Two years ago today, Liverpool were 13 points clear at the top of the Premier League, with two games in hand on nearest rivals Manchester City.
The chatter was all about how Jurgen Klopp’s brilliant team had the title sewn up, and were creating a “dynasty” for years to come - they could dominate the next decade, we were told.
This was a good thing, went the argument, as Liverpool played football the right way, scored bundles of goals, and forced others to raise their standards. They were clearly good for English football. No argument there.
Not once did anyone suggest such predicted dominance of the competition, or the way they overwhelmed teams in individual games, might be boring or sterile. Because it isn't.
Twenty years ago today, Manchester United sat atop the Premier League, 11 points clear, on course to win the title for the third year running and pick up what would be one of eight league triumphs in the space of ten years.
The talk was all of the glory, glory Reds, about Sir Alex Ferguson re-shaping English football, raising the bar and knocking Liverpool off their perch.
Never did anyone suggest having one team, which spent more money than the rest, being so utterly dominant - THE most dominant in the history of the English game - was a bad thing.
Because it wasn’t. It demanded excellence from the rest, and was the story of English football going right back to Arsenal being known as the "Bank of England" club in the 1930s, spending unprecedented amounts to blow away the opposition.
No-one should expect a club to drop its standards just because fans of the other teams in the league - and some of their managers and players - are whingeing that they are just plain lucky, or that it’s unfair in some way.
United raised the bar, Chelsea - armed with Roman Abramovich’s cash - matched it and briefly surpassed it, and since then English football has been on an upward curve.
Right now Manchester City are at the pinnacle of that curve, playing football from the gods, scoring bags of goals, and delivering trophies to a support base that was starved of any kind of glory for a long, long time.
And when it comes down to it, they are the ones who should matter to Pep Guardiola and his team - if petulant supporters of other teams get a lip wobble at City’s latest win and claim they have made the Premier League boring, frankly, who cares?
One article this week summed up this whining attitude more than most, claiming “City’s dominance is a reminder that the rich always get their way”.
Not sure anyone needed reminding of that.
After all, Liverpool won the title for the first time in 30 years after recording the biggest transfer spend in a calendar year in English football history, in 2018.
United dominated after spending more than anyone else in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Even Blackburn, who briefly interrupted the Reds’ flow, did so with heavy investment from a rich owner. But that was described as a “fairy tale”.
Blackburn were smart - by winning it once, they garnered love and affection, as they had cocked a snook at the traditional elite and given long-suffering fans a glimpse of a world that the football aristocrats believe is theirs, and theirs alone.
Presumably if Blackburn had continued to spend, and to win things, they would have become “boring” and “soulless”, simply buying their trophies with “steel money”.
It is OK to do what Blackburn and Leicester did, and upset the arrogant presumption of the traditional elite, as long as you only do it once.
The most laughable thing about the cited article is that the author seems to infer that City being better than Chelsea on Saturday is evidence that the rich can simply buy their way to dominance, both in terms of trophy collecting and in individual games.
If Southampton or Crystal Palace had been the opposition, he might have had a point.
In fact, Crystal Palace brought a big dose of attitude to the Etihad earlier in the season and walked away with three points, while Southampton took a 0-0 draw with the same kind of defiance, but that’s another matter.
But this was Chelsea that were being portrayed as the champions of the downtrodden masses.
The very same Chelsea that are European champions, were being tipped by many to build on that and win the league this year, and who have - whisper this very quietly - actually spent around £54million MORE than City in the past five years.
To link the fact that City were better than Thomas Tuchel’s side in the two 1-0 wins they have chalked up this season because they are rich is simply absurd.
Both teams were assembled at great expense, both operate at the highest level, and Chelsea have a significantly bigger squad.
Manchester United have the most expensive squad in the league, and these days they only make it onto the television “top of the Premier League” graphic if the artist uses a smaller type size.
So it seems that spending lots of money does not necessarily equate to enjoying dominance.
The piece claims that because City have the most money they also have the "best technical players", another convoluted link.
Again, this ignores one key fact, as one of my MEN Sport colleagues astutely pointed out - that City had absolutely no competition from other English clubs when they signed Kevin De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva, Ederson, Kyle Walker, Joao Cancelo, and Ruben Dias - all players whose value has soared since joining City.
They all cost less than Harry Maguire, Paul Pogba, Romelu Lukaku, Kai Havertz, Kepa Arrizabalaga and Jadon Sancho, and are all now worth more. It's good business as well as good football.
There is also a bizarre narrative doing the rounds of social media, and even touched on by some people who should know better, that no-one is really enjoying the football City are playing, that it is all a bit “meh”.
Find an angle on Kevin De Bruyne’s goal on Saturday that shows the fans behind the net reacting, and you will see the joy that City’s football brings.
Take a look at Bernardo Silva’s brilliant volleyed finish to a breathtaking counter-attack at Aston Villa and tell me that City only score dull, percentage goals.
The article in question also suggests that City’s players don't enjoy it, and cites the fact that Raheem Sterling, Ferran Torres and Bernardo Silva all made noises about leaving.
Utterly ignoring the facts, which are that Sterling was not getting in the team at the time, Bernardo had personal reasons for wanting to return to Portugal or go to Spain, and that Torres, a Catalan, was also on the fringes and had been given the chance to join Barcelona.
Vincent Kompany, David Silva, Sergio Aguero, Pablo Zabaleta, Yaya Toure and Kevin De Bruyne have all committed to City for long periods, despite being wanted by just about every other club in the world.
A decade being miserable in sky blue must have been terrible for them.
It’s time for these whingers, naysayers and green-eyed monsters to simply accept the home truths - City are better because they spent similar amounts of money to other top teams, but also because they spent that money better than anyone else, brought in a brilliant coach and have developed a smooth-functioning football club that generates its own wealth and which is reflected on the pitch.
They do good business, on the field and off it.
And, at the end of the day, try to tell the beaming City fans, loving an other-worldly style of football, travelling to beat Real Madrid and Paris Saint Germain, going to Wembley every few months, and winning trophy after trophy, that it’s all a bit dull and soulless.
