Cybereagles

If I'm a Liverpool fan I'm not even mad about this season. 97 points is about as close to perfection as you can get. Its like getting a 97% in your class but falling short to a classmate who got 98%. Its not something you lose sleep over. I think Liverpool needs a world class Central Attacking Mid to give them an extra spark next season. Its also unrealistic to expect City will bag 98+ points for the years to come so there will be a greater margin of error which Liverpool can take advantage of.

Ultimately what hurt Liverpool wasn't the loss to City in January but the slump they had throughout February and March that led to a bunch of unnecessary draws. Bringing in a few players that can give Klopp versatility in attack (to unlock more defensive teams) will give Liverpool a better chance to overcome the mini-slumps that every big team faces over the course of a 55+ match season.

Cally wrote:Well played, Liverpool FC. Congratulations.

VAR will sort out you cheats

lest we forget

salah has NOT been booked for diving this past year

dear guardiola...THANK YOU SO MUCH

Heliopolis wrote:If I'm a Liverpool fan I'm not even mad about this season. 97 points is about as close to perfection as you can get. Its like getting a 97% in your class but falling short to a classmate who got 98%. Its not something you lose sleep over..

next season there is VAR
you are not getting 90 points

too many non-offside calls and dives got you that magical 97

txj wrote:

heavyd wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:

txj wrote:

heavyd wrote:Guys i know we had a great season... put in a massive effort playing scintillating football along the way but if we have to be honest we need to say we bottled it in the end. We had many chances to see City off but couldnt do it. We are the only team who has led the table in January and not won the title... and this has now happened 3 times. Its a failure however you want to look at it. The consolation is the Champions league final. We HAVE to win it. IF we dont then we probably wont win anything under Klopp.

When you don't win you failed. Period. However to say we bottled it is simply incorrect.

In the end City proved the stronger team over the full stretch and had the deeper squad to see it through, in a contest of very fine margins.

Sorry my brother but the depth of the squad had nothing to do with it. When you blow a 7 point cushion (or 'pillow' as José called it), that, my friend, is the definition of a bottle job. Liverpool and Klopp only have themselves to blame. And my preference was Liverpool over City.

Of course JK and LFC have themselves to blame; they did not get the job done ultimately.

But its not a bottle job. That's just lazy analysis...None of the two teams could've won all their games; its just not possible...

City dropped points when they lost those games, as did LFC when they drew all those games. But over the course of the campaign, City proved to last longer...

They lasted longer b/c in part they had the depth of quality to do so. Is that an excuse? Absolutely not!

LFC lost and City won; period!

Its not lazy analysis bro. If we hadnt had such a healthy lead at some point and not capitalised on it i wouldnt call it a bottle job. But essentially thats exactly what it is.

At the end of the day we had the destiny of winning the title in our hands but we threw it away. If City had lost or drawn one of their last few games and we had overtaken them it would have been said that they caved in to the pressure we put them under (i.e bottled it).

Because of how close the final points tally was there is no shame in losing this title but if we are being true to ourselves we had the quality but not the nerve to see it through which is very disappointing.

A league campaign is a marathon. Just b/c one gets ahead early-on does not mean you can sustain the lead. Neither does losing that lead automatically mean you bottled it.

Yes, if City lost one of their last few games they would've caved under pressure. Ditto for Liverpool. But none of them did...

Look back to the drawn games and analyze them. Did they draw from being nervous; from caving or bottling?

Its lazy analysis...one has to do better than simply throttle out cliches!

