2014/15: Will Liverpool struggle to meet the dizzying highs of 2013/14?

Chelsea came here with several players out and had to play a weakened team. If they came here in January, chances are those players would have been available. Newcastle came here with nothing to play for and lost. Earlier in the season, they went to the mancs with more at stake and won. So while we have to play everyone twice, the timing of them can be a huge advantage.

Still don't see it.

We had to play United at the start of the season without Suarez. Still won. We had to play Hull at the turn of the year, with Suarez, and lost. So players can be out of a match at any time. And Newcastle could of easily won that final game because they were much better than us in the first half.

The slip happened with 3 games to go. If it  happened 3 games in, the damage could have been rectified 10 games later. Mistakes happen at different times of the season, but the later they happen, the more costly they are.

They can't be rectified after the whistle has gone. Toure's back pass against West Brom (I know I'm banging on about that but that's the one in my head) was in February and it still cost us. If that didn't happen, we have two extra points going into every game after that point. We can't win those two points back, they've gone. Such as with Gerrard's slip. That doesn't happen, we probably have one more point ahead of the final two games. We can't get back the two points we drop.

I agree the later they happen, the more costly they are. That's why earlier I classed the slip against Chelsea as the "defining" error. It was more costly. But that's not because of who we're playing against. That would of been costly on the third to last game against any opposition.

It doesn't really matter tbh. Fact was, Chelsea had the advantage of playing a direct rival at home on the last day of the season when they needed a result, and they took it.

It's a bit like a choice between playing at home to Rochdale in the cup or having to go to a Top 4 side instead. You can't say it's all the same, you want the easiest draw you can get. Or most people do anyway.

But as I said, if we'd done enough in the first 37 games of the season then that final day wouldn't of been against a direct rival. Alternatively if we and Chelsea had got as many points as we had at that point but been playing Villa and Coventry respectively (if the Sky Blues were still in the Prem at that point) then the final games would of still be decisive.

Yes in Cups you want the easiest draw you can get but the League isn't like that. Cups are everyone in the hat, drawn at random. The League, you know who you're playing. You know you have to play everybody twice. There isn't an "easy draw" of fixtures for the League because you get everybody at your place, you go to every away ground during the season just like everybody else.

Are there "easier" starts/run ins? Yes there is. Does it matter? No not really.

Games against the 'bigger' teams are more important in at least 2 major ways:

1) It's important  to beat the teams we hate.
2) It means our title rivals have fewer points.

But of course, none of that matters if we continue to concede 3 goals a game against dross like Cardiff and Palace.

With the squad as it is at the moment? No.

But if we add Lovren,Moreno,Remy and a top class winger/mobile forward,yes.

Still don't see it.

We had to play United at the start of the season without Suarez. Still won. We had to play Hull at the turn of the year, with Suarez, and lost. So players can be out of a match at any time. And Newcastle could of easily won that final game because they were much better than us in the first half.

This isn't about what was won and what wasn't. It's about the advantage of playing teams at certain times of the season over others. Last year we had all the top 6 sides at home in the second half of the season. It was a huge advantage, and we won every game bar one. The impact of the  earlier results at City and Arsenal were recovered at home. Ditto Hull. The neighbours were dismantled by half time. That wouldn't be the case if they were all away.

They can't be rectified after the whistle has gone. Toure's back pass against West Brom (I know I'm banging on about that but that's the one in my head) was in February and it still cost us. We can't get back the two points we drop.

Toure's error cost us 2 points. The next night, City lost at home to Chelsea. We beat Sunderland at home, City and Chelsea couldn't. Errors and dropped points can be recovered if time allows.

City meanwhile had their own advantage last season, knowing what results they needed from games in hand for several months. After our late season mistakes, we were relying on favours from their opponents. They won at Palace, we didn't. They beat Villa at home, we didn't. So they finished first, and we finished best of the rest.

But as I said, if we'd done enough in the first 37 games of the season then that final day wouldn't of been against a direct rival. Alternatively if we and Chelsea had got as many points as we had at that point but been playing Villa and Coventry respectively (if the Sky Blues were still in the Prem at that point) then the final games would of still be decisive.

You are right. As am I. I was hoping all season long, that we wouldn't have to go to a ground we hadn't won in 14 years on the last day to get a result. But it turned out that we had to go there and get it, and we didn't. I also hope that going to Chelsea this year when we do doesn't decide our fate.

