Klopp ‘ridicule’ is down to rival ‘envy’ as Liverpool media translates German’s stupid replay ‘demand’ | OneFootball

Jurgen Klopp had to mention replays. Why? Dunno.

If you reckon Jurgen Klopp made a mistake in ‘demanding’ the Liverpool game with Spurs should be replayed, think again. The rival backlash is down to ‘envy’.

C’mon de Replay ‘Liverpool neither want nor expect their Premier League game against Tottenham to be replayed. That’s pretty clear, mainly because it would be mental and set an appalling precedent that nobody really wants… They don’t want a replay, they don’t expect a replay, there will quite obviously be no replay… There is no indication that they are considering it, no suggestion that anybody sensible wants it, and giving the idea even a second’s thought makes it obvious as to why’ – a site that, we promise, used to be good, October 4, 11.49am.

‘It was an obvious mistake and I think there would have been solutions for it afterwards. If not, I can say immediately, and probably some people don’t want me to say it, not as the manager of Liverpool but much more as a football person, I think the only outcome should be a replay. That’s how it is. It probably will not happen. The argument against that will probably be if you open that gate then everybody will ask for it. I think the situation is that unprecedented that a replay would be the right thing’ –  Jurgen Klopp, presumably soon after asking someone to hold his beer, October 4, around 1.30pm.

VAR could cost Liverpool the Premier League title

Liverpool had a nightmare with VAR over the weekend in their game against Tottenham.

0 seconds of 1 minute, 19 secondsVolume 90%

ADVERTISEMENT

In demand The above is about as far as Klopp actually went in talking about the prospect of a replay on Wednesday. He pitched it as an option – which to be clear was very silly and unhelpful to Liverpool’s apparent wider aim in all this – then said that “much better than a replay” would be to “sort it in the moment” through “common sense”.

In short: it should have been possible in the laws of the game for the officials to pause the match in such extreme circumstances and rectify their mistake as soon as it was realised. And that is one change that should be made by the PGMOL as part of wider reforms.

It would mean we don’t get such iconic quotes as Darren England’s “I can’t do anything. I can’t do anything”, but that is the sort of collateral damage inflicted when weird people prioritise concepts such as ‘fairness’ and ‘competence’.

The problem – and what Klopp really ought to have known – is that such nuance and subtlety never translates well to the media. And that is particularly true of headlines, which brings us to:

‘Klopp demands a replay’ – The Times back page.

‘Klopp demands Spurs replay’ – the Daily Telegraph back page.

‘KLOPP DEMANDS SPURS REPLAY’ – the Daily Star front page.

‘Jurgen Klopp demands Liverpool replay against Tottenham after VAR error disallowed Luis Diaz goal’ – Sky Sports.

‘Liverpool boss Jurgen Klopp demands Spurs match to be replayed after VAR mistake’ – Sky News.

‘Jurgen Klopp demands Tottenham vs Liverpool Premier League replay after VAR audio released’ – Football.London.

‘Jurgen Klopp demands Liverpool are given a replay after VAR audio is released’ – Daily Mirror website.

‘IAN HERBERT: Jurgen Klopp is sounding like a man losing his grip on reality. What a breathtaking sense of entitlement and extraordinary lack of perspective to demand a replay’ – MailOnline.

He just didn’t though, did he? Klopp barely ‘called’ for a replay – which is the term most other outlets settle on – never mind making any ‘demands’ over one. But there is obviously strength in numbers when it comes to predictable sensationalism.

Just because Klopp gave them an open net, it doesn’t mean they had to convert the tap-in.

Jurgen jargon But again, Klopp surely knew the reaction his comments would evoke. He cannot have expected the coverage to be much different. The second he used the word ‘replay’, the headlines and stories were written with a focus on precisely that, undermining anything else he might have said and moving the story on from ‘Liverpool want to help bring about change’ to ‘haha, look at Liverpool wanting to replay the game now! I suppose [insert any fixture ever in which a questionable referee call was made] will be replayed next?!’.

And that is crucial, because now whatever Liverpool say and do regarding this entire situation, ultimately their manager has said that, in his own personal opinion, the game should be replayed. Any prior argument that no-one at Liverpool wanted a replay and all they were trying to do was help force necessary reform was contradicted in that moment. Any legitimate and justifiable points he or anyone else at the club makes from now will be buried under that.

