It wasn't just because our defence that we didn't mount a challenge this season though. It was mostly because we had too many games where we didn't take our chances.
For next season we already have Aké and then hopefully Laporte can stay fit. I'm far from convinced that Koulibaly is a huge upgrade on Stones for example. I haven't watched him a lot but every time I watched him he's been awful and according to those who watch him every week in Serie A he's had a poor season. He's 29 years old and 70m is a huge investment. I'd much rather splash 100m out for Upamecano now instead of getting Koulibaly for 70.
City games points dropped without scoring, when conceding 1 goal or less= 3 points loss in 38 games.
0-1 at Southampton.
Other losses without scoring:
O-2 Wolves
0-2 Spurs
0-2 Utd
So we would have needed 3 goals in each game, to win, or 2 for a point.
City points from 1-0 wins=
Sheff U & Leicester= 6 points.
Liverpool points from 1-0 wins= 15.
City points dropped when scoring 1 goal= 9
Liverpool 1-3 = 4 goals needed for win.
Utd 1-2 = 3 goals needed for a win.
Chelsea 1-2= 3 goals needed for a win (end of season).
City, points dropped when scoring 2 or more goals= 12
Spurs 2-2 = 3 goals needed for a win
Newcastle 2-2 = 3 goals needed for a win
Norwich 2-3 = 4 goals needed for a win
Wolves 2-3 = 4 goals needed for a win
Palace 2-2= 3 goals needed for a win
Liverpool points dropped scoring 2 goals =0.
FA Cup semi final= 3 goals needed for a win
Champions League q final= 4 goals needed for a win.
Can we get rid of this idea, that our defending isn't the main problem ?