You haven't torn anything apart - all you have is given your opinion. Let's have a look at the evidence:
Yes I did but let's play the little game.
1. Your opinion: we have a molehill to climb because we put in good performances against the teams above us.
Reality: the league isn't about direct performances against your rivals, it's about having the depth to consistently achieve results against every team in the league over the course of a season
Evidence: 25 years since we won the league clearly ain't a molehill.
Wrong instantly and trying to interrupt what I said to suit you. It's a molehill if we have a regular goalscorer. That's why we went from 7th to 2nd within a season because we had a regular goalscorer. Somebody who scored 30 goals a season.
Our performances against those who finish above us, prove we're more than a match for any club in this League. And prove that if we can get it right at the top end of the pitch, we could easily be challenging again. In the 90s it was the other end of the pitch that had the problems. If we'd "bought the best available" and say gone for Nigel Martyn rather than David F***ing James, we may well of the League. We didn't though.
If we picked up results against those around us in 13/14, i.e. beat Chelsea, we win the League. If we get results against those around us last year, i.e. beat United like we deserved to, we get 4th. That's reality lad.
2. Your opinion: we have never tried to buy "the best".
Reality: You're confusing what we tried to do with the results of our strategy. Shearer, Keane and the rest of them never played for the same team - they only subsequently proved their worth. In any case, Souness actually tried to bring Keane here but he wanted to go to United. You laugh at the likes of Collymore but the fact was, when we bought him, he was one of the best strikers in the league. We had the resources to bring in various stars - instead we chose to buy the likes of Scales, Babb, Diouf, Diao, Heskey, Morientes, Litmaanen, Kirkland and so on. The point is, even when we had the resources and pull to attract "the best" we failed with our player selection. Now the job is ten times harder because even if we identify the next Shearer there are four clubs ahead of us in the queue.
Evidence: For the majority of the period we are talking about, Liverpool were one of the two biggest clubs in the league and had our pick of the players we wanted.
Well which one is it lad? Was it we bought the best available or we didn't bring in various stars? You're contradicting yourself again. Stop, it's embarrassing.
And we were never in for Keane seriously because he always going to United as a replacement for Robson, which he turned out to be.
3. Your opinion: there was more than just United to beat
Reality: you have misunderstood the point I was making so (on your terms) you were partly correct. Yes there were 19 other teams in the league but, for a long period, the only consistent threat for the league title was United. Blackburn fell away after one season trying to defend it. Arsenal went into a hiatus. Other teams have risen during that period but you are making my point for me - at one time there was only us, United and a wildcard team (Leeds/Blackburn etc) competing for the title. Now it's United, Chelsea, Arsenal, City and two or three wild cards (us/Spurs). The point is it was harder for us to win it 2010-2015 than 2000-2010 and that was harder than 1990-2000 but we didn't even win it in that period.
Evidence: list of league champions / top 4 finishes from 1990-present
Don't be F***ing daft lad. Every year, with the odd exception, it's a two horse race now by the start of April. Let's take a look at some "evidence" shall we from the last game in March for the last five seasons?
14/15 - 1st Chelsea (67 points) 2nd City (61 points) 3rd (Arsenal 60 points). More or less all over, but we'll say it was still a two horse race at this point.
13/14 - 1st Liverpool (71 points) 2nd Chelsea (69 points) 3rd City (67 points). Three horse race, due to us being the "wildcard"
12/13 - 1st United (77 points) 2nd City (62 points) 3rd Spurs (57 points). All over by the end of March.
11/12 - 1st City (70 points) 2nd United (70 points) 3rd Arsenal (58 points). Two horse race.
10/11 - 1st United (63 points) 2nd Arsenal 58 (points) 3rd City (53 points). Two horse race.
So these four teams competing for the title, really aren't are they? It's a two horse race every year with the odd exception. Come the business end of the year, there's just two teams going for it. Chelsea twice out of the last five, City twice at a push three if you include last season, United three, Arsenal as many times as us. That's "evidence".
Now, just to compare that to 95-99
98/99 - 1st United (63 points) 2nd Arsenal (59 points) 3rd Chelsea (59 point). Two horse race.
97/98 - 1st United (63 points) 2nd Arsenal (60 points) 3rd Liverpool (54 points). Two horse race.
96/97 - 1st United (63 points) 2nd Liverpool 60 points) 3rd Arsenal (57 points). Three horse race, with us as the "wildcard"
95/96 - 1st United (67 points) 2nd Newcastle (64 points) 3rd Liverpool (59 points). Two horse race.
94/95 - 1st Blackburn (76 points) 2nd United (73 points) 3rd Newcastle (63 points). Two horse race.
See, more evidence that back then it was still just a two horse race as well. Back then, it proves there was one common trend, United were always in the running. That doesn't prove though they were the only side we had to contend with because they weren't. It also disproves your theory that there's four teams always going for the title in today's football. There isn't. Come crunch time, there's two teams going for the title unless we pop up and spoil the party.
4. Your opinion: "it means nothing" that our rivals play in Champions League
Reality: don't even know where to start with this one. CL income now means upto 60 million extra a year to pay players. It means attracting those who want to play on global TV against the other top teams in Europe. It means getting used to midweek fixtures at the same time as competing in the league. Just a silly comment really.
Evidence: Lacazette would be a perfect fit for us, however, as Lyon's chairman says: "Liverpool have never called, and as they are not playing in the Champions League, they don't have the money, nor would they be able to interest him."
We bought Luis Suarez, Danny Sturridge and Phil Coutinho all without Champions League football. With it, we bought Rickie Lambert, Mario Balotelli and Lazar Markovic. I know which three I'd rather have. Our two most expensive signings both arrived when we were out of Europe's elite club competition - Carroll and Firminio.