Handily enough, there are Liverpool-adjacent interpreters out there not only capable of explaining precisely what points Klopp was trying to make, but also to clarify how what he said was actually a very clever ploy which fits neatly into Liverpool’s overall approach to push for wider changes.

And who better than David Maddock, official Liverpool cheerleader for the Daily Mirror, to lead the charge? He promises to reveal the ‘real reason’ Klopp invited such ‘ridicule’.

Why, then, did he do it?

If only there was a way Klopp could have changed how officials react to such “unprecedented” mistakes in the future without offering credence to the notion of a replay. He simply could not have broached the subject without specifically saying he thinks a replay “would be the right thing”. He obviously couldn’t have just said that we need to change how officials react to such “unprecedented” mistakes in the future, despite that being what he wanted to actually say. The point about replays was apparently key, even if we are yet to be told why.

Also, if Maddock promises to give us the ‘real reason’ behind why Klopp said what he said, why does he write about what ‘it seems’ Klopp meant? Is this the Liverpool manager’s view, Maddock’s own, or Maddock’s own dressed up as the Liverpool manager’s view? Because that really is quite important when pledging to untangle Klopp’s comments.

Maddock continues to translate:

Again, if only there was a way Klopp could have possibly said that the best solution would be to make it so that referees can correct such mistakes, whether the game has restarted or not, without broaching the subject of replays.

Suffice to say, Mediawatch clicked to discover the ‘real reason’ Klopp mentioned a replay, and is yet to be illuminated.

Jurgen Klopp and Liverpool and going to war for us all, apparently.

Like Goldbridge over troubled water Perhaps the Liverpool Echo can be of assistance. They speak Jurgen more fluently than anyone.

Sure enough, Sean Bradbury was on hand to provide some morning coherence with this article:

The headline has since been changed to this:

But we will get onto that later.

First, Bradbury’s explanation of Klopp’s ‘big bombshell’. He writes that ‘once again, the point has been missed’ in the reaction to the German’s words, that ‘Klopp and Liverpool are leading a push for improvements’.

And how does Klopp saying that the game should be replayed fall into this ‘push for improvements’? Spoiler: You already know.

This was obviously the Liverpool manager ‘keeping up the pressure’ on the PGMOL and ‘hoping to turn the dial towards significant change. And that would benefit all clubs.’

That still doesn’t explain why Klopp had to mention replays to keep up the pressure and help force change but fine, this was the latest chapter in the Liverpool crusade. And rival fans are only making fun of him due to ‘an element of envy that other managers did not push quite so hard in response to previous VAR gaffes’.

Yep. That’s it. You got it in one. Other supporters are taking the mickey out of Klopp because their teams’ pathetic coaches were too cowardly to say anything. And Liverpool fans would obviously have backed any manager that did – in the name of ‘significant change’, of course.

In fairness to Bradbury, he accepts that ‘Klopp runs the risk of losing some sympathy by overreaching’, and that criticism of his ‘outlandish’ solution ‘is totally valid’ and ‘prompts a thousand questions’. This is not a piece so one-eyed as to back Klopp to the hilt and completely reject the idea he simply said something daft.

But good lord, the next line brings the entire defence crashing down. And this is where that random headline change comes in:

If part of your argument is that Mark sodding Goldbridge agrees, you have lost at the very least that part of the argument. That he is your headline-worthy ‘hated rival supporter’ who ‘has just given most sensible reaction to Jurgen Klopp calls for a replay’ is absolutely damning.

And still, Mediawatch is none the wiser as to why Klopp had to bring up replays. Oh well.

This is England There is something absolutely sensational about the Daily Mirror website using this headline…

Ad

…to a story in which the only people who use the phrase ‘golden rule’ are they themselves, and certainly not Darren England. It turns out you can make it up.

Sanch dressing Writes Neil Custis in The Sun, on the mess Erik ten Hag is currently navigating his way through at Manchester United:

Mediawatch understands there are legal implications at play but that just looks spiteful, problematic and really quite embarrassing for obvious reasons.