And I'm saying that you're overvaluing coaching. Turkish has it right - we have a great coach, but like any other coach, he wins things when he has the players to do so, and for us, that meant spending to solve two critical areas which were holding us back. He didn't coach players to the levels needed. He replaced them, at cost. The spending and the coaching are both important, but without the spending, we don't win #6. Coaching alone didn't get us Mane, Salah, VVD, Robertson, Fabinho or Alisson. That was spending. Klopp understands this. That's why he's happy to wait for the right player, because he knows that if you're going to spend money, you have to spend it on someone who will fit the system instantly.
Let me ask you this - if we didn't buy Alisson or Van Dijk, do we win a 6th Champions League?
And on the other hand - if we bought every player we have right now, but asked Roy Hodgson to manage them, do we win any game, ever again?
It's a balance, one feeds the other, but neither is more important. You need coaching to organize teams and give them a model of play and a shape to what they're doing.
But you also need to buy in players who are ahead of your development curve, to bring success at a quicker rate. Relying on coaching alone will get you so far. Relying on purchases and recruitment alone, leaves you at the mercy of the talent of the man in charge.
Right now, we have the formula right. But if one aspect of that formula is eliminated, then what are the odds that we maintain our current levels (or improve them, even)?
And I think you're
undervaluing coaching. I'm not saying we haven't spent big when needed, but without exception, every other player other than Virgil and Alisson has been transformed under Klopp, and even Virgil is far better than when he joined.
Salah, Mane and Firmino were good but not great players - talented and skilful goalscorers, but all inconsistent and unpolished. They're all world-class strikers now that would get into any side, and each cost about the same as an Andy Carroll in 2011. That's coaching surely? We bought them in successive seasons between 2015 and 2018, and bought Salah the same year Arsenal paid £57m for Aubameyang, £36m for Lacazette, and £31m for Mkhitaryan (they also had to sell to buy and had a positive net spend after sales). Where did that get them compared to us? Were they trying to buy success, or does it only apply to teams that actually achieve it? It's not just about spending and if it was, then the hundreds of millions Utd spent on players like Pogba, Sanchez, Martial, Depay, Lukaku, Matip, Mkhitaryan, and Fred in the last 3-4 years would have won the league (or at least had them challenging every year). They've spent another £140 million this summer but are not accused of trying to buy success because they're still shit. Their failures are down to bad transfers and coaching, and ours are down to great transfers and coaching.
In answer to your CL question - we got to a final without Alisson, and with Virgil only 6 months into his time here. We were a Salah injury, two goalkeeping mistakes, and a worldie from Bale away from possibly having a different result, so yes, we certainly could have won that game considering we were on top until Salah went off. Have Virgil and Alisson made a big difference for us? Hell yes. Were they expensive? Definitely. Have we bought success in the same way City and Chelsea did (and Utd have tried to for several years?). Absolutely not.
As a coach yourself I'm surprised you see spending as the more important aspect of Klopp's body of work, given what he's done before and our progression under him. He's transformed every single aspect of the club and turned a group of free transfers, inherited players, cheap prospects, an academy graduate, and a few big buys into one of the most efficient and effective footballing units in the world, at a club whose net spend ranks only 12th in Europe over the last 10 years.