Liverpool vs Man City

Not true. Man City would love to win the CL. Let's not be fooled here. It's the hardest competition to win after the World Cup.

Problem with the league is that only Liverpool can really beat City and one or few others on there day. Liverpool lost the league by failing to beat City over 2 games. That's it.

Considering the amount of money City have spent they should be winning the league by miles.

 

They haven't lost it yet. Don't forget that City still have to play the Tartan Simeone's Mahoosive Cockney Bastards!
Come on you Irons! Let's relegate Manure to the Tinpot Trophy!

 

Technically after the weekends result Man City only need win 2 of the last 3 games to win the league. They could afford a defeat to West Ham along as they won the other two by a few goals, as the Newcastle trashing has put them ahead on goal difference too.

There is less luck involved in winning the league compared to the cup. You could have 1 bad game in the cup and it's game over. Have a man sent off in a tie and there could be no coming back.
In the league it's offset over 38 games.

Man City were the better team against Real Madrid and should have had the tie won in the first leg. Adding Haaland will no doubt strengthen their chances next season.

If it weren't for Liverpool however, the last few years would have been a joke, of this Liverpool side was 10 years ago they would have 4 titles to their name. Second place in 2016 had 71 points, second place today has 86 points with 2 games to play.

23 years ago Man City were in the 3rd tier play offs, now they are looking at a Premier League title with no other trophy as a disappointing season. I know a fair few Man City fans and they are just enjoying the moment whilst it lasts, the know they won't see this quality at this price forever.

 

I think that 1-11 LFC are probably slightly better than MCFC but the strength in depth of City's squad is just unbelievable which gives them the edge over LFC across a whole season.

 

On the flip side you could argue you have to be a better team to win the cups as you have to win every round. One off day and you are out whereas one the league you can lose a few and still win the title

 

Spurs got to the Champions League final, that should be enough to strengthen the position of the league. Also in the league you have to be consistently good, not just good when it Matters (Chelsea last year)

We got to a cup final, we beat Chelsea in the FA Cup, Cups throw up these results, the league rarely ends up with the best team not on top.

If the Champions League was a league format with the best in Europe home and away it would always end up with the best team on top. In its current format you can't suggest that Chelsea were the best team in Europe last season, they were just good when it mattered.

 

Two fantastic teams that will long be remembered,
City just shade it in the League but i reckon they would love to get the CL monkey off their back
and Liverpool to win more than one league title in thirty years but football can be a funny old game,

But the Reds are still going for a cup treble which has been done how often from an English team?
One league title versus three cups, to be Frank i might have to disagree on who is the better team this season.

Will change next time out with Haaland's arrival

 

I think this has been the case over the past 3/4 years, however I'd disagree now. City's bench regularly has only 3 players who can come on and change the game and the rest are kids, whereas anyone on Liverpool's now is an established first teamer. Klopp has done very well to build the team he has, but only has 1 league title to show for it.

 

It's possible to lose 45% of your games in the CL and still win it.
I'd suggest losing 45% of your games in the PL wouldn't win it.

 

They've also stretched that gap with the signing of Haaland.

 

Does it?

Look without a doubt Haaland is a great signing. However, what happens to the likes of Stirling, Greelish etc?

You've to remember City deal in expensive transfers and these players want to play which could create problems because Haaland starts for me.

The gap is only 3 points. City and Liverpool do things differently. One will more than likely win the PL in City and has already won the FA and league Cup and in the final of the CL.

If we base things just on money then Newcastle is the team everyone should fear within the next 5 years.

 

The best team in the league end up as champions. Simple as that. And its the hardest competition to win.

 

The thing that will stretch the gap further isnt so much the signing of Haaland, its the move to 5 subs.

 

Not really.

Liverpool made 9 changes yesterday and won.

 

How come City haven't won it then. That isn't true at all.

 

That kind of proves the point.

It'll benefit the teams with the biggest and best squads. If you're a Liverpool or a City, or Chelsea, you can put out 2x 11s that could very well be the best side in the league. Look at Liverpool - they play a massively high energy, high press style. They could play Salah, Mane and Firmino for an hour and then bring on Diaz, Jota and Origi. Little to no difference in quality, no drop in intensity for the whole 90 mins. The majority of the league can't do the same.

 

All cup competitions have an element of luck. One bad game and you can be out. One refereeing error and you can be out. Over a season, you need to be the best consistently and you need to overcome a variety of challenges.

The best team in the league, wins the league. The CL isn't always won by the best team in Europe.

Liverpool won the Champions League in 2004/05 and finished 5th in the Premiership. Chelsea won it in 2012 and finished 6th. They won it last year and finished 4th.