how much a player costs but to suggest he didn't, in your words, spend obscene amounts of money, is invalid. 

Again, this isn't a dig at Klopp. So there is no need for the defence mechanism. 

[Scouse_Mouse]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

Right, but judging from your comments and Madlad's in the past, you are making it out to be that Klopp made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He didn't. He spent 75 million on a CB and 67 million on a GK. It doesn't matter where the money comes from (separate argument), the argument is what's spent.  Klopp has no control on how much a player costs but to suggest he didn't, in your words, spend obscene amounts of money, is invalid. 

Again, this isn't a dig at Klopp. So there is no need for the defence mechanism. 

I don't ever remember making out that Klopp has made a silk purse out of a sows ear? His signings have generally been incredibly good though.

I just don't get how anyone can base any clubs standing purely on gross spending?

Honestly lets say City win the league this season, and lets say in the summer the Sheik gets bored and sells De Bruyne and Aguero. City then spend 50M of their windfall on a replacement. City would be a stronger side right? They had spent 50M after all, what difference does it make that De Bruyne and Aguero have gone.

I just can't see how anyone doesn't get this.

[Danny]

10 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

I think framing it as just a balance sheet issue is a bit simplistic. The money we've spent on players comes from taking value away from our squad. City wouldn't have had to sell Coutinho to bring in van Dijk and Alisson, for instance; wouldn't have had to sell Lovren to bring in Thiago, wouldn't have had to sell Ings. How much better would we be with those players still in the squad? I don't think it's ridiculous to say we'd have had a very good chance at the Champions League last season and we'd still be in the title race now, but we can't because we have to maintain some level of financial control.

Of course our net spend isn't a true reflection of the quality we've added/subtracted because we've got some ridiculous fees for players we've sold, and we've managed to get good value on players we've signed (although not always), but it's quite a serious constraint when you're trying to compete at the level we have for the last few seasons.

I’m not denying City have the advantage of not needing to sell to buy, I’m not denying that you’ve been great in the transfer market either, there are just a lot of Liverpool fans who do not understand that regardless of net spend you have gone out and spent £500m+ on players throughout Klopp’s tenure.

[Burning Gold]

6 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Right, but judging from your comments and Madlad's in the past, you are making it out to be that Klopp made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He didn't. He spent 75 million on a CB and 67 million on a GK. It doesn't matter where the money comes from (separate argument), the argument is what's spent.  Klopp has no control on how much a player costs but to suggest he didn't, in your words, spend obscene amounts of money, is invalid. 

Again, this isn't a dig at Klopp. So there is no need for the defence mechanism. 

Yes it obviously does though. If the money comes from selling players then that a) means you're taking quality out of the squad in order to add to it and b) in the context of demands to spend more, it's obviously a finite resource. We had to loan out Minamino and prey on desperate clubs to get two centre halves in on deadline day (seriously reducing the overall quality available and the pool of players to pick from). Who should we have sold to get more cover elsewhere?

We sold our second or third best player to fund those two record transfers ffs  come back when City have to sell Sterling or Bernardo (or whoever, idc) to compete

[Danny]

46 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Clearly that isn't the case. Does anyone really need to explain that squads are based on players bought and also players sold? If that wasn't the case we'd have played Suarez and Coutinho yesterday ffs.

The only way you can compare spending is net spend.Cities net spend per season since Klopp arrived is 101M per season Ours is 18.5M in 14th place.

I'm sure you knew this already but for some reason there always been those trying to make out that Klopp has succeeded because he had 500M to spend.

 

Can you remember your own posts lol? You very clearly stated Liverpool have found a way to win a title without spending obscene amounts, spending £500m is an “obscene” amount