
Originally Posted by
Letters To Santa
It's a very simplistic way of looking at things to say that stability = improvement.
It helps I guess although only if the set up is good to start with. If a team has a crap manager and squad then stability isn't going to make it better.
On the one hand you attribute Liverpool's improvement to 'stability' but when I point out that Chelsea have also improved and City done about the same you dismiss it.
Of course Mourinho was playing mind games. They're not favourites by default but with Fergie gone - again, I think Utd are the only major contender to be affected negatively by 'instability' - and with Chelsea having a fantastic squad and now one of the best managers around they've got to be one of the serious contenders. City too have chucked enough money around that they've got a ridiculous squad. All City and Chelsea have done is got better managers in and as I've said it doesn't seem to have affected them too badly. City's away form has been curiously poor but at home...well, you saw what happened to us and they've won every single game, most of them by large margins. Despite their 'instability' they're both up there as most people expected them to be. Both clubs already had their teams expensively assembled and even if it did take a while for the new managers to get their feet under the table I don't buy it takes a whole season to do that, we're half way through now and half a season is enough to get it together.
I agree that next year will be no easier but I'm not convinced it will be much harder - there's only so good a squad can get and City and Chelsea's are about as good as it gets. There is certainly room for improvement in our squad and we do the right things in the transfer market then we could be more competitive next season, or this season if we do the right things in January, which I doubt.