If City wins their next 3 games which is vs Brentford, vs Arsenal and vs Chelsea then I will say its over.
You are right. This is City's 2 teams vs Chelsea and Man Utds. I think only Liverpool has a legit depth complaints vs City
'really don't care' but can't help weighing in with mental gymnastics. Enjoy it but for what it is, a fake club lifting increasingly worthless trophies in an increasingly soulless sport that city have been among the chiefs in destroying.Pep is probably the best league manager that ever existed, He has pushed the EPL to a level where 90 points that used to be rare are like the standard if you want to win. Losses like Liverpool vs Leicester are now disasters not just "not our day" we will catch up 10yrs ago
This should the benchmark, really. Other teams seem to completely fall apart sometimes when they have one of their top players missing. They can keep their standard up even with injuries.
Chelsea and United are of course different, it's a more interesting comparison as they spend similarly to City, but they've had various issues, not least of all poor managers and I'm United's case a lot of poor singings. Tuchel has been there what, less than a year? Even Klopp and Pep took a while to get going. That said of course credit does go to Pep for the way City play week in week out.
I think Chelsea and United come close to the quality of City's 15 players. You can make a list and you will see for yourself. With better coaching and handling of course I don't see why notWhen it comes down to it, the difference is city's depth. City have 15 starting quality players for 10 spots. Plus zinchenko who is a solid backup player
Nobody else comes close. Nobody else has so many world class players, nobody else relies so little on any one player on any given day. And so nobody else can compete over 38 games. In England at least. Bayern Munich probably could, they're so ridiculously good even if they miss Lewandowski that just puts them at city's level
I think liverpool at their best are still better than city, but for them it's much much harder to sustain that level because they don't have the depth & need Salah, TAA and VVD to be superhuman in every game. If Salah has an off game liverpool suffer. If DeBruyne has on off day, it doesn't matter 'cause Foden or Mahrez or Sterling or whatever will step up instead...
Football has been in a steady decline for a while, unfortunately.Such false equivalences
Of course they do. United & Chelsea can match they're depth easily, Foden/Jesus aren't much different from Werner/Hakim/Pulisic or Greenwod/Sancho/Martial, its just Foden and Jesus are performing better, hence why they're rated higher, but based off quality itself, no there isn't a difference. It's the same with Ake/Stones, they're price tag was really high, but we all know they weren't worth that cost, but you think those 2 would improve Pool/Chelsea/United? You gave Matip and Gomez to Pep at City you think City still wouldn't dominate?When it comes down to it, the difference is city's depth. City have 15 starting quality players for 10 spots. Plus zinchenko who is a solid backup player
Nobody else comes close. Nobody else has so many world class players, nobody else relies so little on any one player on any given day. And so nobody else can compete over 38 games. In England at least. Bayern Munich probably could, they're so ridiculously good even if they miss Lewandowski that just puts them at city's level
I think liverpool at their best are still better than city, but for them it's much much harder to sustain that level because they don't have the depth & need Salah, TAA and VVD to be superhuman in every game. If Salah has an off game liverpool suffer. If DeBruyne has on off day, it doesn't matter 'cause Foden or Mahrez or Sterling or whatever will step up instead...
United have serious holes in defence and midfield. Chelsea are similar to city in that they too have like 15-16 starters, but the forwards are of worse quality than city's for the most part
United don't on the basis that they start Fred and McTominay, Maguire and Wan Bissaka...those are serious weaknesses at the level we're talking about
They are actually. They're a level above
How would you judge quality if not performance?
Stones would improve United, yeah. Chelsea and Liverpool are also really strong at CB. Matip and a Gomez are great CBs too
Yeah, there is a serious difference with United here. Not so with chelsea, but there the difference is in the forwards
Where do you see the significant advantages for City here minus the influence of the coach, tactics and trust
Bolded. Players who play a lot and are either not as good as city's or outright weak points
I don't think Ake Stones and Zinchenko in isolation from the Pep system are any better than Lindelof Bailly, AWB and Dalot
This is a difficult sentence to read.
I mean those Citeh players listed are not better than Lindelof Bailly AWB Telles
I don't think it ever will to be honest but some shape of financial and transfer control, eg max 3 in 3 out per year.
Only by about 4 weeks. You were finished by the end of January.
That’s Christmas and Corona few weeks so about 11 games!
I think this is a great idea. Chelsea are decent enough to have breaks and let others have a go so they can stay. City can come back when Guardiola is no longer their manager.
Nah pre-Tottenham we were well in it. We'd won 5 or 6 in a row before that. The last two league games have killed us and City keep on winning.
Poch's PSG is not on City and Bayern level, they get outplayed by relegation sides in Ligue 1, and end up getting bailed out by Mbappé.
It was the same, the league started later.
CL knock outs are tricky, i remember Pep's City getting outplayed by Lyon (who was 11th in Ligue 1) and Monaco(Ligue 1 winners) away.
Maybe the same reason why Bayern didn't win under Guardiola:
