City finishing 4th, which is actually very realistic, would be utterly embarrassing. There's no way they should be finishing 4th with the quality they have in their side. Hell, they should be fighting with Chelsea for the title. Not a good season for them by any means.
Or maybe we actually weren't as naive as we were in previous games and won those games by outperforming them? Did you ever think about that?
Palace had 16 points from 20 games when Pardew took over. Even a record of W3 D5 L3 (not bad) would have left them on 30 points in still in a relegation battle, but they've taken 22 from 11, which is CL form and sit in mid table!
You tried to do to us what you did to city...and badly failed. Imo that aint cos we are better than city...its cos city have massively under performed since the new year.
I think Wenger has been looking at Jose's way and is trying it.Go out for a 0-0 draw and hope some one will grab a goal.....and it's working!
I'm sorry but sometimes you need to accept that, on the day, your opponents were better than you. And this was the case when we played City. City may well have not performed as well as they could have done, but we were well-organised, defensively sound and took advantage of the spaces they exploited when we hit them on the counter-attack. They were too predictable and we knew how to exploit their weaknesses. We nullified them and limited them to very few chances, whilst we could have easily increased our lead with the quality of our (also limited) chances in the second half. By your logic every big team that loses to a side with lesser quality have ''massively under performed". Sometimes that is the case, but it isn't always the case.
Arsenal played very well that day. Wenger used the tactics so often used against him - defend on the edge of your own penalty area with a holding midfielder breaking up play (as Coquelin did very well) and hit them on the counter. It really begs the question why this performance is notable for being so rare.
I think at times we have tried to, but in the past we haven't had the required quality of players to execute a plan like this in a big game. You look at our "defensive-minded" players in the past...Arteta, Flamini, Denilson, Song...these players either aren't combative enough, are too profligate in possession, or they don't have the energy or the dynamism needed. Fortunately for us, Arteta getting injured was a blessing in disguise because Coquelin has been brilliant since he's come into the side. When I first saw him play, I thought he could have been a very influential player for us. For some reason or other he was alienated and went on a series of unsuccessful loans where he was deployed on the wing or as a full-back. Not sure why he fell out of favour, but he's here now and that's the main thing.
You originally implied you won because you learnt lessons from previous games against them and i disagree. I think city have been poor since the turn of the year. In October they battered mrs rcl's beloved sheff wed 7-1 in the coc...in jan they scrapped past them 2-1 in the fa cup with 2 very late goals. City have been and still are under performing...you battered the hell out of liverpool on saturday...its irrelevant that they were poor imo as you'd have still beaten them, but with the city game i think that them being so poor was a big factor. But its all guess work tbh so you could well be right
The goons (under Wenger) will always finish top four or threaten at varying times to challenge for the title but they are simply there to make up the numbers and they stand no chance of success in the champions league, and while they are in a position we hope to reach (regular champions league football), there is no progression for the goons, they have reached their maximum level under the current setup. If they finished 2nd, it won't be because they where in the title race, it be due to City exploding and the goons going on title run form (when the pressure is off) so it gives their fans false hope that they can challenge in the future.
We've beaten Manchester City away from home, keeping a clean sheet and limiting them to very few chances in the process. We also ended our horrendous run of results against Manchester United away from home and we comfortably defeated a Liverpool side with 1 loss in this calendar year. If you think we haven't learnt our lessons from previous games against them, you need to have sufficient evidence to support your assertion. You don't. And don't use the derby game as an example because...well...it's a derby! Chelsea conceded 4 goals at home to Bradford. Unless your point is that cup games can pull out bizarre results, I don't see what relevance this has to anything.
Winning the title is all about consistency over a long season. This season nobody has been particularly consistent, but Chelsea more so than the any of their rivals. That's why they're where they are. I agree with RCL that The Goons have been far too inconsistent to win it in recent years. They're on a run of form at the moment - just at the time that City are on a very poor run. Can Arsenal maintain it though?
Chelsea have lost two games. That is why they will be Champions. All the others, who are going to be 8-10 points short, can look at games where they should have picked up points , but didn't. Utd haven't played like champions for the most part but it's frustrating to think that defeat at Leicester, draws at Burnley, Sunderland, WBA & Villa and Swansea doing the double on us have cost a staggering 17 points. Just taking half the points available from those games would have Chelsea in 2nd place. Chelsea beat these teams. Dropping the odd few points over a season against them is the most any rivals can hope for.
