UCL Final 21/22 | Liverpool Vs Real Madrid

Pep has always underlined that it's down to the players and not him. Even in a recent interview he says he can instruct his players and tell them what might happen during the match but ultimately it is down to the player to make a decision in split seconds, to make the pass and to receive the ball at the right moment and over that he has no control.

BTW, Zidane is also in the "League > CL" brigade.

Zidane, though, believes that the challenge of maintaining performance across 38 games is more difficult than lifting the Champions League.

"It's more difficult. I've always said that: it's more difficult," he said when asked about the difference between La Liga and European competition.

Thimmy wrote:

Nishankly wrote:Now it’s calling out Liverpool fans for worshipping Klopp, when will it end Robbie

It's not just Klopp, and it's not just Liverpool fans. Klopp and Pep are the most recent examples of this almost religious approach to vieweing managers. I suspect you're going to make this solely about Klopp, so I'll clarify that I think both Pep and Klopp are great managers, I don't think that needs mentioning and it's not what I'm getting at. I just believe there's a realistic limit to how many talents you can attribute to a football manager. Especially, when it comes to jumping to conclusions. From what I can tell, this phenomenon started around the time when someone suggested that Pochettino had some kind of otherworldly, man management ability. That was the first time I saw someone outright claim that a manager was definitely able to man manage any player from a different team into some kind of superstar.

All the talk about the most successful managers commanding not only tactical nous, but exceptional motivational ability, as well as a keen eye for how to nurture individual talent seemed like some Hollywood scenario, a joke, or some kind of child-like wish that magic exists without having to be demonstrated. I figured it was the opinion of a few, impressionable people, but then I saw the same claim in different comment sections of the internet. These days, such claims seem to have become a norm. I bet football becomes more exciting to watch for people who see things that way. To those who have no hesitation to jump on this bandwagon, I say good for you - but it's so irrational to me

As for the CL final tomorrow, I will naturally support Real Madrid, but I like both teams and I'm not so passionate about the sport these days that it would ruin my day if Liverpool beat us. With the amount of talent they have in their squad, I think there's an argument that they deserve to have won the competition twice.

What do you think about Pioli's impact on AC Milan, and Conte's impact on Tottenham?

Myesyats wrote:Pep has always underlined that it's down to the players and not him. Even in a recent interview he says he can instruct his players and tell them what might happen during the match but ultimately it is down to the player to make a decision in split seconds, to make the pass and to receive the ball at the right moment and over that he has no control.

BTW, Zidane is also in the "League > CL" brigade.

Zidane, though, believes that the challenge of maintaining performance across 38 games is more difficult than lifting the Champions League.

"It's more difficult. I've always said that: it's more difficult," he said when asked about the difference between La Liga and European competition.

Zidane is also in the camp of winning more CLs than league titles, so the claim seems logical in his case. Zidane and Ancelotti (Milan and first Madrid stint) may be the only modern examples of a coach having more success in the CL than domestic competitions.

In Guardiola's case, claiming the thing you won 4 times with City is much more difficult to achieve than the thing you won 0 times sounds absurd. If it's easier, wouldn't you be more successful at it? Let's ask Conte if he thinks the CL is easier than the league.

Lord Spencer:

Can you elaborate? Are you asking if I think those two are proof that the most successful managers achieve success by unlocking potential in players that only they possess the power to unlock? I do not watch AC Milan or Italian football at all these days, so I'm the wrong person to ask about Pioli. I would've assumed that Inter would be the team to usurp Juventus' seat at the top of the league following the latter's decline this season, but a colleague recently told me that Milan are top of the table so I suppose he must be doing something right? I have no clue.

I believe someone on here was quite insistent that Conte would definitely achieve a top 4 spot in the Premier League, and said something about not betting against it. Only recently did that prediction turn out to look like a likely outcome since Arsenal and their non-existent squad depth unsurprisingly choked when it mattered most. The acquisition of Kulusevski has been a great piece of business for Tottenham. The Juve supporters on GL didn't seem to think very highly of Kulusevski when I asked about him in the past, but he's been genuinely good for Tottenham.

