Not even seen his linked, not seen him on here since last week (more to do with me not being on though) Masters of the clean sheet but can't score for **** = maximum 38pts (38 x 0-0) Goals scorers that can't keep a clean sheet = maximum of 114pts (win all 38) Both scenarios offer the possibility of zero points.
If you could go back in time and either a) sign a better defender and reign in the attack all season or b) sign a goalscorer as a plan B and use them in matches we needed a goal in which one would have been more likely to lead to a Liverpool title? The answer is b every day of the week and twice on Sundays you're making a mountain out of us winning 6-3, 5-3, 4-3, 3-2 leading to a very high GA. I'm not off my tits, it's just the manner of how we decided to go about winning matches.
So your agenda is a link to a club in the Algerian League as an example, you might as well have used Liverpool County Combination League Premier Division.
Yup, except you DID score, and couldn't defend....and you didnt win the league. so..... carrying on is pointless. If you really think a lack of goals was your problem last year, then you quite patently were watching a different team than I was. Maybe even a different sport.
the side with the best GD in that league didn't win either neither did the top scorer you disproved every theory all at once thanks to the Algerian league
Now you are just being ridiculous. As if either of those scenarios will ever happen Last season, you had a great goal scoring team....but you couldnt defend for ****. If you could have, you'd have been champions.
Yup, lots we can learn from the Algerian league Only 15 points between top and bottom ffs. How is that even remotely comparable to the Premier League
And this year we couldn't score and finished sixth #pointlessargument The fact is, you need to be able to score to climb the table, that is a fact. If you don't score goals, you actually risk relegation, not just a failed title (or whatever) attempt. You pointed out last year and that we didn't win the league. I'll point out that not many had us finishing in the top four before that season began! Scoring so many saw us over perform because, quite simply we were doing what you are meant to do in football; winning games by scoring more goals than your opponent.
What does it matter in what league/country/standard..... You can have the best GD in the world, but win nowt
That's absolute pap though. You only failed to score in 3 games in that season. A better defender in the side doesn't mean you reign in the attack either, however, there's always a time when you adapt your tactics to ensure the result e.g. Chelsea at home and when 3-0 up away at Palace, a failure to adapt in both those games cost you the points, not the lack of another striker ffs.
Yes, and the reason you didnt win the league is because you were unable to do what league winners are able to do......score goals, whilst keeping them out at the other end.
Having a better defender would have stopped Suarez and Sterling getting forward Tobes Dont you know RS logic
I am flabbergasted that you guys are even making this argument. 3rd highest goals scored in PL history, and you are arguing that you failed to win the league because of a lack of another striker?
I must admit that after scoring 101 goals, for a kopite to suggest that a lack of goals was the reason they didn't win it, is bizarre even by their standards
If we had another quality attacker, we would have won the title though. 100% guaranteed. Why can't you admit this? True or false - honest opinion.
Your 2 strikers scored 52 goals between them ffs , another striker would have bettered that how exactly? You lost the league due to sieving goals and tactical naivety from the ego in the dugout lad.
