Martial

Originally Posted by dunk

Not really. If he'd have been starting games with him upfront, regularly, then maybe.

Not everyone lost their shit when LvG put Nick Powell on upfront while we had 10 players out injured, for instance. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do. It's when it's every game, as it was with Fellaini..

Pal...

Seriously.

If Mourinho has signed a player like Steven £#%&!ing Caulker and proceeded to play him as a striker you’d still be banging on about it to this day.

Powell was a midfielder/forward already at the club and was a kid who was given a chance.

Point is Klopp made strange decisions and bought shite, but was given time to put things right. He wouldn’t have had the same trust or time from the board here.

Originally Posted by AK14

Pal...

Seriously.

If Mourinho has signed a player like Steven £#%&!ing Caulker and proceeded to play him as a striker you’d still be banging on about it to this day.

Powell was a midfielder/forward already at the club and was a kid who was given a chance.

Point is Klopp made strange decisions and bought shite, but was given time to put things right. He wouldn’t have had the same trust or time from the board here.

You keep saying that, but it isn't what Klopp did, is it?

He signed him on a 6 month stop gap loan and threw him on upfront once when desperately chasing a goal.

Even the 'shite' he signed has served a purpose, be it fill a role and chip in or increase their value to enable the club to sell them on at a profit. Probably only Karius that he has signed that is going to end up leaving for less than they paid and won't have been worth the money.

He may have wanted to replace certain players he signed with haste, but he didn't utterly ruin them and make them unsaleable first. Only really Sakho that was ostracised, and wasn't he a Rodgers signing that was behaving like a #@&%!?

Man management and signing players of a good age...

Originally Posted by dunk

You keep saying that, but it isn't what Klopp did, is it?

He signed him on a 6 month stop gap loan and threw him on upfront once when desperately chasing a goal.

So he signed him and played him as a striker...

He played more as a striker than as a defender under klopp...

I know, you know and so does everyone on here know, that if Mourinho had done it you’d still be using it as a stick to beat him with.

Not the point I’m making though.

Originally Posted by AK14

So he signed him and played him as a striker...

He played more as a striker than as a defender under klopp...

I know, you know and so does everyone on here know, that if Mourinho had done it you’d still be using it as a stick to beat him with.

Not the point I’m making though.

He only played about 3 times Again, stop gap loan, chucked on upfront once when no other options presented and a goal was being chased.

Fergie played John O'Shea up front once pal.

Mourinho chucked Smalling upfront a few times, never gave him any shit for it.

Over a dozen posts arguing about Mourinho’s theoretical signing of Steven £#%&!ing Caulker.

Missed this place.

Originally Posted by dunk

You keep saying that, but it isn't what Klopp did, is it?

He signed him on a 6 month stop gap loan and threw him on upfront once when desperately chasing a goal.

Even the 'shite' he signed has served a purpose, be it fill a role and chip in or increase their value to enable the club to sell them on at a profit. Probably only Karius that he has signed that is going to end up leaving for less than they paid and won't have been worth the money.

He may have wanted to replace certain players he signed with haste, but he didn't utterly ruin them and make them unsaleable first. Only really Sakho that was ostracised, and wasn't he a Rodgers signing that was behaving like a #@&%!?

Man management and signing players of a good age...

Yeah Guric, Caulker, Klaven and Manninger all served their purpose...

Point is his initial signings weren’t that great, but was given time and even though he made mistakes + failed to finish higher than 4th liverpools board continued to back him. That wouldn’t have happened here.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Over a dozen posts arguing about Mourinho’s theoretical signing of Steven £#%&!ing Caulker.

Missed this place.

Originally Posted by AK14

Yeah Guric, Caulker, Klaven and Manninger all served their purpose...

Point is his initial signings weren’t that great, but was given time and even though he made mistakes + failed to finish higher than 4th liverpools board continued to back him. That wouldn’t have happened here.

Guric and Klaven are both going to fetch them a profit when sold this summer, Klaven did alright for them when he played.

Caulker was a loan signing. A loan. Signing. for 6 months.

Manninger was a free akin to whoever we signed as 3rd choice keeper in the summer.

So if I give you Caulker (a loan signing) and Manninger, that'll be 2 questionable signings. The rest either made them money when sold, or were very useful players to have.

Originally Posted by dunk

He only played about 3 times Again, stop gap loan, chucked on upfront once when no other options presented and a goal was being chased.

Fergie played John O'Shea up front once pal.

Mourinho chucked Smalling upfront a few times, never gave him any shit for it.

As I said, not the point I’m making.

But you defending a decision to not only sign Steven Caulker but play him as a striker is odd considering you moaned and shit the bed at every opportunity under our last manager.

Anyway, I’ll move on.

Originally Posted by AK14

As I said, not the point I’m making.

But you defending a decision to not only sign Steven Caulker but play him as a striker is odd considering you moaned and shit the bed at every opportunity under our last manager.

Anyway, I’ll move on.

