But then apart from Suarez was our side last season any different to any other mid table team? Fact is we massively overachieved last year.
We over achieved somewhat.. or did we? Spurs 6 points United 6 points. Normally they weren't so **** as to give up 6 points. Normally we've a strong top 6 in the PL last season there was a strong top 3, us being one of them. I think we'd have finished top 4 either way given yoonited and Spurs were out of the running. As bad as we've been the same teams are still ****, Spurs and Yoonited, we just haven't been scoring enough goals. If you look at draws and loses by a single goal, a mere few goals would see us top 4 as it stands.. we just can't score enough goals, especially at home. Suarez was part of the team and Studge remained fit, we ended up where our football deserved so I don't think we overachieved, we had goal machines and poor opposition for top 4. We'd still be looking good for top four (and last season looking less of a massive overachievement) if we had bought a better forward and had a fit Studge. Fine margins. Yes we're not as good as last season but that doesn't explain why we are where we are, a small few goals in certain games would leave an entirely different reality. Look at how **** Yoonited have been and yet they are 3rd
I don't really agree with that and my post on the thread about our seaosn progress comparing this year to last shows why. this massive over acheivement to my mind anyway should only refer to 2nd place, not 4th race and my view is firmly that some lfc pundits and so forth are using that as an excuse. the fact is without saurez last year we got 10 points from first 4 games. once he returned we took 7 and 7 from 12... now this year I've pointed out that were are 10 points worse off at the 20 game mark than last year and its mostly down to one absolutely ****e month where we lost to palace... (shocker), lost to newkie away and rightly lost to chelsea despite playing decent and raising our game as per... not sorry but thats where we have UNDER ACHIEVED. In my view 70 points this year was still possible if we'd ticked along taking 7 or 8 points out of 12.. we've only for the first time taken that this last block and even then we chucked 2 easy points in the bin v Leicester... and some would argue v sunderland too. I think we are on for 55-58 points this year which is well below 70 points. we ende don 84 points last year which was as much above 70 as i expect us to be below it this year. we are under achieving IMO and we cannot simply excuse is and wave a magic suarez card to do so. for the record. We pay 5th best money to players we have sterling, coutinho... should have had sturridge... we paid masses for lovern, lallana, markovic, moreno. we have experienced players in skertl, gerrard, lucas, even henderson etc. LFc have lots of resources to apply to this and frankly we ****ed it up. which other midtbale team is better? none? are spurs better than us? seriously? no way are they.. neither are west ham nor southampton. We simply haven't got our **** together. don't bother turning in performances and make stupid errors. even with the squad we've massively over paid for we still should be capable of getting closer to 70 points without question.
btw everton got 72 points last year. that was actually some going for 5th and so we needed to get 73 points to take 4th if we'd merely replicated the first 19 games of last season we would have got the 72 points. (included losing twice to city and cheslea therefore) it wasn't super lads... it was good but the spectacular came in feb and march
Losses and draws by the odd goal Villa 1 0 Everton 1 1 Hull 0 0 Newcastle 1 0 Chelsea 2 1 Sunderland 0 0 Arsenal 2 2 Leicester 2 2 11 more goals in these games, not an enormous ask is 19 more points. So say even taking the Chelsea loss and Arsenal draw it's still 8 more goals for 15 extra points, that's 44 points, 3rd place and 2 points behind City. Studge injury and the Badon disaster, fine margins, would it look so much an overachievement last season if we'd managed just 8 more goals in those games? I rest my case
good calls. vila was a disgrace. that goal was shockingly poor defending and they promptly stuck 20 men behind the ball. Everton was a complete waste too. a simple clearance made poorly and jagielka who'll never repeat the trick smashes on in. we sat back deeper and deeper stupidly when they were easy to play. 5 points so far. newcastle game was piss poor from us. cheslea we raise our game be seriously we deserved to lose. hull and sunderland came for the draws, set up and executed their tactics well. we were as expected so i'd leave those as draws. arsenal was astonishingly poor. We were by far the better side they got two, scored two and we rescued a draw in the 95th minute? thats 2 more imo Liecester.. we were poor. we got gifted two pens... i dunno we robbed burnely playing that badly too.. is turnabout fair play? who knows. I see 7 chucked points without debating much and frankly. 7+29 = 36 points and that would put us on track for 70. this just highlights the scale of the UNDER acheivement.