It would've been a lazy analysis had the lead been built within the first 2 or 3 months of the season but when you are leading by 7 or so points after the new year, in England, that is a massive gap that needed to be nursed properly. One big key to nursing a gap is the rule that you must punish your nearest competitor whenever they drop points. If they draw or lose, you MUST win. If you are able to do that you win twice on that day: on the EPL Table (widen the gap) and mentally (weakens the opposition). Yes, you are correct that it is a marathon and you came up short by failing to weaken them mentally when presented with multiple opportunities. The truth is Liverpool never believed that they could lift this trophy that is a big reason why they came up 1 point short. It was only late (when they'd given up the lead) that they switched on to doing whatever was necessary to win. But it proved to be late given Pool did not control their destiny by then. Greater depth had little or nothing to do with it.

green4life wrote:It would've been a lazy analysis had the lead been built within the first 2 or 3 months of the season but when you are leading by 7 or so points after the new year, in England, that is a massive gap that needed to be nursed properly. One big key to nursing a gap is the rule that you must punish your nearest competitor whenever they drop points. If they draw or lose, you MUST win. If you are able to do that you win twice on that day: on the EPL Table (widen the gap) and mentally (weakens the opposition). Yes, you are correct that it is a marathon and you came up short by failing to weaken them mentally when presented with multiple opportunities. The truth is Liverpool never believed that they could lift this trophy that is a big reason why they came up 1 point short. It was only late (when they'd given up the lead) that they switched on to doing whatever was necessary to win. But it proved to be late given Pool did not control their destiny by then. Greater depth had little or nothing to do with it.

You are right about punishing the direct competitor when they falter. That is why I specifically pointed to the Leicester game.

But it is still lazy analysis. And to say that LFC never believed they could lift the trophy is just mind boggling! It is not supported by any known evidence out there!

There were key games where LFC did not push harder to convert draws to wins: vs Leicester, United especially, etc.

Unless I do not understand what it means, "bottling it" means collapsing from the weight of the challenge.

There is zero evidence to suggest any of that happened to LFC...

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:It would've been a lazy analysis had the lead been built within the first 2 or 3 months of the season but when you are leading by 7 or so points after the new year, in England, that is a massive gap that needed to be nursed properly. One big key to nursing a gap is the rule that you must punish your nearest competitor whenever they drop points. If they draw or lose, you MUST win. If you are able to do that you win twice on that day: on the EPL Table (widen the gap) and mentally (weakens the opposition). Yes, you are correct that it is a marathon and you came up short by failing to weaken them mentally when presented with multiple opportunities. The truth is Liverpool never believed that they could lift this trophy that is a big reason why they came up 1 point short. It was only late (when they'd given up the lead) that they switched on to doing whatever was necessary to win. But it proved to be late given Pool did not control their destiny by then. Greater depth had little or nothing to do with it.

You are right about punishing the direct competitor when they falter. That is why I specifically pointed to the Leicester game.

But it is still lazy analysis. And to say that LFC never believed they could lift the trophy is just mind boggling! It is not supported by any known evidence out there!

There were key games where LFC did not push harder to convert draws to wins: vs Leicester, United especially, etc.

Unless I do not understand what it means, "bottling it" means collapsing from the weight of the challenge.

There is zero evidence to suggest any of that happened to LFC...

Let me make it clearer: When you carve out a lead of 4 points or more in this league after Christmas, you have to stay on top of the league by any means necessary through the end. Ultimately, a title race, notwithstanding the point haul at the end, boils down to key moments or opportunities during the season. When you have a team with foot on neck, you must apply pressure so they feel the pain. The key moment where you lost the league for me was the weekend where City lost 1-2 away to Newcastle. Pool had a 4 pt lead and with a win would've stretched it to a 7 pt lead. Rather, you draw 0-0 at Anfield against West Ham or Leicester City. City at the end of the week knew they were let off the hook and kicked on from then. It's a marathon, yes. But little moments play a big role in wining and losing the title. The bottling job occurred by failing to exploit the key moments to firmly grip control of the race.

Or how about losing away at Etihad? In 2 games they got a win and draw against Pool. That game at the Etihad had to be a draw at worst but you lost. More evidence of the bottle job. It's an elementary notion that you can't allow the competitor out point you in the head to head games. If they win in their house, you MUST win in your house. Same applies to draws. You can't draw at Anfield vs City then go and lose at Etihad. Bottle job.

green4life wrote:

txj wrote:

green4life wrote:It would've been a lazy analysis had the lead been built within the first 2 or 3 months of the season but when you are leading by 7 or so points after the new year, in England, that is a massive gap that needed to be nursed properly. One big key to nursing a gap is the rule that you must punish your nearest competitor whenever they drop points. If they draw or lose, you MUST win. If you are able to do that you win twice on that day: on the EPL Table (widen the gap) and mentally (weakens the opposition). Yes, you are correct that it is a marathon and you came up short by failing to weaken them mentally when presented with multiple opportunities. The truth is Liverpool never believed that they could lift this trophy that is a big reason why they came up 1 point short. It was only late (when they'd given up the lead) that they switched on to doing whatever was necessary to win. But it proved to be late given Pool did not control their destiny by then. Greater depth had little or nothing to do with it.