As a club though, I suppose they've performed better than they did under Mourinho. I do think Conte's tactical setup has had a positive effect on the squad. I'm not going to assume that the explanation behind their rise into the top 4 can be conveniently traced back to Conte alone, or any other, single individual, though. There's been a slight power shift between the top teams of last season, and Tottenham's form seems to often coincide with the forms of their star players. Harry Kane regaining his form resulted in a massive upturn in form for the club as a whole. And that's why the top performing clubs are the clubs that have the means to acquire the top performing players.

farfan wrote:

Myesyats wrote:Pep has always underlined that it's down to the players and not him. Even in a recent interview he says he can instruct his players and tell them what might happen during the match but ultimately it is down to the player to make a decision in split seconds, to make the pass and to receive the ball at the right moment and over that he has no control.

BTW, Zidane is also in the "League > CL" brigade.

Zidane, though, believes that the challenge of maintaining performance across 38 games is more difficult than lifting the Champions League.

"It's more difficult. I've always said that: it's more difficult," he said when asked about the difference between La Liga and European competition.

Zidane is also in the camp of winning more CLs than league titles, so the claim seems logical in his case. Zidane and Ancelotti (Milan and first Madrid stint) may be the only modern examples of a coach having more success in the CL than domestic competitions.

In Guardiola's case, claiming the thing you won 4 times with City is much more difficult to achieve than the thing you won 0 times sounds absurd. If it's easier, wouldn't you be more successful at it? Let's ask Conte if he thinks the CL is easier than the league.

I wouldnt say its easier but theres more surprise element and its less about continuity. Its different.

Thats why oftentimes we see deep runs of lesser teams getting into semis and whereabouts. Spurs in 2019 were a stone's throw away from winning CL ffs. Can you imagine SPURS racking up 90+ points in the Premier League once, let alone several years in a row?

In that season City got 98 points in the league and Spurs 71.
Their encounter in CL ended 4-4 and Spurs advanced on AWAY GOALS.
So were Spurs better than City that season? No.

So Spurs finished #4 in the league with 71 points but almost won CL. City won the league with 98 points but fell short in CL to Spurs themselves. So is it hard or is it easy? I'd say both at the same time

I think the CL is a lot more difficult because you're competing against the best teams from each league. The element of surprise also makes it even more difficult and less predictable.

When you see clubs like Madrid with 35 league titles and only 13 CLs, that striking difference tells you everything.

United has what, 20 league titles? But they only have 3 CLs.

Barça has 26 leagues and only 5 CLs.

Bayern has 32 leagues and only 6 CLs

Juventus has 36 leagues and only 2 CLs.

Same pattern for Milan, Inter, Liverpool and all the other big teams.

Rarely will you ever find a European club with more CLs than league titles ( Nottingham Forest for instance).

So yeah I think the CL is a lot more prestigious than any other league in Europe for a reason.

halamadrid2 wrote:

Interesting flag by Liverpool fans in Paris today. #UCLfinal pic.twitter.com/0prZoa8wPK

— Madrid Zone (@theMadridZone) May 27, 2022

 

And in their own city?

Okay that is just savage

The Demon of Carthage wrote:I think the CL is a lot more difficult because you're competing against the best teams from each league. The element of surprise also makes it even more difficult and less predictable.

When you see clubs like Madrid with 35 league titles and only 13 CLs, that striking difference tells you everything.

United has what, 20 league titles? But they only have 3 CLs.

Barça has 26 leagues and only 5 CLs.

Bayern has 32 leagues and only 6 CLs

Juventus has 36 leagues and only 2 CLs.

Same pattern for Milan, Inter, Liverpool and all the other big teams.

Rarely will you ever find a European club with more CLs than league titles ( Nottingham Forest for instance).

So yeah I think the CL is a lot more prestigious than any other league in Europe for a reason.

Look no further than the last 5 years.

Liverpool have won 1 Premier League and 1 CL
Man City have won 4 PL and 0 CL

If Liverpool win tomorrow, this means that for them, winning CL is easier than winning the Premier League in recent years. Case closed.

Sure, but you would only be basing your assessment on a 5-year period which is highly inaccurate. You need to look at the club's entire history to have a much precise and elaborate conclusion.

So if Liverpool wins the CL tomorrow, they will have 19 PL and 7 CL which would still support the argument that the CL is much harder to win.

The Demon of Carthage wrote:Sure, but you would only be basing your assessment on a 5-year period which is highly inaccurate. You need to look at the club's entire history to have a much precise and elaborate conclusion.

So if Liverpool wins the CL tomorrow, they will have 19 PL and 7 CL which would still support the argument that the CL is much harder to win.

Depends on the level of your league.

If we're talking about Bundesliga than fuck no. Bayern wins 10x in a row with little to no resistance.

But the Premier League of the last 5 years is bonkers. Liverpool and Man City are separated by something like 1 point since 2017

CL is more random. So even if you have a mediocre league season like Spurs (4th place finish), by a string of lucky events you can win or even only draw and advance on away goals and go all the way.

Whereas Spurs are fucking shit and can't fluke their way to a Premier League title.
There's no luck involved in either of Man City's and Liverpool's league runs, it's sheer brilliance through and through, unmistakable.

But then again, City almost lost it on the final day. So I don't know what I'm talking about. But to keep up with either of these teams, you have to be exceptional all year long.

CL can be easier or harder depending on the draw. Look at the opponent's for Real Madrid 2016 CL win compared to this years or 2018s draw

Thimmy wrote:Lord Spencer:

Can you elaborate? Are you asking if I think those two are proof that the most successful managers achieve success by unlocking potential in players that only they possess the power to unlock? I do not watch AC Milan or Italian football at all these days, so I'm the wrong person to ask about Pioli. I would've assumed that Inter would be the team to usurp Juventus' seat at the top of the league following the latter's decline this season, but a colleague recently told me that Milan are top of the table so I suppose he must be doing something right? I have no clue.

I believe someone on here was quite insistent that Conte would definitely achieve a top 4 spot in the Premier League, and said something about not betting against it. Only recently did that prediction turn out to look like a likely outcome since Arsenal and their non-existent squad depth unsurprisingly choked when it mattered most. The acquisition of Kulusevski has been a great piece of business for Tottenham. The Juve supporters on GL didn't seem to think very highly of Kulusevski when I asked about him in the past, but he's been genuinely good for Tottenham.

As a club though, I suppose they've performed better than they did under Mourinho. I do think Conte's tactical setup has had a positive effect on the squad. I'm not going to assume that the explanation behind their rise into the top 4 can be conveniently traced back to Conte alone, or any other, single individual, though. There's been a slight power shift between the top teams of last season, and Tottenham's form seems to often coincide with the forms of their star players. Harry Kane regaining his form resulted in a massive upturn in form for the club as a whole. And that's why the top performing clubs are the clubs that have the means to acquire the top performing players.

I think that just as some people have a tendency to exaggerate the role of coaches on a club's performance, some other people go to the other extreme, which you have consistently been doing.

Sure, the success of a team depends on many factors, especially squad building, but discounting the ability or role of coaches in both maximizing and unlocking the ability of their players is ridiculous.

Pioli and Conte are examples you can't discount. Same squad, same management, same players, and result instantly improve. While its yet to be seen if Conte's effect will continue, Milan wouldn't have won the league with any other coach.

TLDR. You are right that success depends on many factors, but you are often wrong in how much you discount the role of the coach in building a side, maximizing their players, and influencing the game.

Clutch wrote:CL can be easier or harder depending on the draw. Look at the opponent's for Real Madrid 2016 CL win compared to this years or 2018s draw

And neither of those draws compare to Liverpool's this year. Absolutely scandalous ffs.

Inter -> Benfica -> Villareal

Thiago and Fabinho are fit for the final. Any advantage Madrid would've had with the two of not playing is gone.

We're going to be fielding our full strength XI.

I'm actually extremely confident going into this one with everyone fit. We're definitely favorites, around 60-40 on paper.

