Quote:
Originally Posted by NedKelly
Do you think the league now is as competitive as it was in the 2000s? I’d say the quality has drastically decreased in the last decade across the board. It’s why even if City were to win the treble (God forbid), it wouldn’t be as impressive as us doing it in the 90s, as I think the standard in Europe was far higher, and the league itself was far more competitive.
The reality is, no matter how you try and dress it up, Arsenal were in prime position to win the league, in that they had a healthy gap between them and City. “Performing to the mean” at this point = bottling it.
They’re bottlejobs.
Or are they?!
|
Arsenal were never in prime position to win the league. As posted weeks ago, all they needed to do was to drop points at either Anfield (where Liverpool have beaten City, Newcastle and us) or St James’ (where Newcastle have beaten us and should have beaten City but drew) and at City (where City beat everyone
![Gag](images/smilies/extras/gag.gif)
) in order for it to be in City’s hands. This is why City were such a good bet. Arsenals away fixtures where one would expect them to drop pts were all backloaded .. on top of that there was only so long they could keep spawning late goals against probability (see: Bournemouth)
When a side takes the most points from losing positions in the top 10 and is on course for 17 pts more than start-of-season consensus, that’s not bottling. It is mean regression. Nights like tonight are akin to Palace away for scousers under Rodgers — fun to watch them squirm but wouldn’t have changed the outcome either way