You are right about punishing the direct competitor when they falter. That is why I specifically pointed to the Leicester game.

But it is still lazy analysis. And to say that LFC never believed they could lift the trophy is just mind boggling! It is not supported by any known evidence out there!

There were key games where LFC did not push harder to convert draws to wins: vs Leicester, United especially, etc.

Unless I do not understand what it means, "bottling it" means collapsing from the weight of the challenge.

There is zero evidence to suggest any of that happened to LFC...

Let me make it clearer: When you carve out a lead of 4 points or more in this league after Christmas, you have to stay on top of the league by any means necessary through the end. Ultimately, a title race, notwithstanding the point haul at the end, boils down to key moments or opportunities during the season. When you have a team with foot on neck, you must apply pressure so they feel the pain. The key moment where you lost the league for me was the weekend where City lost 1-2 away to Newcastle. Pool had a 4 pt lead and with a win would've stretched it to a 7 pt lead. Rather, you draw 0-0 at Anfield against West Ham or Leicester City. City at the end of the week knew they were let off the hook and kicked on from then. It's a marathon, yes. But little moments play a big role in wining and losing the title. The bottling job occurred by failing to exploit the key moments to firmly grip control of the race.

Or how about losing away at Etihad? In 2 games they got a win and draw against Pool. That game at the Etihad had to be a draw at worst but you lost. More evidence of the bottle job. It's an elementary notion that you can't allow the competitor out point you in the head to head games. If they win in their house, you MUST win in your house. Same applies to draws. You can't draw at Anfield vs City then go and lose at Etihad. Bottle job.

I guess I do not know what a bottle job is anymore, cus by your definition, if you are in the lead, any points you drop is evidence of a bottle job! That is just lazy analysis....

In the end, City was just better, in part cus they had a deeper squad. That is the fact of the matter....

Klopp paced the team throughout the league, playing conservatively until end of January, when they then hit a major injury bug. Earlier, they had wisely not factored the cup games in the equation, thus conserving resources. But even with rotation, City always had the edge, squad wise. That's why Neville spoke about giving up the CL.

Not an excuse by any means; just a statement of the facts.

G4L is still living in the bygone Mourinho era where a 7 point lead in January is a "massive gap".

When a team goes a whole season losing just one game and amassing 97 points - more than any other team in history bar the champions - describing a 2nd place finish as a bottle job is just lazy and tired analysis.

Those saying Liverpool 'bottled it' are simply giving a dog a bad name to hang it...

Even if City had dropped points at Etihad in Jan to Liverpool, and a 10pt deficit had opened up, the strong probability remained that City would have hit 90+ points total (they had amassed 100pts the previous season; and their performance-trajectory even in January indicated that 90+ points was still a 'deliverable target' for City) ...

Therefore Liverpool were always going to need 90+ points total minimum to get the title (even though their performance-trajectory by January indicated that 90+ points total was possible; Klopp's Liverpool had never previously hit that points total, so it could not have been a 'deliverable target' at the time)

So Liverpool's main chance of winning the title rested on a drop-off by City (ie City's total max dropping below 90pts) ...well that drop-off never occurred...

That is why its not 'bottling it' for Liverpool to amass 97pts and come a close 2nd...Liverpool did all they could; City were simply, well, City...

Its like lining up with prime Usain Bolt at 100m...Bolt's PB is 9.58secs (fastest of all time)...
Race starts..Bolt stumbles...you edge ahead...Bolt finishes the race in 9.60secs, and you come second at 9.65secs...