I'm not defending it, there's £#%&! all to defend

You're £#%&!ing mental.

Every decision Mourinho made with players £#%&!ed the club a little more. Look at the £#%&!ing contrast. Sticking Smalling upfront for 15 minutes wasn't an issue.

Originally Posted by dunk

Guric and Klaven are both going to fetch them a profit when sold this summer, Klaven did alright for them when he played.

Caulker was a loan signing. A loan. Signing. for 6 months.

Manninger was a free akin to whoever we signed as 3rd choice keeper in the summer.

So if I give you Caulker (a loan signing) and Manninger, that'll be 2 questionable signings. The rest either made them money when sold, or were very useful players to have.

Klaven was sold for a £2m loss last summer pal...

Christ alive Dunk

Originally Posted by AK14

Klaven was sold for a £2m loss last summer pal...

Christ alive Dunk

Do apologise, thought he was still on loan. That said, he served a purpose by doing alright for them when he played, so still not a 'shit' signing. A stepping stone at worst. At £4.2m. Can't believe they ever let him near a chequebook again...

If I give you him, that's 3.

Originally Posted by dunk

I'm not defending it, there's £#%&! all to defend

You're £#%&!ing mental.

Every decision Mourinho made with players £#%&!ed the club a little more. Look at the £#%&!ing contrast. Sticking Smalling upfront for 15 minutes wasn't an issue.

Again, not the point I’m making.

And again I’ll say it, that Klopp wouldn’t have been given the time here that he’s had at Liverpool.

Originally Posted by dunk

Do apologise, thought he was still on loan. That said, he served a purpose by doing alright for them when he played, so still not a 'shit' signing. A stepping stone at worst. At £4.2m. Can't believe they ever let him near a chequebook again...

If I give you him, that's 3.

Give up pal, move on.

Originally Posted by AK14

Again, not the point I’m making.

And again I’ll say it, that Klopp wouldn’t have been given the time here that he’s had at Liverpool.

The point you are making, which is wrong, is that he made sufficient mistakes in player recruitment and what was happening on the pitch to give his bosses cause to doubt him. He didn't and hasn't at any point. Had he followed the same path here he'd have been given the same time and patience.

All 3 of our managers have made such a £#%&!ing dogs dinner of various elements that all put themselves at risk.

Originally Posted by dunk

The point you are making, which is wrong, is that he made sufficient mistakes in player recruitment and what was happening on the pitch to give his bosses cause to doubt him. He didn't and hasn't at any point. Had he followed the same path here he'd have been given the same time and patience.

All 3 of our managers have made such a £#%&!ing dogs dinner of various elements that all put themselves at risk.

Agree to disagree.

He’d never have been given the same time and leeway here. Not with these owners.

God alive give me strength.

Also I didn’t say he’d made sufficient mistakes to lose the trust of his board. I’m saying that if he’d have made those mistakes HERE he’d have lost the trust.

Originally Posted by AK14

Agree to disagree.

He’d never have been given the same time and leeway here. Not with these owners.

God alive give me strength.

What leeway?

If he was progressing as he has at Liverpool he'd have been left alone.

Our owners would £#%&!ing love to just leave someone in charge

The @#%&! has spent £400m odd tbf. If it wasbt for us spending a similar amount so disastrously people would focus on that more. We've deflected from that fact that they have bought their success, like City.

Originally Posted by dunk

What leeway?

If he was progressing as he has at Liverpool he'd have been left alone.

Our owners would £#%&!ing love to just leave someone in charge

Progressed by finishing 8th, 4th and 4th before this season? Because that’s what our board would make their decision on.

We hamstring our managers and klopp would have been no different IMO, then the board would have lost patience.

Originally Posted by AK14

Progressed by finishing 8th, 4th and 4th before this season? Because that’s what our board would make their decision on.

We hamstring our managers and klopp would have been no different IMO, then the board would have lost patience.

So progression then, and one would have to assume progression on keeping with what he had planned/advised them to expect to some degree?

Only an absolute £#%&!ing idiot couldn’t see them improving season on season under him.

I’m not sure our owners would’ve baulked at him spending less than we have, including signing the likes of Matip and Milner for free.

They’d have sacked him for putting Caulker on upfront though, nqat.

Originally Posted by dunk

So progression then, and one would have to assume progression on keeping with what he had planned/advised them to expect to some degree?

Only an absolute £#%&!ing idiot couldn’t see them improving season on season under him.

I’m not sure our owners would’ve baulked at him spending less than we have, including signing the likes of Matip and Milner for free.

They’d have sacked him for putting Caulker on upfront though, nqat.

If you hadn’t had noticed we’ve got an idiot running the football side of our club. Who has hamstrung our previous managers, overruled them, undermined them, yet we’re supposed to believe it would have been different under Klopp? In my opinion it wouldn’t have, they’d have lost faith with him by now.

Van Gaal wanted Mane and Fabinho but was told no by the board btw.

As much fun as this conversation is, I’ll say it again, let’s agree to disagree.