...and the reason that they've gathered more points than anyone else is that they've generally scored more and conceded fewer than the rest of the league. I'd wager you could go back year after year and the side that won the title had the best GD in the division. The points are merely the result of that stat.
Sure, Rodgers got his tactics wrong that day and you can isolate that fixture as the one that ULTIMATELY cost you the title (btw saying that you gifted it to City rather than them winning it is both wrong and ungracious). However, your defensive frailty cost you points in various games thoughout the season, the stats don't lie and those 13 additional goals conceded over City is what cost you over the length of the campaign. It's not subjective opinion, it's merely fact.
Way to ignore the first part of the comment I also said the two are linked since the team that wins the league is generally the best side. The way your putting it across suggests that if a team managed to score a hundred goals in one game and drew the rest of the season, they'd win the league. Clearly they wouldn't since they'd only have 40pts (successful season for Everton though ) Its not purely about scoring more and conceding less than your opponents (in terms of league not individual games), its about getting more points. You get more points by outscoring your individual opponents. Not conceded means you at least get some points if not all depending on whether you score.
Sorry, but it's not a complicated concept, but you appear to have totally missed it. The points are merely the output. The goals scored and conceded are the input that create that output. Look back through every season and come back with the stats of the numbers of winners who also had the best GD. As over a season those who score the most and concede the fewest win. It's that ****ing simple.
Why do you always try to get someone else to do your dirty work? Do it yourself you lazy **** BTW, you changed the angle of this conversation whilst we've been talking. I said we needed more goals in the team to get back into the top four. Goals in the PL will get you places. You're the one that said defence earns you titles (something I never mentioned) and now you've gone onto GD
I can save you the trouble, for the last 6 years, the team with the best GD - surprisingly - won the league. You said that more goals meant a higher placing, I merely pointed out (with facts) that on it's own it doesn't
Of course it does, its the difference between drawing thirty-eight games and losing thirty-eight games My point was, we've lost a lot of goals from last season yet we're still in (albeit and very long and outside shot) with a shout of top four with just three games to go. Had we had more goals in our team this year we'd have pissed the top four.
The issue is that we're not creating enough chances. What's the point of having a striker who doesn't get the service from the attackers like Sterling and Coutinho who have to drop deeper to receive the ball and help the defence? Get a quality RCB and DM in the team, and you will find that the CM's and attackers play with more freedom.
We've already had this conversation Jimmy, I think we do create the chances, we just don't take them.
I know that was your point, however, without tightening up at the other end and (so far) conceding 13 goals less this time around, you'd have been nowhere near the top 4, as we've only scored 2 less than you, but have conceded 8 more, and we're midtable.
Not saying that we haven't missed good chances but if we had the same number of chances as last season, we'd have scored far more. Rodgers has tried to play a more defensive game which is why our attack is suffering.
I never mentioned changing the shape or system either so why would having a goalscorer in the side mean we'd be weaker at the back? They'd be replacing the likes of Balotelli, Borini, Lambert, not Skrtel
I don't think he has intentionally been more defensive. I've think we've just been more defensive because of the loss of SAS. As i said to you before about chances created, its not just statistical clear cut chances. A striker will get the ball in situations where most of us don't even see it as a chance (commentators often refer to them as half a chance), these don't count in the statistical figures you love to look at.
Why did having a World Class forward in your side mean that you conceded far more goals last season? Football's not as simple as that is it? As you can strengthen in one area and focus on that strength, and create a weakness elsewhere by doing so. If you'd have bought say Costa instead of Balotelli, would your goals against column be the same whilst your goals for was massively increased? Who knows, maybe, maybe not.
Who said it was linked...? Why was it Suarez's fault we conceded...? We conceded because we went all out attack in every game and had a **** defence. Yet again though, this is a side step from what I said; add goals to this year's team and we'd have pissed the top four. And it is as simple as that wehn that players introduction sees a **** or out of position/form player removed from said team.
We played half a season using 4-2-3-1 - we could have Sturridge as the striker but we still wouldn't have scored because the system and style did not work. When Sturridge did return as a lone striker, he struggled massively hence why I said simply having strikers starting doesn't equal goals.
