This doesn't mean a league is less quality but I suppose it does tell what you value as quality which I think this thread is indicating.
This is the worst quality PL season since?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss three 1-1 draws.
The first got us knocked out of the FA Cup, the next puts us in a good position in our Round of 16 Europa League game, and the latest was an actual decent performance against Arsenal at Old Trafford.
All hopes for the season now rest on the Europa League - does Amorim have the squad to win it?
This doesn't mean a league is less quality but I suppose it does tell what you value as quality which I think this thread is indicating.
Midtable football is the best it's been for a while. There's also a decent bit of tactical diversity among teams in the middle pack and lower end which adds to the interest.
Also the only side still undefeated in European competition this season is Man United. And we're 14th.
Also the only side still undefeated in European competition this season is Man United. And we're 14th.
It’s not how I feel watching the game.
Not really. Why can't we consider them as mutually exclusive? There has been plenty of seasons where all PL teams farely poorly in Europe but had fascinating title races.
Its not relative.
So you're determining quality of the league to a title race then?
I always wonder about these things, because you've -absolutely- got a point. Manchester United being atrocious tarnishes our opinion, and there are some good teams and good players about.The top sides are slightly weaker and going through transition, the mid-pack is much stronger and the Championship to PL gulf is growing.
Pretty much every side in the PL now has huge resources and backing behind them so the competition is growing each season.
I feel like these arguments though are always propelled by people who support traditionally bigger clubs because they struggle to admit that they're now shite and other people are good. As a comfort blanket it must mean everyone is shite.
...but my mind wanders back a bit to the 36 year old Cristiano Ronaldo rejoining Man Utd only 3 seasons ago and scoring 18 goals for us that year against largely the same quality of player around the league.
I do think it's fair to say the quality has dropped a little since the late 2000's-2019. There does seem to be a lack of star quality. Comparing any footballer (excepting Mo Salah) to Messi, Ronaldo, Robben and Rooney might not seem fair, but it does feel like those players would -absolutely- still destroy the current best in the Premier League.
I think there's an exaggeration of how much better the middle teams are, there has always been quality in that part of the table. I don't feel a team like Nottingham Forest with that style would stand out much or perform anywhere close to what they've done this season in the 2005-2010 period. Brighton are good, but they're not better than Leicester when they won the FA Cup and were close to getting in the top 4 for a couple of seasons.
What ? Don't know how you came to that argument . The whole point is, this years league run in has been very poor and it has been wrapped up before March. Literally what OP said.
so yes, it has been a poor PL season for pretty much all top teams and that's reflected in the league table.
That's classic hindsight, though. You look back at those players entire career. I for one could certainly see someone between Mbappé, Haaland, Yamal, Vinicius, Saka, Wirtz etc. being talked about in a similar way in hindsight 10+ years from now. Sure, Messi and Ronaldo might seem out of reach as they literally both have a claim for the GOAT but even then, Yamal might just make it.
I saw the thread as speaking generally about the quality of the PL. I disagree that because the run in is decided in terms of the title and relegation that it means the quality of the PL is poor.
Yamal maybe, Mbappe definitely. Haaland has the numbers for sure. But Saka? What the actual Fcuk? Wirtz???! Comparable to Robben or Tevez or Rooney or Iniesta or any one of a hundred players in their era?
I don't think it's hindsight. The reason I chose Ronaldo for my example was that a 36 year old Ronaldo came in and still banged 18 goals in in the -current- era of the Premier League. That he himself said how badly our standards had slipped - he was a prick, but he was correct. I think standards -have- slipped. Maybe that's more a coaching of system vs ability but it feels like the genius-level football players are notably absent.
To steelman your argument, I feel I am saying this from a very Man-United centric POV I guess, and football could be improving overall technically and physically behind the scenes. But those Cristiano numbers bely that myth. Zlatan came in to us in his 30's, Cavani too, and both excelled in what felt like a similar quality of league - another two players who had their prime in the mid 2000's. How good they were before is legend, but again - a prime Haaland vs a prime Zlatan, who do you think is the better player overall? And Zlatan wasn't even the best 9 in the world at that time, in HIS absolute prime.
Manchester City as a unit were probably the best team of all time when they won their treble, so you could argue that maybe footballing systems have got better overall as well, I think. It's not a hill I'll die on completely regarding how good players are now vs then - but it does feel like the ability isn't quite at the same level now. Perhaps because they aren't allowed to be.
absolutely did not label them a failure. but are they convincingly better than teams who have come 6th at any point in the last decade? not particularly and in many cases i would argue other 6ths would beat the current brighton. Same for 7th, 8th and so on. This is a not criticism of these teams, they are doing well and getting deserved plaudits, but while they are achieving very well as clubs, there is no way they represent an overall improved standard of the league. The fact is the top teams are weaker than ever, the bottom ones are terrible, and the middle teams are doing well, as have done plenty of well run teams through the years. For example, i picked the last time we won it - which wasnt a very strong year either, and the 6th place team then was Moyes' Everton. They had come 7th, 7th, 6th, 8th and 5th. Harry Redknapps Porstmouth was a fantastic strong team and came 14th. There are countless examples of mid section teams that were very good like the current ones, but the top teams were stronger. Overall the league is weaker IMO.