Yes in Cups you want the easiest draw you can get but the League isn't like that. Cups are everyone in the hat, drawn at random. The League, you know who you're playing. You know you have to play everybody twice. There isn't an "easy draw" of fixtures for the League because you get everybody at your place, you go to every away ground during the season just like everybody else.

If you want to win the cup, you have to face the top sides. That doesn't mean you want to play them in Round 3, when there are other possibilities available.

This isn't about what was won and what wasn't. It's about the advantage of playing teams at certain times of the season over others. Last year we had all the top 6 sides at home in the second half of the season. It was a huge advantage, and we won every game bar one. The impact of the  earlier results at City and Arsenal were recovered at home. Ditto Hull. The neighbours were dismantled by half time. That wouldn't be the case if they were all away.

My point regarding Suarez was that playing United, traditionally one of the hardest and biggest games of any season, without him was a "disadvantage" because of when that fixture was placed. Yet we still came away victorious. But even if we had six of the "easiest" games to start the season with, it would of been a disadvantage not having Suarez there because despite how well we did without him, it was plain to see we were better with him. So who we had didn't matter.

As for having the rest of the top six at home in second half as an advantage, I still don't see it. It could be seen as a disadvantage because we would of been expected to be playing catch up by this point. After all, we lost to the rest of the top four away from home last year. We have to play them.

Toure's error cost us 2 points. The next night, City lost at home to Chelsea. We beat Sunderland at home, City and Chelsea couldn't. Errors and dropped points can be recovered if time allows.

City meanwhile had their own advantage last season, knowing what results they needed from games in hand for several months. After our late season mistakes, we were relying on favours from their opponents. They won at Palace, we didn't. They beat Villa at home, we didn't. So they finished first, and we finished best of the rest.

But we didn't make up those two points we dropped to the Baggies, it's just City didn't take advantage of our slip. That's my point here, once the game has gone you can't make up for it. If you fail to get three points in any said game, the points have gone. The error weren't reversed, it just wasn't captialised on by our rivals.

And City, knowing their results can be seen as a disadvantage. We knew that one draw and two wins from our final three games would be enough once City had fu**ed up one too many times. We didn't take advantage of that.

You are right. As am I. I was hoping all season long, that we wouldn't have to go to a ground we hadn't won in 14 years on the last day to get a result. But it turned out that we had to go there and get it, and we didn't. I also hope that going to Chelsea this year when we do doesn't decide our fate.

I also hope we don't have to go to Chelsea this year to get a result, I hope we've got the League tied up well before then.

If you want to win the cup, you have to face the top sides. That doesn't mean you want to play them in Round 3, when there are other possibilities available.

Not necessarily. Take the League Cup for example in 2001, our run was a Chelsea side who finished below us the season before at Anfield, a second division Stoke side away, a first division Fulham side at home, a first division Crystal Palace in the semi finals and a first division Birmingham side in the final.

The way the Cups are, mean if you get lucky with the draw you can have it relatively easy and don't have to face the "top" sides.

I'm fully expecting a title challenge this season + knock out stages in the CL. A domestic cup isn't out of the question either.

Personally I think we will have a tiny blip and maybe finish a few points further from the top this time round. That's not to say I wouldn't be surprised if we did challenge but it's a completely different ethos this time around.

Long term, this transfer window will serve us very well. Short term, it might hamper a few objectives. I don't really mind if it does though because I have faith in Brendan's judgement on this one. He's in a better position than anyone else to make a decision on what approach to take.

And when I saw a 'blip', I mean maybe 10 points from the top. It's just such a radical change to go from a team based around Suarez to having a more well-rounded side. The focal point to attacks change and new faces all around the area might affect that more than one can hope.

To answer the question, I think yes we will struggle to meet the heights but not by far at all. I think we will be major players this season still and a very strong team in cup competitions.

Personally I think we will have a tiny blip and maybe finish a few points further from the top this time round. That's not to say I wouldn't be surprised if we did challenge but it's a completely different ethos this time around.

Long term, this transfer window will serve us very well. Short term, it might hamper a few objectives. I don't really mind if it does though because I have faith in Brendan's judgement on this one. He's in a better position than anyone else to make a decision on what approach to take.

And when I saw a 'blip', I mean maybe 10 points from the top. It's just such a radical change to go from a team based around Suarez to having a more well-rounded side. The focal point to attacks change and new faces all around the area might affect that more than one can hope.