Oh and we're all desperate to go up against those top teams like Ludogorets, APOEL and Malmo aren't we? Desperate to play against the likes of Gervinho, Nani and Phillip F***ing Degen. They're queuing round the block for those names to come to Anfield.
The European Cup is great. But as Arsenal have proved for the past decade, what good has it done them? A couple of FA Cups. Great.
As for some Lyon chairman, who gives a toss? I don't know the fella you're on about from Adam but I've seen his name banded around here for a while so I'll guess he's decent. And we can't get him because we're not in the Champions League? Well he's not that F***ing good for Liverpool then. You sign for this club because it's the biggest honour in world football not because we're one of thirty two clubs in the European Cup. If that's what he wants, Celtic's up north they can offer him practically guaranteed Champions League football.
5. Your opinion: my paragraph is a contradiction of itself
Reality: there is no contradiction there - re-read what I have written. Blackburn or not, there was a long period in this league when there was basically us or United at the start of the season who could be said to be realistically challenging for the best players and be challenging for the title. As time has gone on, it has become harder since more teams are now able to challenge due to the money injected into the game. At one point we only had (for example) United to beat to sign Roy Keane. Nowadays we have Arsenal, City, Chelsea, Spurs as well - that's not to mention PSG, Real, Monaco and the rest of them. Point is - even when there were fewer teams competing for the players we wanted we failed to win the league. Now, if we go for the same strategy as everyone else we will continue to fail because we are in a position where we are going to get the 4th and 5th choice picks.
Evidence: average wage bill of the teams finishing above us since 1990
No contradiction in;
We have tried buying the best available players for decades and we have failed to win the league.
to this;
with the fourth and fifth choice picks
Which one is it? The best around or fourth and fifth picks?
6. Your opinion: Clough was not a once-in-a-lifetime manager
Reality: this is the entire point of the thread - yes he was a c**t but you are confusing your sentimental dislike of him with his ability as a manager. He took over at Derby in the second division, got them promoted and won the first division title for the first time in their history. They also reached the semi finals of the European Cup. Derby. Not one of Europe's sleeping giants - Derby.
After Leeds, he went to second division Nottingham Forest and got them promoted. Then they won the title for the first time in THEIR history. Again - Nottingham. Doing that alone made him one of only four managers to win the top division title with two different clubs. Unlike Kenny he didn't inherit a winning side built by Paisley/Fagan or have a Jack Warner to blow everyone out of the water financially.
After that, he won back-to-back European Cups with Nottingham Forest. Can you conceive of a championship side emulating that success nowadays? And I don't mean Leeds - I mean a side that has done F**k all in their history.
Evidence: name another manager in your lifetime who has achieved the same level of success from such a low starting point.
This is where you're about as wrong as you can be. In this topic you've discredited Bob Paisley and Kenny Dalglish. You've basically insinuated that neither of those great managers, genuinely great not half decent like Clough, didn't build great sides. They did. Dalglish built, arguably, Liverpool's greatest ever side. But you'll probably deny that you've said anything of the sort so I won't go into any further.
As for Clough, yes he won the League with Derby and Forest. Well done. Yes he won two European Cups with Forest as well. Good on him. He also took backhanders throughout his career. He also fu**ed off when he got his side relegated. He also spent 18 F***ing years at Forest and won just a single League title. One. One in eighteen F***ing years. That isn't a great manager.
Clough's success weren't in my lifetime but I'll name somebody who could of done it. Look a bit closer to home, look at Liverpool's longest serving manager, look at Tom Watson. He took the first newly elected League club, Sunderland, to three League titles in four years. The year he failed, he finished runners up. He then took Liverpool from the old Second division to the top flight. And he then won Liverpool our first League title in our history. And rather than running away like a shitbag like Clough when we went down, he stayed and brought us back to the top flight and in his first year back into the top flight, he won the League again.
Don't mention it...any time.
8. Your opinion: I want us to go back to what Shnkly did
Reality: yes, in a way, I do. As I said in my earlier post we need a Shankly to rebuild. When talked about returning to "the old ways" I was referring to the period since we last won the league
But nothing really changed in how we went about our business from Shankly right through to Evans. We still bought young players and developed them into world class players. You want us to not do what we've done for the past two and a half decades, by turning to young players, playing flexible football and letting them grow - just like we did in the past two and a half decades since we last won the League - hence the Roy Evans mention.
And as I proved, with actual evidence, our most involved players under Evans were younger than those under Rodgers.
9. Your opinion: we shouldn't continue with the strategy because we have come 7th, 2nd and 6th
Reality: left this one till last because it is the most important.
On one hand we "came 7th and 6th" but earlier on you were arguing the gap was a "molehill" because we thrashed the teams above us. So which one is it? as you said your argument is a mass of contradictions
Evidence: you will not be able to name a strategy which will realistically take us from our current position to winning the title without coming 2nd or below on the way. But feel free to prove me wrong - over to you......
Again you've misinterpreted things. If it was a career lad, you'd be top of the tree. It's a molehill if we've got a regular goalscorer on the pitch. But when your top goalscorer is a midfielder who isn't even a regular in the side and only has 9 goals, you're not going to finish that high up the table. If we've got a fella scoring 25-30 goals a season, we'd do a lot F***ing better. That's no contradiction to what I've said, unlike your post.
A strategy that takes us from 6th to the League without finishing 2nd or lower below first? Here's a novel idea, outscore your opponents in every game. That do for you? Because you said you couldn't name one, I just have.
Now you can reply if you want but I can't be arsed picking through another post of yours on this debate. So feel free to respond, be as pedantic, condescending, arrogant, rude, obnoxious and as ill-informed as you wish to be. It'll make no odds to me on this debate.