Some more context, the random choice of 1997. 6th place a chelsea of di Matteo, Vialli, Lebeouf, Petrescu, Zola. There is often a complete revisionism that back in the 90s it was United or Arsenal and a couple of others but its absolutely not the case. Chelsea of 1997 would probably beat current Chelsea 9 times out of 10. Another random year of 2003. 6th place was Blackburn under Souness who also got a league cup semi final. Friedel, Tugay, Duff, Yorke and Cole (who got 26 goals between them), Lucas Neill, David Dunn. This was another really solid side that would comfortably compete in todays top half.
Last edited:
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I can see their career developing in a way over the next 10 years that they might be talked about in the same way later. Not that they have shown this level now. That's exactly what I meant by hindsight. You look at Robben, Rooney, Tevez' and you see their full career - of course players like Saka and Wirtz can't live up to that now. They're young enough though to still make a big impact over the next 10 years.
The other points in your post are absolutely valid, of course. Systems do constrain players more nowadays and even flair players have to track back, shadow mark and press, for the most part. I will say, there seems to be a lack of proper no9 superstars. But again, we don't know if the next Lewandowski or Mbappé is already out there somewhere but will only be recognized as a great in 15 years. We only ever see that in hindsight.
Sure, with a player like Yamal you already know, injury forbid, he'll be one of the greats. But that's not how it always goes. Had you looked at Robben at Sakas age, scoring 8 goals in 50 games for Chelsea you wouldn't laugh at comparing him to Saka, who scored double the amount, 16 goals in 35 games in just one season last year. Theres no guarantee Saka will go on to have a career like Robben, but at this point he certainly still might. And Wirtz is even younger, wait until you've seen him play for Real Madrid or Bayern for 8+ years.
I take your point regarding other good mid table teams in the past but again, you're also doing what the other poster I exchanged posts with did and are looking at star players from the past with hindsight. Not that I don't think you've got a point, but I believe you big up teams from the past a bit too much due to looking at the full careers of the players you mentioned. It's only natural and hard to prevent because we can't compare the current Joao Pedro to the full career of Cole, as a random example. Pedro is on course to have a similar output to Cole's 2003 season. Depending on how Pedro develops you might look at the player very differently in 10-15 years. Same as some other young Brighton players.
Depending on how their careers go from here on you might be able to talk about Newcastle sitting in 9th with players like Isak, Gordon, Guimares and Tonali. Some of those names or those at other sids in the middle of the table could have a very different ring to them in a decade from now. Not all of them of course, but some will for sure.
18/19 and 21/22 were incredible
I think the league is more competitive than its ever been.
The biggest factor for Liverpool has been injuries. They've had no really bad ones and no groups of injuries where they've had loads missing at the same time. Interestingly Slot was apparently picked because of his fitness record at Feyenoord.
The biggest factor for Liverpool has been injuries. They've had no really bad ones and no groups of injuries where they've had loads missing at the same time. Interestingly Slot was apparently picked because of his fitness record at Feyenoord.
Probably the most boring in a long time, the title is already wrapped up, relegation almost nailed on. Even the majority of games are just plain boring, honestly if I grew up in this era watching football i doubt i'd even find it interesting
We arent challenging so to make themselves feel better our fans are trying to claim its a poor quality epl.....
Probably since when Liverpool last won it
Title race done and relegation done. And we still have 3 months left.
Title race done and relegation done. And we still have 3 months left.
This season is hardly the worst. It would have been a very competitive season, at both ends of the table, bar Liverpool, who have been very good.
I don't think im doing that. I chose random seasons and have highlighted solid players such as friedel, dunn, duff, petrescu and so on. That these teams also had some quality players is a coincidence, but a relevant one.
It's been an absolutely horrendous season, quality wise.
Since the last time the dippers won it.
People like to exaggerate how 'shit' teams are.
Obviously Arsenal, Chelsea City, haven't been great but they're not objectively shit.
They're Just not as good as they have been.
What is the metric to judge whether someone is shit or not?
Chelsea City and Arsenal have been better than Bournemouth so if Bournemouth are a good side then the ones above them can't be shit.
Or are we just going on their traditional positions and size? In which case it's still not about how shit they are.