If Madrid beat us with our full strength side, I won't even be mad, they would've absolutely deserved it. This Liverpool Klopp team just doesn't lose games at full strength. We've lost 3 matches all season and each time there were extraneous circumstances involved or we didn't have our main XI involved.

Did you know that in the Klopp era after Van Dijk, Alisson, Fabinho signings we are nearly unbeatable when the strongest XI starts. (excluding 19/20 short period where we officially clinched PL title and coasted the season).

In fact the only times we've lost with our strongest side with something to play since 2018:
1) Man City 2-1 loss at the Etihad in 18/19 which decided the title where we were just beaten by an equally great team (I'm counting even though Lovren started because Matip was injured, and Milner started over Fabinho because Fabinho had only played in double pivot until then)
2) Atletico 1-0 loss in 19/20 CL first leg in Madrid where Simeone just stifled us completely. The Anfield leg we didn't have Alisson and Adrian lost us the tie single handedly with his error after we dominated so doesn't fit this criteria.
3) Napoli 1-0 loss in 18/19 CL groups in Italy, Ancelotti stifled us and we were outplayed (Henderson/Fabinhoo both didn't start but at the time in the season Milner/Keita were ahead of them in pecking order/fitness)

If Madrid beat this full strength Liverpool team with something to play for on the line, they will be only the 4th side to do so and will absolutely deserve it and I will personally deliver Benzema the Balon D'or.

Casciavit wrote:

Clutch wrote:CL can be easier or harder depending on the draw. Look at the opponent's for Real Madrid 2016 CL win compared to this years or 2018s draw

And neither of those draws compare to Liverpool's this year. Absolutely scandalous ffs.

Inter -> Benfica -> Villareal

At least Inter were league winners. Madrid's 2016 KO campaign was Roma, Wolfsburg and City. Not even the version of City we know (or a league winner either), this was the year they told Pellegrini mid way through his season that he's going to be replaced by Pep.

Casciavit wrote:

Clutch wrote:CL can be easier or harder depending on the draw. Look at the opponent's for Real Madrid 2016 CL win compared to this years or 2018s draw

And neither of those draws compare to Liverpool's this year. Absolutely scandalous ffs.

Inter -> Benfica -> Villareal

Eh people always have weird revisionist takes with things like these.

Liverpool literally had the group death when the draw was made, just because they went 18/18 doesn't make the group a cake walk in hindsight.

Inter were the 2nd toughest draw out of all 8 second placed teams. Only PSG tougher. Which Quarterfinalist got a tougher draw in R16 than Liverpool other than Madrid facing PSG?

Man City faced Sporting
Chelsea faced Lille
Bayern faced Salzburg
Ajax faced Benfica
Atletico faced Man Utd (this super '22 garbage MU)
Villarreal faced Juventus (worse than Inter as proven by their league position, head to head record, Coppa Italia Final loss)

QF - Benfica was definitely the weakest for Liverpool, but not through luck of the draw. Ajax literally choked. They were 18/18 in the groups and people were genuinely throwing their name as an underdog (which was dumb to begin with).

SF - Again Bayern chocked. Juve choked. Getting Villarreal wasn't some luck of the draw. Bigger teams couldn't beat them. You can only face who you face.

A final against City would be the tougher path to the trophy but they choked to Madrid and now Liverpool is facing the inferior team.

Perucho21 wrote:
50/50 game for sure.

It's really not. Even the odd makers don't believe it to be.

Sure Madrid can absolutely win but there's a clear favorite in this final.

Being favorites on paper doesn't mean anything but this is not a 50-50 final.

I honestly can't remember the last genuine 50-50 final. Bayern-PSG was probably the closest but even that was 51-49 to Bayern who were just a machine that year. Before that ManUtd-Chelsea in 2008 probably and that was 51-49ish as well rather than genuine 50-50.

Lord Spencer wrote:

Thimmy wrote:Lord Spencer:

Can you elaborate? Are you asking if I think those two are proof that the most successful managers achieve success by unlocking potential in players that only they possess the power to unlock? I do not watch AC Milan or Italian football at all these days, so I'm the wrong person to ask about Pioli. I would've assumed that Inter would be the team to usurp Juventus' seat at the top of the league following the latter's decline this season, but a colleague recently told me that Milan are top of the table so I suppose he must be doing something right? I have no clue.

