We had one of the best players in the world too but never got close to winning a title, their **** hot attack cost less than what we've paid for ours so it can be done. I think the issue here is that some don't seem to want to acknowledge that attack and defence are intrinsically linked, they're not two separate entities whereby we can just say oh, we conceded too many, stick a more defensive player in Mason's position and and we'll be better off. You set up more defensive then you're more than likely not going to score as many either, just like above saying there's no point scoring 2 if you concede 3, well equally there's no point only conceding 1(like on Saturday) if you're going to score none. It's easy to say Liverpool's defence cost them the title but was it their defence, or was it because of the way they setup that left their defence exposed? Was it just their attack that gave them a chance of winning the title in the first place or was it the expansive setup that allowed them to be so effective? Rodgers obviously concluded that to extract the maximum from the squad he had then that's the way he needed to set his team up.