However the bottom 3 have definitely been the weakest in a while and last seasons weren't great either.
Obviously Arsenal, Chelsea City, haven't been great but they're not objectively shit.
They're Just not as good as they have been.
What is the metric to judge whether someone is shit or not?
Chelsea City and Arsenal have been better than Bournemouth so if Bournemouth are a good side then the ones above them can't be shit.
Or are we just going on their traditional positions and size? In which case it's still not about how shit they are.
However the bottom 3 have definitely been the weakest in a while and last seasons weren't great either.
I think it's up there with the weakest title race and relegation battle ever. However, I do think between fourth and tenth is the most competitive it has been.
The "big" teams have been inconstent/poor in general but part of that is that more of the mid-table teams have been excellent at times.
Yeah it's weird actually. The middle is really strong, basically from Brighton all the way down to Brentford. Then you have Spurs and United in 13th and 14th, who are having poor seasons but should still be higher.
There's barely been a title challenge to speak of though. Liverpool have been good, but imo come nowhere near previous winners, or even some past runners up.
The fact Liverpool are waltzing to the title unopposed, when you know they aren't near the quality they have been at times in the last decade says everything about the drop off in quality of the teams normally performing well at the top of the league.
Teams like Bournemouth and Forest have improved dramatically but that hasn't made up for the drop off at the top end. It's put them in a position to battle with the likes of Newcastle, Villa, Chelsea for Europe, these teams have all probably performed below expected levels give resources and/or recent history.
Equally it feels that at the bottom end, a couple of teams have been saved from the pressure of being in a real relegation battle as the newly promoted teams have been dreadful.
Definitely a disappointing, largely lower quality season for most.
It's two seperate things isn't it. The quality of the best teams has dropped off, but the quality of the rest of the teams has upped (bar the bottom 3). There really isn't much between most of the mid-table/upper mid-table sides.
I agree with each of these points. There is a clashing trend where, on one hand, some of the big clubs are at the end or start point of their cycle, and some have also made a mess of their investment and squad planning. And on the other hand there are several clubs in the middle who have nailed all of that and got elite coaches in who are exploiting these mis-steps.The top sides are slightly weaker and going through transition, the mid-pack is much stronger and the Championship to PL gulf is growing.
Pretty much every side in the PL now has huge resources and backing behind them so the competition is growing each season.
I feel like these arguments though are always propelled by people who support traditionally bigger clubs because they struggle to admit that they're now shite and other people are good. As a comfort blanket it must mean everyone is shite.
On your last point, there have been a few comments in here about how average Liverpool are. But when they've steamrollered the league and twatted plenty of teams aside in the Champions League - Leverkusen, Real, Milan - sometimes do we just have to accept they are an incredibly strong side in a sweet spot?
I agree but I don't think it's that there's less ability. I feel the current tactical trends largely stifle players showcasing their abilities and teams successful playing really expansive, creative, attacking football.
The dogged pressing employed by most teams to force turnovers, or errors nearer goal then get the ball forward as quickly as possible to take advantage of the errors is great for the few teams that actually do it really well. For the rest, it's creates competitive but uninspiring matches with little encouragement for players to actually play freely and creatively.
It's possible to do a bit of both as we've seen from some of the really good Guardiola teams, current PSG etc where players can look class and play great football while adhering to the press.
That's few and far between though, it usually results in a bit of a slog (or one team not being at it and getting battered).
I could obviously be way off here but this seems to be a classic response of a person who grew up in the 90s and picked United as his favourite team only to see them win trophy after trophy, and now has gotten disinterested and disassociated with football in general a bit because Utd have been shite for over a decade now. While football has lost a bit of its appeal to me as well (I'm in my early 30s) because of VAR, and simply because it's not how it used to be, I can say I've never enjoyed watching Liverpool play more than I have done over the last five years - so how you feel towards it is definitely influenced a lot by your own team's performances.
Kids growing up these days will find football as interesting as we did when we were young, they haven't known it in any other capacity anyway.
This is the crux of it imo. You just have to look at all the teams involved in the top 5 race - with Fulham, Newcastle, Bournemouth, Villa, Brighton and City all within 5 points off each other, and Forest even above all of them. Even Palace would've been righ tin the mix had they not had a horrible start to the season. The middle of the pack is considerably stronger than it used to be 5-10 years ago, there are very few "easy" games anymore for the big clubs, especially away from home, and if you combine that with the fact that indeed most top clubs are in disarray at the moment (especially Spurs and Utd but even Chelsea as well, and City this year), you have lower points tallies for the traditional big clubs.
I'd say it's reasonable to assume that 10th place will end up with a high 50s points tally (currently Flulham at 42 points so would need ~15/30 out of their last ten games), whereas if you go back to the 17/18 season or even further, most 10-placed teams would struggle to break 50.
