Quote Originally Posted by Letters View Post
Well, there are a few factors.
One is the thinness of our squad, we always knew that injuries and fatigue could cost us, they have.
Another factor is that our run in was harder than City’s. We had to play of the Top 6 away. So one could reasonably claim that we were always more likely to drop more points in the run in and because of the above.
But also we were never that far ahead to begin with. There was a fleeting moment when we were 8 points clear but that was only half way through the season. After that every time it was 8 points it was with City having a game in hand. And they just kept winning them, and every other game.

We have definitely dropped points that we shouldn’t have, but do you really think we could have got 95 points? That’s what we’d have needed given City just keep winning. That feels unrealistic despite our amazing form for much of the season, for the reasons I’ve given.

City are just better than us. They’re better than everyone. And we all know how they’ve got there. What I don’t understand is why no one calls them out on it. The fawning over them is nauseating. They’re not a plucky underdog come good like Leicester
I think we should have probably got 94 points yes. I never expected us to go to Liverpool, city and Newcastle and not drop some points no….but I expected us to win the other games and saw no reason why we didn’t other than mental weakness.

If we fell short on GD or one or two points I could accept that.

But we didn’t, you seem to think I’m saying not winning the title was bottling it. No I’m saying not pushing them every step of the way was bottling it.