To answer the question, I think yes we will struggle to meet the heights but not by far at all. I think we will be major players this season still and a very strong team in cup competitions.

Ye I think you're spot on. He's definitely making great strides and we are on our way. Just a lot of culminating factors next season have me thinking we will drop off. Top3-4 still hopefully, but that's a tall ask as it is with Chelsea, City and the usual 4th place Arsenal all fighting it out with us for those positions. If I was a betting man, I would say Chelsea would be the team to fall off the 1/2/3 perch as opposed to us. They were horrendous in parts last season and I think Mourinho has ran out of tricks and will be found out.

I think this season will see us concede 10 less goals (GA +40~) and score 20-25 less goals (GF +75~), which by most standards is top drawer. Could do with getting our GA down by another 10 though.

Such a big window. Looking good so far though.

IBWT

Every game is important. Of course, the big games have a bigger value seeing that psychological blows can be dealt, but when it is all said and done, 3 points is 3 points.

Head to head is of high importance though, as you win points and make your rivals drop points. But then games like Aston Villa and West Brom are important too. If we had won those two silly games we would have won the league.

I think we'll be ok. Bring in lovren and let him and Sakho gel, even if they do make the odd mistake at the beginning. If Enrique can stay fit he is going to be a big boost for us. We are still going to score goals IMO. Another season ahead for Sterling is exciting, Sturridge is going to be the main man with no looking over his shoulder at Suarez. Our midfield and wingers look good with plenty of attacking flair. The last 2 pre season games I,ve watched against Brondby and Preston and Coutinho, Ibe and Suso have all stood out for me. I think Flanno should start the season at RB instead of Johnson and we,ve got a good 1st 11. Cant wait to see Markovic ripping some defenders a new arsehole with his pace. Can we win it?.......deffo.  YNWA.

Ye I think you're spot on. He's definitely making great strides and we are on our way. Just a lot of culminating factors next season have me thinking we will drop off. Top3-4 still hopefully, but that's a tall ask as it is with Chelsea, City and the usual 4th place Arsenal all fighting it out with us for those positions. If I was a betting man, I would say Chelsea would be the team to fall off the 1/2/3 perch as opposed to us. They were horrendous in parts last season and I think Mourinho has ran out of tricks and will be found out.

I think this season will see us concede 10 less goals (GA +40~) and score 20-25 less goals (GF +75~), which by most standards is top drawer. Could do with getting our GA down by another 10 though.

Such a big window. Looking good so far though.

IBWT

Well said. That was another thing I wanted to say but forgot. If we plug our goals conceded it could be the difference between first and second. I would rather score 25 less and concede 10 less than last season if it meant grinding out more 1-0 wins against the sh*t teams.

My point regarding Suarez was that playing United, traditionally one of the hardest and biggest games of any season, without him was a "disadvantage" because of when that fixture was placed. Yet we still came away victorious. But even if we had six of the "easiest" games to start the season with, it would of been a disadvantage not having Suarez there because despite how well we did without him, it was plain to see we were better with him. So who we had didn't matter.

His first game back was against them. We were not victorious.

I would never regard playing the home game first, 3 games in, as an advantage. This season, the home game is in March, so I'm much happier with it this time round.

we didn't make up those two points we dropped to the Baggies, it's just City didn't take advantage of our slip. If you fail to get three points in any said game, the points have gone. The error weren't reversed, it just wasn't captialised on by our rivals.

That's the point. That week, they didn't capitalise on our slip up, so we ended up a point better off. If you slip up one week and your rival slips up too, then no ground is lost, and your mistake is cancelled out. If it's with 3 games to go, and the rival takes advantage, it's a different scenario altogether.

And City, knowing their results can be seen as a disadvantage. We knew that one draw and two wins from our final three games would be enough once City had fu**ed up one too many times. We didn't take advantage of that.

As someone who would rather games in hand knowing what's required, games in hand are like golddust when you take advantage of them. Having to sit it out and look for favours as we had to in our last four title challenges was torture, and ultimately frustrating.

I also hope we don't have to go to Chelsea this year to get a result, I hope we've got the League tied up well before then.

Won't happen. If we win it, it will go down to the wire again, or at least Palace at home. City, Chelsea, and Arsenal are all at home on the last day, so if we're not in pole position going to Stoke, the wait will probably carry on.