I find this an interesting one and it might be different elsewhere but I coach kids and honestly none of them seem to have a current favourite player. They're all players before their time or Messi and CR7 still. Actually Yamal is the one that the kids gravitate to but none of them seem to watch football extensively
Was thinking similar, the overall game is way duller than it was 20 years ago. Thanks to pressing bot tactics and coaching out flair of any kind now ...
Kids support players more than clubs now, it's all fanboys for Messi or Ronaldo et al. Even if they've got zero real connection to either...
I actually think the premier league has widened the gap between other leagues now. La Liga in particular was a better league 5+ years ago, but it's shite now. The Bundesliga has come up a bit, ligue 1 has become absurdly unbalanced and Serie A is a rejects league pretty much.
This season is about as good as it's going to get in the modern era... Until the TV cash dries up no impetus to change anything.
It's weird that, with Liverpool. Not only are they 15 points clear, they're on pace for 92 points, which is a great season by any measure. But still, no one seems to think this is a great team. I don't feel they are either. I just don't understand why.
Generally speaking, this is a season with a thickening of the middle, to put it that way. There's just 4 teams genuinely involved in the relegation battle, which is unusual. And there's really only two teams - Liverpool and Arsenal - heading for the kind of points total you normally need to finish top 4.
Also, the swings are wild. Take away the three promoted teams, and 11 of the remaining 17 are on pace for either at least 10 fewer points than last season, or at least ten more. Forest is looking at more than double their points last season (from 32 to 69). City at 27 fewer, Spurs at 20 fewer.
Very bad season for the big six. Four of the top 5 projected point-droppers are big six clubs: City (-27), Spurs (-20), Arsenal (-14) and us (-11). Liverpool project as + 10, Chelsea as a paltry +4. That says it all really - that a team with (projected) 4 more points than the team Chelsea was last season is good enough for 4th place.
I wonder if there are two parts to this:
One is about player quality, I would argue the average level of all players is better today then ever, they are fitter, more tactically knowledgeable, probably more consistent with basic skills and decision making. On the flip side, the top level talents (basically the players that make football popular, particularly attackers) are nowhere near what they used to be, I can only assume because kids get put into academies so young, stats dominate how teams should play and they are essentially all getting moulded into the same type of player. Then as time goes on we get more and more of these players entering football without as much variance in terms of ability.
At a team level, the average level of teams is probably getting closer and closer as every year more of these players make it into professional football. That is a double edged sword, on the one hand the league is likely the most competitive it has been ever but with that comes arguably less excitement and a sport that has become more and more played with stats in mind. It seems a paradox but more goals seems to equal less entertainment, as computers work out the best ways to score long range shots have dropped (13.3 per 90 in 14/15 compared to 8.3 now - steadily falling over time), direct goals from freekicks have dropped way off, dribbling/skills are much more refined these days, all about efficiency than entertainment.
One is about player quality, I would argue the average level of all players is better today then ever, they are fitter, more tactically knowledgeable, probably more consistent with basic skills and decision making. On the flip side, the top level talents (basically the players that make football popular, particularly attackers) are nowhere near what they used to be, I can only assume because kids get put into academies so young, stats dominate how teams should play and they are essentially all getting moulded into the same type of player. Then as time goes on we get more and more of these players entering football without as much variance in terms of ability.
At a team level, the average level of teams is probably getting closer and closer as every year more of these players make it into professional football. That is a double edged sword, on the one hand the league is likely the most competitive it has been ever but with that comes arguably less excitement and a sport that has become more and more played with stats in mind. It seems a paradox but more goals seems to equal less entertainment, as computers work out the best ways to score long range shots have dropped (13.3 per 90 in 14/15 compared to 8.3 now - steadily falling over time), direct goals from freekicks have dropped way off, dribbling/skills are much more refined these days, all about efficiency than entertainment.
What does that mean though? Tens, hundred of millions of people support United, Liverpool, Real, Barca, without any "real connection" to any of them.
Historically football supporters started with clubs that they had some connection to. Or they'd have a local team and support a big team as well.
Kids support these players even if they support different club teams that neither play for now, or ever have done. People can support who they like..., I find this player fanboyism bizarre though.
I get what you mean and I grew up in a different era, too. But tbh it's actually quite understandable to build a stronger relationship to a single human being than the abstract entity of a football club, even moreso now that they've become the part of investment portfolios of billionaires and nation states (in the EPL at least). Social Media makes the players more relatable than ever as you can watch them in their kitchen at family dinner or in their living room playing video games that you like and play yourself (from a teenager perspective). These videos are obviously part of the industry as well but they're still highly relatable for young people.