So surely then the problem is still the defence? If we had a solid defence then even if we're having a bad day up top, we would still have enough to grind out a 1-0 or 2-1 win. At the very least we might draw instead of losing.
Right now we are a side that can concede at any minute, which means that we seem to frequently need more than one or two goals to win a game. We scored 101 goals in 13/14 which is up there with the highest goals scored for a season in the Premier League era, but conceded 50 whilst eventual champions City scored 102 (only one more than us) but conceded far fewer.
It says a lot that we've never struggled to score goals in the last five years but have always struggled defensively in that period, and have no trophies to show for it. United have struggled to score goals for two years now but haven't conceded many goals, and have two trophies in that period.
The defence is the issue, not the attack. I agree that it's not always lethal, but it would have us further up the table if we could defend properly.
In 2014/15 you were 7th top scorers, with Van Gaal's United scoring 10 more than you, and in 2015/16 you were 6th top scorers, with West Ham outscoring you. As I've pointed out, you had a purple patch in the first half of the season where you scored a shit load. Despite scoring 20 more goals than United this season, in the second half, you've scored just 2 more, and played 2 more games.
The defense is a problem, and the main one, but that doesn't mean other things can't be problems as well. My point is that you lack the type of player(s) that get you through games against shite opposition who set up to hit you on the break. There's no one to inspire confidence in the defense, and you've got no one capable of creating that bit of magic or luck that you sometimes need to get through those games. Not shipping multiple goals against the likes of Hull and Sunderland would obviously help, but when you're lining up with Coutinho, Firmino, Mane and Lallana, your best attacking players, and can't find a goal against Hull, who have conceded the 2nd highest number of goals in the league (1 less than Swansea), it's not all as rosy as it looks on paper. You might hit a run of games where you're scoring for fun, but you might also hit a patch just as long where you score as many as a team becoming notorious for their failure to find the back of the net.
You mean the same Mane who has 2 less league goals (13) and the same amount of assists (5) this season as Eden Hazard, in 5 less appearances - and has made the PFA team of the year? Scoring twice against Arsenal, twice against Everton and once against Spurs? Yet no top sides would fear him?
I certainly wouldn't mind a couple more signings like him.
No, they won't. Mainly because Hazard's capable of producing something out of nothing, which is not something I've seen from Mane. If he keeps this sort of form up next season he'll be getting there. However, him scoring against top teams this season when, as a team, you've done better against them than the cannon fodder doesn't necessarily say anything about Mane. He's also failed to score a single goal in over 780 minutes of football against teams from the bottom half of the table, registering just one assist in that time.
I'd put Mane on that rung below, currently, simply because I highly doubt anyone's looking at Mane the same way they look at Zlatan, Sanchez, Aguero, Costa, or even Lukaku or Kane.
So if too many fixtures are/were a major effect on our form, how can we consistently take points, & remain unbeaten, against the better sides, & consistently drop points, & concede goals against the lower teams ? In between the away defeats to Hull & Leicester in February we convincingly beat Spurs. That was a perfect snapshot of where we are as a football club under Jurgen Klopp. Even now we're playing just one game a week our performance levels have dropped well below to the time last season when we were playing 3 times a week on a regular basis. So how does that work then ?
When we're good (usually against the top sides) we're very good. When we're bad (usually against the lower sides) we're awful. That's been the only consistent thing about us this season. The number of games, & when we've played them, is totally irrelevant.
You haven't "consistently" taken points off the better sides. You've done it this season when literally every other one of them has had something other than league to concentrate on, but last season your record was W3/D5/L6, dropping 28 of the 42 points available from those games. Klopp's record was W3/D4/L4, with Rodgers being at the helm for Arsenal away (draw), West Ham home (loss) and United away (loss), but Klopp still drew with Arsenal at home, lost to West Ham away, and lost to United at home.
The only thing you've done consistently under Klopp is drop points against bottom half sides, dropping 44 points in the 36 games he's managed against bottom half sides*, losing 10 of those games (20 dropped last season, 24 so far this season). Even when you discount 2013/14, Rodgers only dropped 40 points in the 42 games he played against bottom half sides in 2012/13, 2014/15 and 2015/16, losing 5. If you include 2013/14 Rodgers dropped 51 points and lost 6 times in 62 games against bottom half sides.
I'm honestly at a loss to why you're even arguing this. Fixture congestion affects all teams, even those with deeper and stronger squads. Typically, it'll affect those with smaller and weaker squads more. I've even detailed how many points you dropped and how many draws/losses in cup competitions you had after midweek fixtures last season, and you're still arguing that, by some sort of magic, it doesn't affect Liverpool. Being inconsistent doesn't mean that fixture congestion doesn't also affect you.
*2016/17 stats correct as of today.
) would all be injured at this key stage of the season?