PaulC

I think there was very little difference between the two

He's been poor lately

What is the difference between Alex Mcleish and Jose Mourinho? Both employ similar tactics yet one is much maligned and the other is the messiah

we'd probably have won if we COULD park the bus. I just hate this attitude that is around these days where people seem to think you should try to play nice football even if it means you would lose games that you'd otherwise win. Its absolute nonsense. It's typically just sour grapes from people wanted the other result. I agree many people don't want Liverpool to win it and I don't want City.

Yes ok but he complains when other teams like West Ham do it to them.

We didn't park the bus and we got a result there. Chelsea won because of a Gerrard slip, so Mourinho must be a genuis.

He didn't look like he struggled against Man City but they did go to Anfield and play unlike Chelsea who just parked the bus.

Its up to their neighbours Everton I think.

Sorry but I would never want us to get smashed just to stop a team you don't like winning the title.

I'd argue the invincibles were better to watch but its marginal. I certainly prefer the Rodgers way to the Mourinho

I'd rather the muted hush of City winning the league again than the BBC and Sky celebrating in unison, whilst half of Merseyside remove their black arm bands for one day whilst spitting in glee about how the glory days are back at Anfield (when they themselves used to out spend the rest of the league). Yes when they outspent the rest of the league they earned it through success, it wasn't given to them.... For me that has no bearing. Man City fans have been through their share of shit times and have, by and large, stuck by their team. These days if you don't become the latest nouveau riche club then you're simply being left behind. I for one would love it if we had more financial muscle from our new owners. To me it does because its killed the interest

I'd rather the muted hush of City winning the league again than the BBC and Sky celebrating in unison, whilst half of Merseyside remove their black arm bands for one day whilst spitting in glee about how the glory days are back at Anfield (when they themselves used to out spend the rest of the league). Yes when they outspent the rest of the league they earned it through success, it wasn't given to them....

Yes its great to see the wealthiest club in the world win the title.

The next time a team goes to Stamford Bridge and gets a result through negative spoiling tactics and he dares criticise I hope the media point to this game.

not all neutrals are delighted with the result.

Good day for anti-football

getting rid of Mackay has cost them their Premier League place

Little had retired by Gabby's age. Of course i am not suggesting Gabby should do the same and I think you are right. When Gabby is in the mood he is an asset. We need more options up front. He can't start every game.

Yes I thought that but as was pointed we still loose at City anyway. Without our main man I can't see us beating spurs either. Its all on the Hull game isn't it.

we won't beat them regardless. so by Chelsea winning keeping them in the race is good as they play our rivals Fair enough you are probably right.

Many on here want Man City to deprive Liverpool of the title but the best thing for us will be for Liverpool to win today and City to loose and then they may not have anything to play for against us.

Fulham aren't - and they have nothing fixtures - - Its looking like us or Fulham for that last spot. I believe Cardiff and Norwich have gone. Fulhams defending is worse than ours and I don't think they will beat Stoke and Pullis will not allow his team to think of holidays.

can't see Fulham staying up now.

To be honest I think Palace are more likely to win today then Chelsea with a depleted team.

I actually thought he played very well yesterday