Well it could be. But it could also be just plain being a bit more lucky. Both is exactly the same in terms of probability. And if you think, that we have been navigated so well in the excessive load, why is this load so often brought up as reason we should be totally satisfied? Isn't that a bit inconsequential? I think, we will agree to disagree on that but I can assure you, that it isn't a good sign, that we have to resign to referees in matches against bottom of the table that we are not able to create chances against or are unable to defend standards against. Remember the offside goal Drogba scored against us in Old Trafford one year? This is decision that had impact. This is the level I meant.Are the lack of injuries not a credit to the management team, who were able to navigate the excessive load of the season well? Especially so when you compare it to how it was in previous years? I'll have to disagree with you on the referees and VAR considering how the PGMOL literally apologised for the referee's feck ups in the Sheffield United and West Brom games, which cost us 5 points alone, or the Everton 3-3 game where the referee mysteriously added extra time on to the added time despite there being hardly any stoppages during that period.
Just out if interest, have you seen all the matches of our competitors? I didn't and thats why I have to assume that they have close and tight matches just as well as we do. And I remember quite a few people in here taking about our injuries in the year before. I dont know if that counts as a pity party, I have no compassion with Pool this year, feck them. But when evaluating the season as a whole, it feels awfully screwed to just shrug their injuries off.The fact is we lost 6 league games all season and 5 of those games had pretty big asterisk marks against them with no preseason (Palace, Spurs, Arsenal) and the other coming during a period where we had to play 4 games in 7 days (Leicester, Liverpool). None of the circumstances around those games were in any way replicated for any of our rivals (bar City in the early stages). Liverpool had injuries but so did we the season before. I certainly wasn't seeing anyone throw us a pity party, either on here or elsewhere. Chelsea had finished level on points with us the season before and had then proceeded to spend £250m on adding to their first team. We had no right to finish ahead of them, irrespective of their defensive and managerial woes considering that for many on this forum, our manager is a joke figure/embarrassment who should not be in the job...
Again - I can follow your train of thought, but to me it feels like it is framed excessively to match a certain picture. Doesn't mean its true but what are the odds considering the truth is usually right in the middle between the extremes? (btw: Chelsea didn't buy anybody the year before, doesn't take anything away from your point but it wasn't the players who changed the course of their season in the middle of the season)
Maybe I'll have a look later this evening but I don't get where you are going with this...? Because my point wasn't to diminish their season, I am just pointing out, that they had some issues and went into beast mode around Christmas. We were at the top around that time. And then we weren't due to bad results against bad opponents. I don't want to take anything away from City, they had a very good season and deserved the title. But they didn't run away with it from day one. They also had issues with pre season and fixture congestion (of course their squad gave them more options to choose from).Also, City literally won 15 games in a row to get themselves ahead of the chasing pack (one of which, against Villa at the Etihad) was massively referee-assisted). Please tell me how often that has happened in the league? If, as I suspect, it hasn't happened very often at all, then I'm not sure where this idea was that they weren't an otherworldly force has come from? Especially since they were literally two good games away from an unprecedented quadruple.