Manchester City was not a team ready for the Champions League semi-final, a final match is completely out of the topic.
Man City's failure in the Champions League wasn't because they weren't "ready" for the semi-final, they were outplayed in two games, nothing more. Also, are we sure "they weren't ready?" we're talking about a team (City) that played in that stage back in 2016 against no other than Real Madrid (aggregate score was 1-0 for RM, the citizens actually put up a good fight against the champions that year)...or are you implying that the actual Man City squad is inferior to the one from two years ago? IMO, the team was absolutely ready to win the Champions League this season.
Man City was ready to
at least reach the CL final. The team made one of the biggest investments in the transfer window this season just so the team can be ready to compete at high level with other top clubs. They bought every player Guardiola wanted to strengthened the squad to win not only the EPL but also the CL, which I'm sure was one of the main objectives (if not the main priority) for the club this season, I mean, you simply don't bring the "best" manager in the world and spend €500m
just to win a league title and some random league cup which name I can't remember. Let's be honest, performance-wise throughout the season, Man City was one of the big favorites to win the CL.
Yes, you're correct Manchester City's team is individually better than Liverpool's, if you're comparing on FIFA. Come on, if they were, why didn't they win then?
C'mon now, you don't need FIFA to compare players, I mean, most of us can agree that Silva is 10x better than the entire Liverpool midfield combined...
the truth is not always the better team with the better players wins. Just look at what happened with Sevilla and Man United, or Roma against Barcelona...there's always the chance that the underdog wins. Man City failed in two decisive matches, that's it, but that doesn't mean that they aren't better than Liverpool.