No offense, but this reads like it was written on rawk. 80+ win rate is absurd and will propably never be replicated.
And since you love context. The calendar year 2020 we had a 63% win rate, Fergie in his entire tenure had 59,8.
We are neck and neck with both City and Pool in chances created and shots taken. Pretty impressive for a PE teacher. City get away with it because they have a squad depth we only can dream about. If Sterling is in shite form they can throw on Foden, Mahrez, Gundogan etc. We dont have that luxury.
Also this idea that our goals come from "individual brilliance" where as when other teams score its down to coaching and "patterns" is just desperate bollocks and mental gymnastics. I see this all the time, but where is the fecking evidence? Do we only score screamers or worldies where our attackers dribble through defense on their own?
Yes defense is a cocern, much of it is down to having a nervy no1 who brings that nervousness to his defenders. We spent money on defense because we fecking had to. We have not had a proper RB in ages and were also desperate for a new CB. Klopp have spent more and Pep have spent about as much as us and Pool combined. More context for you: Pep had spent more net on defense alone than Ole has spent net since he came on the entire squad. Also consider that Pep came into a team that had been groomed for him for years where as we were a complete mess
Since I really cannot be fecked responding to everyone's posts individually, I'll just respond to yours.
To start, the 80% win rate really isn't absurd, you're just living under a rock. Let's assess the last few EPL wins, shall we, since Pep and Klopp etc. joined. 16-17 was won with a 79% win percentage, 17-18 was won with a 84% win percentage, 2018-19 was won with a 84% win percentage so too was 2019-20. That's 4 consecutive years of 80 or so or above win percentage to win the league. It's not absurd, it's what's required to top the quality of coaching in this country with Pep and Klopp.
We are neck and neck with City and Liverpool for chances and goals, you're right. Where I disagree is the quality of said chances. We are scoring goals with a substantially less XG than those two teams. It is/was an anomaly. Which explains the whole individual brilliance schitk. We aren't scoring from places on the pitch/movements that usually result in goals as consistently as those teams. I wonder why that is.
That also explains how fecking drab we look when we can't score a goal forcing the opposition team to open up. Also, even without stats, you simply need to watch us play to see the difference in quality. It has nothing at all to do with personnel. City and Liverpool at their best can look as good as they do because there is a system which improves the players collectively. You compare that to us, terribly unorganised pressing, extremely slow and lethargic passing, predictable or lack of movement off the ball. Those are things that are taught, has nothing to do with the personnel.
Also, your point on City's squad depth is laughable. Claiming what I write seems like it's from Rawk, but then you go onto claim that if Sterling is shite they have all these players. For starters, Foden would play with Sterling, not as a back up to and Gundogan doesn't even play in the positions they do. It was a ridiculous take. That's like claiming our squad depth is so good because if Rashford is shite we can play Scotty. If anything, our squad depth is hardly something to laugh at. We have Martial, Rashford, Cavani, Greenwood, Bruno, Pogba, Daniel James, VDB, Amad (when and if he plays) etc. for 4 positions potentially.
You're right, we did have to spend money on the defence, that's fine. What isn't fine, is spending 150m on the defence and having the 10th best defence in the league. We have a worse defensive record than a Liverpool team playing with midfielders in defence who are supposedly having a terrible season. Arsenal, Villa, West Ham etc. just to name a few have a better defensive record than us. Fecking Arsenal. After we spent 150m on the defence.
Finally you're contradicting yourself. You can't claim that City's squad was being groomed for years and then talk about how much money he spent to change up his squad. Which one is it? Could it maybe just be that the serial trophy winner, who has just broken the record for consecutive wins in EPL history is just a better coach than Ole?
Also re my point on the injuries. I don't understand why people keep mentioning our injuries last season? I was critical of Ole at times last season but I was hardly calling for his head, I acknowledged he would need time. The difference is, at full strength, Klopp has won Liverpool the CL and the EPL. At full strength, Ole in 2 years has won us feck all.
Also my last point: and the most important one, I don't know why people keep quoting transfer fees and spend to me. I don't give a shite how much Klopp and Pep spent. You could see the fruits of what they were trying to implement even when their squads needed major surgery. Klopp's Pool were gegenpressing like their lives depended on it and Pep's teams were passing you into the ground. We do none of those things. It's not about personnel, it's about style. They spent heaps on players, you're right, but they earnt the right to do so by illustrating what they were implementing and having a history to show for it.
Wrong on so many levels.