You had a chance to win..you ran your fastest time ever, but you're still 2nd to Bolt, because prime Bolt can 'stumble'... and still run 9.60secs..!

The YeyeMan wrote:G4L is still living in the bygone Mourinho era where a 7 point lead in January is a "massive gap".

When a team goes a whole season losing just one game and amassing 97 points - more than any other team in history bar the champions - describing a 2nd place finish as a bottle job is just lazy and tired analysis.

It’s lazy, tired and convenient amnesia to forget that Conte won a league title during Pep’s first season and amassed over 90+ pts in the process.

Nonetheless, go on ahead with the old moral victory explanation. You may not know what a bottle job is vis a vis a league title campaign given Pool last won a league title almost 30 yrs ago. But suffice it to say that when you are in control of your destiny in the second half of the season, letting it slip is at your peril especially with a 7 pt lead.

Look at all of them weeping! Bottlers!

You bottled it! You had a 10 point lead over City in December and you lost it! I dont care if you lost multiple games or you drew multiple games, the fact of the matter is simple -- you had a 10 point lead over your direct rival for the title and you lost it.

Remarkable! I mean, what do you want us to call it? The truth is that Liverpool are not used to winning. You do not have a winning mentality and Klopp has not maintained a history of winning. Thus, you guys did not know how to "manage the [long] run in]. City has it! The players and their coach are used to winning. They have the balls to win! They have the cojones to demand victory! And thats what they did! Listen to Raheem Sterlings interview and you will see that City was never afraid of Liverpool. Even when they were 10 points behind, they knew they will make it back! They didnt think, they didnt hope, THEY KNEW!!! That is the difference between the bottlers and the true champions!

green4life wrote:

The YeyeMan wrote:G4L is still living in the bygone Mourinho era where a 7 point lead in January is a "massive gap".

When a team goes a whole season losing just one game and amassing 97 points - more than any other team in history bar the champions - describing a 2nd place finish as a bottle job is just lazy and tired analysis.

The old moral victory explanation. You may not know what a bottle job is vis a vis a league title campaign given Pool last won a league title almost 30 yrs ago. But suffice it to say that when you are in control of your destiny in the second half of the season, letting it slip is at your peril especially with a 7 pt lead.

Cheiii!!! see wickedness! KPOM KPAM KPIM! SIT-CHO-ASSS-DOWN!
Dude doesnt know what it takes to win. simple as that. smh. #bottlers #losers

danfo driver wrote:Look at all of them weeping! Bottlers!

You bottled it! You had a 10 point lead over City in December and you lost it! I dont care if you lost multiple games or you drew multiple games, the fact of the matter is simple -- you had a 10 point lead over your direct rival for the title and you lost it.

Remarkable! I mean, what do you want us to call it? The truth is that Liverpool are not used to winning. You do not have a winning mentality and Klopp has not maintained a history of winning. Thus, you guys did not know how to "manage the [long] run in]. City has it! The players and their coach are used to winning. They have the balls to win! They have the cojones to demand victory! And thats what they did! Listen to Raheem Sterlings interview and you will see that City was never afraid of Liverpool. Even when they were 10 points behind, they knew they will make it back! They didnt think, they didnt hope, THEY KNEW!!! That is the difference between the bottlers and the true champions!

Spot on. They had many opportunities to bury Pep but bottled it. One basic rule is you can’t lose the head to head battle against your competitor. At worst, you spilt it and out-gain vs others. They drew at home and lost at Etihad. Then there’s the multiple chances where City drew or lost and they failed to bury them particularly after City unexpectedly lost at St. James to Newcastle: Pool then played a goalless draw at home vs a non-top 6 opposition. Had they done their part, Pep likely would’ve redirected his attention to the CL long ago. Generally, that’s how it works.

green4life wrote:

The YeyeMan wrote:G4L is still living in the bygone Mourinho era where a 7 point lead in January is a "massive gap".

When a team goes a whole season losing just one game and amassing 97 points - more than any other team in history bar the champions - describing a 2nd place finish as a bottle job is just lazy and tired analysis.

It’s lazy, tired and convenient amnesia to forget that Conte won a league title during Pep’s first season and amassed over 90+ pts in the process.

