You need to read my post properly. I said the following 10 games after the 2-0 win at Anfield. I also said that we were 8 points ahead with 12 games to go.
In the folloiwing 10 games, it was 5-3-2.
Villa (h) 2-0
Chelsea (h) 1-1
Luton (a) 1-2
Newcastle (h) 1-0
Man U (a) 0-0
Arsenal (a) 1-0
Watford (a) 2-0
Ipswich (h) 1-0
Notts For (a) 0-0
Oxford (a) 0-1
The above were the following 10 games after the win at Anfield on 22nd February.
As I pointed out also, in the last 2 home games, it was out of our hands. At the Southampton home game, loads of people had radios, and we were following the RS score at Chelsea. They scored in the first half, and ended up winning 1-0 to clinch the title.
Please read my posts properly...
Or you could just, you know, not take stuff on a forum quite so seriously? I was making a flippant remark about how far we'd fallen, not criticising your post.
Now that you've poked me with a big stick though, I'll happily point out that I think you're chatting absolute wham & are using the most simplistic logic imaginable to try to make your point.
Your assertion that Liverpool winning the league had nothing to do with them, and actually was entirely our doing, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever had the good fortune to read. You can't isolate one stat from the other, the league is a competition between teams, so each team's performance has a direct effect on the league as a whole. If their form in the previous 12 games had been even close to that shown in their last 12, we would never have been in the title race. Hell, there wouldn't have been a title race, they'd have won it by February. When a team wins 11 and draws 1 of their last 12 games they will invariably win the league. If Liverpool had gone on a run like that in 85 or 87 we probably wouldn't have won the league then either.
You're blaming Lineker because it's the easy thing to do. His signing was the only obvious difference between the squads in those years so you're putting 2 & 2 together and getting 5. Despite it being pointed out that other players in the team scored plenty of goals that season, you've somehow managed to mangle the logic to such an extent that the teams failure to score many goals during a 10 game run is laid entirely at the feet of one man. You've also made the common but rather basic mistake of believing that a team's performance is measurable only against their own performance in other years, and not factoring in the varying quality of opposition. . It's a bit like suggesting the team that finished 4th with Kilbane, Watson, Bent et al was better than the teams finishing 5th with Arteta, Pienaar, Baines, Yakubu and then Barkley, Coleman and Lukaku
I think some people are guilty of doing the same with Lukaku. Rather than focussing on how reliant we are on him for goals and moaning that he doesn't hold the ball up well enough as if it's his fault, I prefer to think that if we actually signed some better players and played to Lukaku's strengths more, he could be the man to fire us to glory. It's a hell of a lot easier to win stuff with a 20+ goal a season striker in your side than it is without one.