Although we are only 8 games into the second half of the season and therefore the graphic might be a bit misleading; the fact that the first and third seasons are so similar is still very interesting. Definitely food for thought and it gets the old grey matter working. [As you can see from Blud's post below.]
First season, integrating new players slow start to the first half of the season as new and old players got used to his system, surroundings etc, second half of the season top 4 form.
Can't argue with that Blud but it's only part of the story
if we are looking for patterns (in my opinion obviously). Would the first part of that season been as much of a write-off, points-wise, had we went into it with Sturridge, for e.g.?
The last day, transfer, cluster-F**k had a bigger part to play than integrating Joe Allen and Fabio Borini, in my opinion.
Second season no major tinkering or new additions, pretty much settled first XI consistently good for most parts of the season, mounted a title challenge.
Again; I can't argue with that Blud other than to say that there were more new additions at the start of the second season than the first.
The fact that, after only some slight "tinkering", not too many of the new transfers were deemed good enough, to hold down a starting place, by Brendan [who 'voted' with his team selection], is what actually lead to a settled team, in my opinion.
[From a position of power] We didn't sign anyone that January transfer window - would that have made a difference in the final analysis?
Third season, new arrivals, losing star player, players adjusting to their new surroundings, Rodgers system etc, slow start to the first half of the season, second half of the season top 4 form.
Spot on again Blud.
The only question is: was that decision [the not replacing the "star player" with one or two similar, in style, (if not quality) but instead signing so many squad players] a conscious decision - something which, in all honesty, effectively wrote-off the first part of the season and with it any chance of winning the title?
So... who made that conscious decision: Brendan, The Committee, Company Policy? I don't know.
As I said earlier; Brendan, in his second season, quickly stopped playing the new signings which weren't up to it. He soon realised that a settled team, with top quality up-front, was the secret behind a title challenge. The thing I ask myself is; why would he set that aside and knowingly write-off the first part of this season and a title challenge? The answer: in my opinion, he wouldn't - although I may be wrong.
If, as every Red hopes, we can maintain (or even better) the 2.5 ppg average, we should comfortably reach Champions League qualification - I reckon 2 ppg will do it tbh. And yes, I know, understand and fully appreciate that this, for many, is the "holy grail" but... couldn't it have been so much better? Anyhow...
As for next season: I totally agree with Mick (and you); we should be able to mount a serious title challenge from day one. The reason? I can't see Brendan (after what he's said recently) not demanding that we finally sign the two or three top quality players, he sees as necessary, to take us to the next level.
Give Brendan the tools and he'll do the job - of that I have
no doubt.