I can see it can have a bad effect on morale (at least on those that don't understand statistics) but why is winning early and losing late considered to be bottling?
Because a team was leading and now they're not. They had something to hold onto and failed to do so. 9 points from 7 games in a title run-in is disastrous form.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bottling, though. We could have beaten Southampton and West Ham, yet still not won the league because City's form has been insane since February. When you're up against a side who have raised the bar so high and have players and coaches vastly experienced in these types of situations, why is it a surprise if they catch you? City are going to have won 5 of the last 6 league titles. This current City team are on course for a historic treble. They're an unbelievable team.
Yes but it isn't an unlikely event from a team getting about 85 points. If they had got 9 points from the first 7 games and ended up where they are now every one would say how well they have done...but the two sequences are equally likely.
Yet they're not the same. Recovering from a poor start is not equivalent to blowing a big lead. It's especially true in this case, where they dropped points that they shouldn't have. 2-0 up against Liverpool and West Ham, as well as drawing with the worst team in the league at home.
We can finish with a maximum of 87 points which, if we can do it, is 1 point more than what your 2016/17 team got. That tally would have been enough to win the league more often than not pre-2016. If you're being expected to break 90+ points to win a title, I don't think you can call it bottling to accrue slightly below that. It's why I don't consider Liverpool's teams that got 97 points and 92 points to be bottlers (despite them bewilderingly being ridiculed for it). They were competing against an absolute freak of a side, with an immense coach and an unlimited amount of resources.
Liverpool didn't bottle it. They were edged out by a very good side. Arsenal were 8 points clear of City a little over a month ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65073189 You're now 4 points behind having played a game more. That's absolutely bottling it.
The Liverpool game I can excuse to a degree because of their home form, and our wretched record at Anfield, but I agree that the West Ham and Southampton results were unforgivable. However, it says a lot that dropping points in 2 games totally swung the momentum in City's favour because the margins for error are that tight. We finished 8th and 5th in the previous two seasons. To go from where we've been the last couple of years to winning a title was always going to be a long-shot. We're not/weren't ready yet.
It's worth remembering that it took City 4 years to win the league following their huge cash injection.
You've forgotten the absolutely mauling at City, too. Massive game and you totally failed to turn up. Xhaka cost you the title, anyway. Should've been sent off against Liverpool and turned the game. There's no way that you would've dropped points in the next two games if that hadn't happened.
Context matters, though. Arsenal's end of season fixtures were always going to be the litmus test because City had already played a lot of their 'harder' games (especially away from home). When you add in the fact that we've not properly competed for a title for 15 years, and City have won 4 of the last 5 titles smashing 90+ points in the process, you then have to factor in the psychological, emotional and (in)experienced elements. This was totally unchartered territory for a lot of these players. Ramsdale's comments here are testament to that: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/13himtj/sky_sports_ramsdale_on_the_title_race_i_thought/
Arsenal are still an inexperienced team with limited squad depth and some weaknesses. Brighton exposed some fragility at the back today. They have overachieved this season. Results were exceptional for a long period, which masked the fact that they weren’t a team at City’s level. The last eight or so games at the back end of the season, with injuries and playing teams who have raised their game for various reasons, are more representative of where they are truly at.
In any league season the team finishing second will have had some poor results which mean they didn't finish first. The order of the results doesn't matter and can't be predicted because they are mostly driven by luck. It is possible that Arsenal are actually better than Man City but got nervous and lost matches they should have won but that isn't provable from the data.
Or maybe they finally clicked at the business end of the season and throughly outplayed us? Obviously, there's no way of knowing for sure, but I don't think any version of Arsenal would have beaten City that day, based on how they performed They absolutely steamrolled us. We had no answer. They've done that to a lot of good teams this season. Difficult to say this. We conceded the equaliser at Anfield in the 87th minute, and we had plenty of time between Salah scoring and Firmino scoring to regain a foothold of the game. We didn't. Even if we'd won, I'm not sure how we'd have handled the pressure in the subsequent fixtures, as the expectation to win the league became ever more present. A lot of senior players have underperformed in the awful run of form we've been in.
Sounds like Ramsdale wasn't prepared properly by his coaches. Stones has the complete opposite attitude and embraces the expected pressure. That's a mad interview.
