Yeah, I've said here a couple of times, but I find it very difficult to judge (or crown) this City side when the top 6 is in the state it is.
The top 6 is pretty damn strong right now. 4 of them made the CL and EL finals and two of them will be champions.
One could argue 3 of 6 should be, or are about to be, in rebuild mode. And anyone who knows me knows I love me some Spurs, but they spent 0$ in the transfer market and moved to a new stadium mid-season. That squad was spread pretty thin this season, let's be real.
Being real is recognizing that the only reason that these teams are viewed that way is because of the strength at the top. If you didn't have City and Liverpool putting up near 100 point seasons here (and 2 seasons back to back for City) the rest of the teams would actually look okay. If we're being real that Spurs squad is still full of very talented players and a great coach.
You could even extend this discussion outside of England and look at Europe's traditional elite clubs. Which of them are playing at a level you'd consider exceptional, or even close to their peak? Barca fans want Valverde gone, Kovac's Bayern isn't exactly super, Madrid is a mess, Ronaldo didn't really raise Juve's level that much and Allegri's out; Inter and AC are nothing like they used to be. I mean honestly, which club? Even clubs like PSG and Atletico aren't at a level you'd consider their highest in recent memory and look to be going through a transition stage.
This feels like revisionist history. Would we be talking about Barcelona had they closed the deal against Liverpool? I just don't buy this argument that all of a sudden every other league (which by the way, I didn't hear much talk of this going into the season) is in a weak phase and that's why all of a sudden English teams are being successful.
Basically, our only way to really judge City is Liverpool. And the Liverpool side that completely smacked City in the CL (the healthy De Bruyne, 100 point City I might add), is the exact same Liverpool Roma played.
It's not really the only way to judge. You can watch them play and you can certainly look at their records. You can also look at the fact that, for the most part, every sport progresses if you look 10 years ahead, and 20 years it's even more, and so on. The general level of play, training, tactics, health and nutrition not to mention doctor prescribed...diets, are all at a higher level and will continue to grow (with diminishing gains, as things peak etc.). Also keep in mind that Liverpool of last season only became that Liverpool after Coutinho was sold and van Dijk came in, which means he didn't get a preseason with them, etc.
And sure, Liverpool were really good, at times exceptional even; they clearly deserved to go through and I'd never suggest otherwise, but after we made some adjustments I thought we at least caused them a few issues. Maybe the Liverpool fans here view that tie differently, but I think I'm being pretty reasonable.
But despite them being the superior side, at no point did I feel Roma were playing some slayer of all-time greatness. I mean, if that Liverpool side Roma played was truly the team that not only beat, but smoked, the greatest team in Premier League history 5-1... then I dunno what to tell ya.
Liverpool were playing Roma off the pitch and Roma only really came into it when Liverpool were being complacent. On top of which again, that was a team that were not playing the same or together the entire season.
And look, I know the CL isn't always the greatest indicator of quality. Weird things can happen, and upsets exist, but I think for the most part, if you know what you're looking at it, you can generally get a good idea of how good a team is over 180 minutes despite the result. And in cases when it's two teams so familiar with each other, from the same damn league, I think it becomes a little more valid. Why did the greatest team ever from England get smoked by another team.... from England? Someone, please explain that to me. And please don't tell me that Liverpool is the 2nd greatest team ever from England, because at that point, we're handing out greatness cards like Oprah. If you want to say this season's edition has a claim, fine, I'd probably disagree, but it's more valid than 2017-18's edition.
Because small sample sizes happen? Why did that same City outplay an even better version of Liverpool this season, without their best player? Looking at small sample sizes is a terrible way to judge a team. Also this year's Liverpool certainly does have a very legitimate claim at being that, if City is the best team ever. Nostalgia will never allow for it though.
Anyway I am not going to tell anyone who they should think is the best. People are more than welcome to be swayed by romanticism, but taking a step back to look at it logically will usually suggest that when you have a sport that is constantly evolving (and I don't just mean on the pitch) each generation should be better than the previous one. When you measure it in a relative sense you can look at just how impressive City, and to a lesser extent Liverpool, have been over the last two seasons (season and a half for Liverpool).