Nonetheless, go on ahead with the old moral victory explanation. You may not know what a bottle job is vis a vis a league title campaign given Pool last won a league title almost 30 yrs ago. But suffice it to say that when you are in control of your destiny in the second half of the season, letting it slip is at your peril especially with a 7 pt lead.

You're obviously not au fait with the phrase - bottle job. And it's OK, Engrish isn't for everybody. In summary losing ≠ bottling.

Would you like me to explain the differences between the 2016-17 season and the recently concluded season and why it's a lazy parallel to draw, or are you ready to do some thinking for yourself?

As for the dig about the last time Liverpool won the title - relax, you follow Chelsea. Know your level.

FATHER TIKO wrote:Those saying Liverpool 'bottled it' are simply giving a dog a bad name to hang it...

Even if City had dropped points at Etihad in Jan to Liverpool, and a 10pt deficit had opened up, the strong probability remained that City would have hit 90+ points total (they had amassed 100pts the previous season; and their performance-trajectory even in January indicated that 90+ points was still a 'deliverable target' for City) ...

Therefore Liverpool were always going to need 90+ points total minimum to get the title (even though their performance-trajectory by January indicated that 90+ points total was possible; Klopp's Liverpool had never previously hit that points total, so it could not have been a 'deliverable target' at the time)

So Liverpool's main chance of winning the title rested on a drop-off by City (ie City's total max dropping below 90pts) ...well that drop-off never occurred...

That is why its not 'bottling it' for Liverpool to amass 97pts and come a close 2nd...Liverpool did all they could; City were simply, well, City...

Its like lining up with prime Usain Bolt at 100m...Bolt's PB is 9.58secs (fastest of all time)...
Race starts..Bolt stumbles...you edge ahead...Bolt finishes the race in 9.60secs, and you come second at 9.65secs...

You had a chance to win..you ran your fastest time ever, but you're still 2nd to Bolt, because prime Bolt can 'stumble'... and still run 9.60secs..!

Excellent analogy.

Let's see if the resident twerker comprehends it.

The YeyeMan wrote:

green4life wrote:

The YeyeMan wrote:G4L is still living in the bygone Mourinho era where a 7 point lead in January is a "massive gap".

When a team goes a whole season losing just one game and amassing 97 points - more than any other team in history bar the champions - describing a 2nd place finish as a bottle job is just lazy and tired analysis.

It’s lazy, tired and convenient amnesia to forget that Conte won a league title during Pep’s first season and amassed over 90+ pts in the process.

Nonetheless, go on ahead with the old moral victory explanation. You may not know what a bottle job is vis a vis a league title campaign given Pool last won a league title almost 30 yrs ago. But suffice it to say that when you are in control of your destiny in the second half of the season, letting it slip is at your peril especially with a 7 pt lead.

You're obviously not au fait with the phrase - bottle job. And it's OK, Engrish isn't for everybody. In summary losing ≠ bottling.

Would you like me to explain the differences between the 2016-17 season and the recently concluded season and why it's a lazy parallel to draw, or are you ready to do some thinking for yourself?

As for the dig about the last time Liverpool won the title - relax, you follow Chelsea. Know your level.

Bottling at this level is relative but you won’t get it because it’s been 30yrs for you.

I know my level at Chelsea no doubt and I’m not complaining. Meanwhile enjoy the moral victory. It’s your level vis a vis the Premier League.

green4life wrote:

The YeyeMan wrote:

green4life wrote:

The YeyeMan wrote:G4L is still living in the bygone Mourinho era where a 7 point lead in January is a "massive gap".

When a team goes a whole season losing just one game and amassing 97 points - more than any other team in history bar the champions - describing a 2nd place finish as a bottle job is just lazy and tired analysis.

It’s lazy, tired and convenient amnesia to forget that Conte won a league title during Pep’s first season and amassed over 90+ pts in the process.

Nonetheless, go on ahead with the old moral victory explanation. You may not know what a bottle job is vis a vis a league title campaign given Pool last won a league title almost 30 yrs ago. But suffice it to say that when you are in control of your destiny in the second half of the season, letting it slip is at your peril especially with a 7 pt lead.