Take the League Cup for example in 2001, our run was a Chelsea side who finished below us the season before at Anfield, a second division Stoke side away, a first division Fulham side at home, a first division Crystal Palace in the semi finals and a first division Birmingham side in the final.

The way the Cups are, mean if you get lucky with the draw you can have it relatively easy and don't have to face the "top" sides.

Chelsea were a top side at the time, FA Cup holders who had just hammered us in the league, and an opponent I'd rather not get until absolutely necessary. At least it was at home, and as usual in cup games like that, it helped get us over the line.

His first game back was against them. We were not victorious.

That was the league cup game, we'd already beaten them in the league thanks to Sturridge's header when Suarez was still suspended.

His first game back was against them. We were not victorious.

Which is the point I'm making. Hence the reference to the Hull defeat earlier in this thread.

I would never regard playing the home game first, 3 games in, as an advantage. This season, the home game is in March, so I'm much happier with it this time round.

You don't see it as an "advantage" to get an early gap between yourself and one of your biggest rivals? Beating them that early gave us a five point lead over them. Of course though, they could of played Palace and lost, we could of played West Brom and won and still moved five points clear.

That's the point. That week, they didn't capitalise on our slip up, so we ended up a point better off. If you slip up one week and your rival slips up too, then no ground is lost, and your mistake is cancelled out. If it's with 3 games to go, and the rival takes advantage, it's a different scenario altogether.

But we didn't make up for the dropped two points, it just didn't cost us. If City hadn't capitalised on Gerrard's slip, that wouldn't of been as a big a deal. It's all ifs and buts.

As someone who would rather games in hand knowing what's required, games in hand are like golddust when you take advantage of them. Having to sit it out and look for favours as we had to in our last four title challenges was torture, and ultimately frustrating.

That's where we differ then, I would much rather have the points than games in hand. At times last year City and Chelsea had games in hand on us and all I heard from some (though not yourself from memory) was how those games in hand would be the death of our title challenge. As it happened, it didn't. City still had a game in hand but required us to "slip" up. Give me points ahead of games in hand.

Won't happen. If we win it, it will go down to the wire again, or at least Palace at home. City, Chelsea, and Arsenal are all at home on the last day, so if we're not in pole position going to Stoke, the wait will probably carry on.

Again this is where we'll disagree.

I'm not gonna sit and here and think it "won't happen" or care who the others have and when. I'm gonna believe and expect us to have the League comfortably wrapped up.

Chelsea were a top side at the time, FA Cup holders who had just hammered us in the league, and an opponent I'd rather not get until absolutely necessary. At least it was at home, and as usual in cup games like that, it helped get us over the line.

They hadn't "just hammered us". It was a month earlier and we'd had four victories in between the two games (including three other Premier League games). As for Chelsea being a top side at the time? Behave will you. They finished 6th that year, 5th the year before and only once above us in the history of the Premiership (98-99 when we had our lowest finish to date).

Chelsea were basically what Everton and Spurs are now, the best of the rest around the early 2000s.

You don't see it as an "advantage" to get an early gap between yourself and one of your biggest rivals?

That's not what I said. What I said was I wouldn't have it 3 games into the season. How many times in the run in did you hear the phrase "City and Chelsea still have to go to Anfield". Having as many big home games on in the second half of the season as possible is what I look for. Last year we had 5, and won 4.

But we didn't make up for the dropped two points, it just didn't cost us.

If it didn't cost us, what's the problem?

That's where we differ then, I would much rather have the points than games in hand. At times last year City and Chelsea had games in hand on us and all I heard from some (though not yourself from memory) was how those games in hand would be the death of our title challenge. As it happened, it didn't. City still had a game in hand but required us to "slip" up. Give me points ahead of games in hand.

A lot of people agree with you, but I can't understand it.

Playing more games than the opposition means that you don't know what your target is. I'm far more comfortable knowing what I have to do to meet my target rather than having to sweat it out wondering whether what I've done will be enough or not. And I find that playing games after rivals have slipped up takes a lot of pressure off and a free pass to take advantage. 

I apply the same logic to penalty shootouts. I would rather go second, and see if the opposition can handle the pressure of going first. We went second in Istanbul and were 2-0 up after 2 penalties, one of many winning shootouts down the years. In 1984, Steve Nicol went first, and sent his penalty off in the direction of Naples. We won that time, but I would still rather go second and have penalties "in hand", like in Istanbul.