I don't understand this. City didn't play better football yet scored more, conceded less, and got more points than everyone else? So if you have the best attack in the league, and the best defence, and you win it, you're still not playing the best football?
Liverpool scrapped their way through the first half of the season with some very unconvincing one nils, they also won some games with fortuitous penalties when they needed to. They then had a couple of months of blitzing teams before their defensive vulnerabilities were found out towards the end. The media have just brainwashed people into thinking they spanked everyone left right and centre all season long. It wasn't true, they were dismantled by Arsenal, Chelsea and City away from home and battered by us (sadly not reflected in the score line). Big home wins and winning at Spurs and United got headlines as did a last minute winner at home against a City team who had dominated them on their own patch. Sad truth is they didn't win away against any of the top 4 that season. They also defended shoddily most of the season even at times when playing 5 at the back. City were by far and away the best side. They flew out the blocks, hit a mid season slump but then finished brilliantly.