I believe someone on here was quite insistent that Conte would definitely achieve a top 4 spot in the Premier League, and said something about not betting against it. Only recently did that prediction turn out to look like a likely outcome since Arsenal and their non-existent squad depth unsurprisingly choked when it mattered most. The acquisition of Kulusevski has been a great piece of business for Tottenham. The Juve supporters on GL didn't seem to think very highly of Kulusevski when I asked about him in the past, but he's been genuinely good for Tottenham.

As a club though, I suppose they've performed better than they did under Mourinho. I do think Conte's tactical setup has had a positive effect on the squad. I'm not going to assume that the explanation behind their rise into the top 4 can be conveniently traced back to Conte alone, or any other, single individual, though. There's been a slight power shift between the top teams of last season, and Tottenham's form seems to often coincide with the forms of their star players. Harry Kane regaining his form resulted in a massive upturn in form for the club as a whole. And that's why the top performing clubs are the clubs that have the means to acquire the top performing players.

I think that just as some people have a tendency to exaggerate the role of coaches on a club's performance, some other people go to the other extreme, which you have consistently been doing.

Sure, the success of a team depends on many factors, especially squad building, but discounting the ability or role of coaches in both maximizing and unlocking the ability of their players is ridiculous.

Pioli and Conte are examples you can't discount. Same squad, same management, same players, and result instantly improve. While its yet to be seen if Conte's effect will continue, Milan wouldn't have won the league with any other coach.

TLDR. You are right that success depends on many factors, but you are often wrong in how much you discount the role of the coach in building a side, maximizing their players, and influencing the game.

You didn't have to TLDR that brief post, even if it was 10x as long as the last one that was directed towards me. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm wrong if someone not only points it out, but also demonstrates how or why. I don't see how your post disproves what I've claimed. You even end it by agreeing that there are multiple factors that play into a team's success.

Just recently did someone on here claim that x player would be world class if he had been managed by Klopp. That seems like a pretty extreme, sensationalist statement to me, and it's definitely not the first time I've seen it get thrown around as if it's a relatively common perk that certain managers seem to obtain once they reach success with a team. I assume you've seen that claim as well? Like I mentioned before, the first time I read someone make such a grandiose claim was during Pochettino's prime at Tottenham, back when "man management" started to become a popular term and, from what I can tell, it isn't even commonly viewed as an ambitious claim anymore.

I really don't believe I undermine a manager's role in organizing a team and influencing the game. Tactics aside, they can also achieve great results through motivating, and in some cases, even nurture players to some degree. That's always been true. I simply don't believe that nurturing ability is so potent and tangible that it can be applied to any arbitrary player and have a predictable result. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be a relatively common belief nowadays  

Even if such a talent exists, it's going to take a lot of evidence to substantiate that as an argument. I do believe that the quality and team composition is, generally speaking, far more important to a team's success than anything a manager can possibly influence, but I also believe it's very obvious that a manager is necessary to get the most out of a team. If you thought I was saying that managers aren't important, that's absolutely not what I mean.

Doc wrote:

Casciavit wrote:

Clutch wrote:CL can be easier or harder depending on the draw. Look at the opponent's for Real Madrid 2016 CL win compared to this years or 2018s draw

And neither of those draws compare to Liverpool's this year. Absolutely scandalous ffs.

Inter -> Benfica -> Villareal

At least Inter were league winners. Madrid's 2016 KO campaign was Roma, Wolfsburg and City. Not even the version of City we know (or a league winner either), this was the year they told Pellegrini mid way through his season that he's going to be replaced by Pep.

tbf Inter had lost a top 5 coach in the world, their best striker, and the best RB in the league.

It's on boys

Fuck me, we have been jinxed boys:
https://www.marca.com/en/football/champions-league/2022/05/28/629203d946163f8b388b45ea.html

I’m ready for war boys.. let’s win this

hala madrid, hala kariminal

expecting you to lose 4-1 though