You're obviously not au fait with the phrase - bottle job. And it's OK, Engrish isn't for everybody. In summary losing ≠ bottling.

Would you like me to explain the differences between the 2016-17 season and the recently concluded season and why it's a lazy parallel to draw, or are you ready to do some thinking for yourself?

As for the dig about the last time Liverpool won the title - relax, you follow Chelsea. Know your level.

Bottling at this level is relative but you won’t get it because it’s been 30yrs for you.

I know my level at Chelsea no doubt and I’m not complaining. Meanwhile enjoy the moral victory. It’s your level vis a vis the Premier League.

The only person talking about a moral victory is you.

Would you like me to explain the difference between a team that has won the title 18 times and a team that has won it six times, or are you ready to do some thinking for yourself? You've had thirty years to catch up....

You're not ready. Know your level.

The YeyeMan wrote:

green4life wrote:

The YeyeMan wrote:

green4life wrote:

The YeyeMan wrote:G4L is still living in the bygone Mourinho era where a 7 point lead in January is a "massive gap".

When a team goes a whole season losing just one game and amassing 97 points - more than any other team in history bar the champions - describing a 2nd place finish as a bottle job is just lazy and tired analysis.

It’s lazy, tired and convenient amnesia to forget that Conte won a league title during Pep’s first season and amassed over 90+ pts in the process.

Nonetheless, go on ahead with the old moral victory explanation. You may not know what a bottle job is vis a vis a league title campaign given Pool last won a league title almost 30 yrs ago. But suffice it to say that when you are in control of your destiny in the second half of the season, letting it slip is at your peril especially with a 7 pt lead.

You're obviously not au fait with the phrase - bottle job. And it's OK, Engrish isn't for everybody. In summary losing ≠ bottling.

Would you like me to explain the differences between the 2016-17 season and the recently concluded season and why it's a lazy parallel to draw, or are you ready to do some thinking for yourself?

As for the dig about the last time Liverpool won the title - relax, you follow Chelsea. Know your level.

Bottling at this level is relative but you won’t get it because it’s been 30yrs for you.

I know my level at Chelsea no doubt and I’m not complaining. Meanwhile enjoy the moral victory. It’s your level vis a vis the Premier League.

The only person talking about a moral victory is you.

Would you like me to explain the difference between a team that has won the title 18 times and a team that has won it six times, or are you ready to do some thinking for yourself? You've had thirty years to catch up....

You're not ready. Know your level.

18 titles won during the old English Div 1. Zero won during the reorganized EPL. 30yrs later still waiting. I’m ok with my level but you need to Know your level.

You had a 5pt cushion entering Etihad. At worst it had to be a draw but Pool lost in a game where City didn’t play well. Little moments like these cost Pool the title and when accumulated equates a bottle job.

green4life wrote:18 titles won during the old English Div 1. Zero won during the reorganized EPL. 30yrs later still waiting. I’m ok with my level but you need to Know your level.

Reorganised EPL. Sky bought the TV rights and changed the name.

Only a JJC counts EPL trophies only.

Embrace your level. You're comparing Chelsea to a club which in a couple of weeks may have as many European Cups as Chelsea has league titles. My guy, you're not ready, relax. Though of course, in your world, it's Champions League, not European Cups.

The YeyeMan wrote:

green4life wrote:18 titles won during the old English Div 1. Zero won during the reorganized EPL. 30yrs later still waiting. I’m ok with my level but you need to Know your level.

Reorganised EPL. Sky bought the TV rights and changed the name.

Only a JJC counts EPL trophies only.

Embrace your level. You're comparing Chelsea to a club which in a couple of weeks may have as many European Cups as Chelsea has league titles. My guy, you're not ready, relax. Though of course, in your world, it's Champions League, not European Cups.

Keep relaxing. It’s only been around 30yrs. Keep living in the past. It’s hurting you. Waiting for 30yrs and all. Kpele.

Don’t worry. They will arrange you a league trophy for amassing 97pts. Ndo.