You sure dude? Certainly wasn't your attack, not many teams have scored 100+ goals in a season, and as has been mentioned, in previous cases where a team has achieved that, they have won the title (City last season, Chelsea in 2010) Can't recall many teams having won the title whilst conceding 50 goals though 50 goals in 38 games is unacceptable for a team challenging for the title. I did predict Liverpool would fall out of the top 4 this season, most people thought I was just Wumming, but there was reasoning behind it. First of all, and most notably, you lost your best player, never a good start, especially since he is one of the top 5 players on the planet right now. 2nd, I correctly predicted that with the increased pressure on Sturridge, and him being the main focal point of your attack, given his injury record, once he gets injured your goals would dry up. 3rd your signings were bizarre Balotelli I thought might have been worth a punt, since I have seen him do some great stuff, and he was pretty cheap, though that was a bust. It was mainly Lambert, Lovren and Lallana. You signed the wrong Southampton players. I thought perhaps Lallana would do okay, but Lovren and Lambert I knew from jump street were destined to fail. 4th, your defence needed sorting, BR is not a defensive coach by his own admission, and sees the need for one as some kind of negative inference on his management skills. To paraphrase Tywin Lannister "A good manager knows what he knows, and what he doesn't know. The best manager's coach wisely, but listen to their coaching staff in order to develop their skill base, and the best managers, continue to listen to them long after that!"
Yes I'm sure dude the 50 goals conceded is vastly overstated because of the way we played against the bottom half sides. It was suicidal because we knew that we'd score 4, 5 even six goals so we blatantly didn't give a monkey's if we leaked 3. Add in another 3 against palace when we had to try and win 7-0 to even have a chance at catching City's GD. What cost us last season was no depth in attack. Something we desperately needed against Chelsea when the title was in sight. We could have played another 100 hours and not scored against that bus. West Brom was a similar event. Plan A was aces, if it wasn't on that day or we conceded then we had no bench to change it. No one in a million years could have predicted we'd only have Sturridge match fit for 8-9 matches all season even with a history of niggles. That's what cost us that season. If we had him for 20 matches (still a bad injury record) we would have got top4.
Utter bollocks, You scored 100+ goals ffs. What does that even mean "depth in attack" you were scoring plenty. You are focusing on one or two results, when there were 38 games that season. You only failed to score in 3 matches all season. What about the 2-2 draw at home to Villa? the 3-1 loss at Hull? The 2-1 losses against City and Chelsea. All defensive issues. Anyone can see that Rodgers needs help with the defensive coaching, and that was made more evident this season as you chipped 2 less goals, but finished 4 places lower. The difference? You scored 50 less goals.
I very much disagree with your opinion on what actually cost us points last season. I agree Rodgers doesn't put a high value on defending in general. It's a weak spot for him.
Look at Chelsea, very difficult to score against (especially at home). You build a good team from the back.
What cost you points was games in which your opponent scored more goals than you, or the same amount of goals. Now you can argue that you needed to score more or that you needed to concede less. But when you score 100+ goals in a season, which few clubs have ever managed to do, you can safely say things were mostly okay on that score. But no team in the PL era has ever conceded 50 goals and won the title, I doubt many, if any, have ever even conceded 50 goals and finished in the top 4, let alone 2nd. (Though I havent confirmed this)
You build a good team from the back. You build a great team from the front. That's why the team who scores the most goals wins the title nearly every time.
Eh? You scored over 100 goals ffs. But you conceded 50, which was more than anyone in the top 8 barring Spurs. It was your leaky backline that ultimately cost you the title, it's a simple fact. You scored 1 goal less than City but conceded 13 more, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you conceded the same number, then the likelihood is that the 2 point deficit would have been erased. As for the lack of strike power costing you the Chelsea game, Suarez, Sterling and Sturridge all figured in that fixture, you were undone by tactical naivety from Rodgers and the slip from Gerrard, not lack of attacking resource.
we'll just agree to disagree then I wasn't bothered when we leaked all our goals in 6-3, 5-3, 3-2, 4-3 wins which lead to a big GA number. You can keep looking at that number and say it's what ultimately cost us. I think the context of how that number got so big is a more important factor. If we scored one more goal we would have won the title. Opinions.
If you concede 50 goals in a season, imo you are NOT a great team, regardless of how many you score at the other end. Great teams can attack AND defend.
Plus look at who they are up against most weeks, Getafe, Malaga etc Teams who would most likely struggle in the Championship.
If you look back in the records, you'll see that only one club in the PL era has scored 100 league goals and not won the title. (and only 3 teams have ever scored more than 100 PL goals btw) But of course it was lack of goals, not keeping them out the cost you the title..... #kopitelogic
how many times have two sides scored more than 100 goals and did the one who scored less win the title? One more goal scored and we would have won the title. We needed a plan B to get that goal and didn't have it.
I think that plan will come into action once Rodgers has his end of year review. Just imagine a manager who could have you defend. Then you wouldn't need that one extra goal