Don't think we should criticise Rodgers for initially wanting to sell Henderson - he was hardly alone there. We should praise him for integrating him despite his initial doubts and making him a key part of the current squad. What is shocking and inexcusable to me is the failure to address our midfield and defence.
Having henderson closer to Lucas instead of Gerrard would help us out in midfield a bit, centre right, he plays much better there than on the right side proper. He's pretty good at finding people on the far post from there too when we attack ala his balls to Sterling, he has that in his locker.
Having a firing striker may have done more for us, as well as more points, confidence from wins would probably he higher too which may have given us more points. It's not unreasonable to say with a firing strike force we could be second. "Coulda" "shoulda" "woulda" I know but the lack of decent forwards has had an impact on our defending as much as scoring. Teams could pretty much depend on preventing us scoring in that first half of the season and focus on countering our ineffective attacks and scoring a goal themselves. West Ham for example.
I would be partnering Hendo with Can in a two at the moment... more mobile and more ambitious than Lucas. In a three Lucas/Allen would play. No Stevie at all.
I can see where you are going with that bit, dunno, Can as is seems a bit sluggish. He can build up a head of steam going forward but the cut and thrust of the centre.. he's still off the pace a little, I say that v Leicester when he was facing a bit of a hard job in defence, wasn't exaclty as good as he was v Swansea. Lucas is better with help as long as he stays disciplined. Even Lucas with Allen and henderson in there with him can look pretty effective, when we mauled Spurs 5 0 it was those 3 was it?
It was yes. Not taking anything from Lucas - he can do a job, but he's not the future. Can clearly has talent and should be played into form.
well..... i kind of like him getting more game time where he is right now and gradually upping his impact. I would have RATHERED him get a few 15 to 30 min runs for gerrard earlier in the season but it seems being a coward rather than a player developer is the best way to keep your job. the lad is decent but the jury is still out on just how decent... is he top 4? lets see what he does.
Ah come on Sisu, if you were in some banter with UIR I could understand but this is poor by your standards. This isnt about a few goals here or there. United have conceded much fewer than you and scored more. We deserve to be 3rd based on our performances, and the comparison with Liverpool is ridiculous. You also belittle the likes of Spurs and particularly Southampton as well.
If you followed the conversation I said "coulda woulda shoulda" as in it's all just talk All I was doing was pointing out games where we "may" have done better if he had a strike force, which we don't really, that's all. I gave a list of games and how many goals would be required to win each one and it wasn't many goals at all. This leads to the conclusion that had we a decent attack we would be in 3rd even though we've not been great, but points on the board would mean no talk of that, just like you lot have been quite poor too but you have points on the board so you are fooled enough to think you have been good. You see you lot have what we don't, a solid keeper and a strike force that can get you out of trouble. Those are the two main reasons you are 3rd. I daresay that if we had a solid keeper and similar quality up front we'd be in third
Yeh your smilies don't help your cause mate. That second paragraph is precisely the point. We DO have a better goalkeeper, and we DO have a better strike force. That's what makes us good. Playing badly doesn't equate to being **** which is what you posted earlier. As for Liverpool, as I said before a few extra goals wouldn't suddenly propel you up the table. A 16 stone walrus was quicker than your defence today to nab a goal. Your defence is as bad as your attack. Your ifs, buts and maybes could be applied to Spurs and West Ham as much as Liverpool. Will they finish 4th do you think? Because that is the barometer of where you are right now, not United.
You've scored 6 more than us and we've conceded 7 more than you, yep our defence is dire and yes since Suarez left and Sturridge has been out our attack has been dire. But those **** players are still in three cup comps and only 7 points off 4th, united have had it very easy this season and spent close on £200m to focus on a top 4 place. Theres a fine line between were utd are and we are, we are a shadow of last season and united can't by the title even playing fewer games.
Talking about smileys.. Sisu 1 0 Treble He still doesn't get that it was all hypothetical please log in to view this image
