Precisely. That's the feat - as much as I might not like saying it - and it took a superhuman effort for them to win the league with a vastly inferior squad.
PL Title Race
- Thread starter adexkola
- Start date
90s Liverpool was utter rubbish, they never challenged for the title in the first ten years of Premier League.
United's rivals were Arsenal, and Blackburn for a while.
I doubt anybody would call 90s EPL the strongest league in the world, it was clearly behind Serie A and La Liga.
Current EPL is undoubtedly the strongest league in the world by a big margin, even though you can say it is thanks to the financial crisis in Serie A/Italy and the current mess that is Barcelona.
The League is nowhere near the best it has ever been. Utd & Arsenal are the poorest they've ever been in the last 5 years since the PL inception. Spurs have been stagnating due to the Stadium debt. Chelsea never have any continuity due to constant manager changes. Liverpool are the only team to improve in the last 5 years & even then have only won 1 title.
You cannot have a strong League if the big clubs are not performing at a decent standard.
It's late 90s United with 92-93 Villa and 90s Liverpool as competition. An extremely wealthy club with a feckless similarly wealthy club and a historically big but now considerably lesser club as competition. That Villa side might perform above themselves for a while, but they're never going to sustain it. That Liverpool side throws money around, but without any kind of plan. Barring anything unexpected, United should walk the league against that competition. Except this City has much a bigger financial advantage than that United side ever did.
" I have never seen in my life a bag of cash to score a goal" Johan Cruyff.
Its really funny to see that people still bring the money argument when discussing City and Guardiola.. "Oh look, we spend 100 million less than City, how we can compete with them.." Its ridiculuos.
Its really funny to see that people still bring the money argument when discussing City and Guardiola.. "Oh look, we spend 100 million less than City, how we can compete with them.." Its ridiculuos.
This could be the most inaccurate post I have ever read. Of course money comes into it. Does Pep go to a club with less finances?” The more shit you throw against a wall the more it sticks- the more money you throw at a team the better the players“-NJ red
Seriously though money is in fact the most important factor in City being where they are because money brought in Pep.
Really?! Was money the most important factor for your first title in 30 years when your club bought the most expensive defender and goalkeeper at the time? Fans of other clubs react as if only City can spend money and thats why they are so successfull wich is beyond pathetic when in fact other clubs are spending also mindblowing sums but are not managing their transfers so well..
Why do people act like money is simply transfers? City have spend an enourmous amount of sum revamping their training grounds, stadium, scouting, etc. Stuff that United can never replicate without relocating parts of their budget from somewhere else. City's investment in transfers isn't the only thing they've done. We're already lagging severely in terms of infrastructure and that is very damaging to the club.
And during his almost 30 years tenure here, how many times did Sir Alex spend more than his rivals? You're acting like we won that title because we outspend the competition. In reality:
Middlesbrough spent the same amount as us, Oldham spent more than us, Sheffield, Wimbledon also. Arsenal spent the same amount as us. Aston Villa spent twice as much, Leeds spent significantly more, Blackburn spent 5 times more than us. Yet despite all of that, we still won the title. Yet you sit here and try to argue we somehow won the title with money. Plain ridiculous. Who has spent more than City? No-one, not even we get close, even if we focus simply on transfers. Of course, there's more to football than simply transfers. We've spent our money badly, but overall it helps a great deal when you can buy two starting elevens and have them at your disposal. Klopp can do the same thing Guardiola has done at City, so can any other top manager
Spending is not only transfers: it's also wages. You can't tell me with a straight face that all those clubs spent more on wages than us over the years @Sviken
And the thing is, however the spending ended up, it doesn't invalidate Sir Alex's accomplishments one bit.
And I'm not sure how much it needs to be said that City literally do not have enough senior players to field 2 starting 11s
And the thing is, however the spending ended up, it doesn't invalidate Sir Alex's accomplishments one bit.
And I'm not sure how much it needs to be said that City literally do not have enough senior players to field 2 starting 11s
Man City placings since 2000/2001.
2001: 18th (PL)
2002: 1st (D1)
2003: 9th (PL)
2004: 16th (PL)
2005: 8th (PL)
2006: 15th (PL)
2007: 14th (PL)
2008: 9th (PL)
Sheik Mansour buys Man City in Aug 2008.
2009: 10th (PL)
2010: 5th (PL)
2011: 3rd (PL)
2012: 1st (PL)
2013: 2nd (PL)
2014: 1st (PL)
2015: 2nd (PL)
2016: 4th (PL)
2017: 3rd (PL)
2018: 1st (PL)
2019: 1st (PL)
2020: 2nd (PL)
2021: 1st (PL)
City's biggest advantage over the last five years is that they signed a once a a generation coach.
Oh yeah because you guys were doing just fine before you were bought out. Don’t be ridiculous your success is thanks to money plus getting some good football heads in.
How couldn't SAF convince him to join us? I don't know!
Giving him the most transfer funds of any manager in PL history didn't hurt either. You'd also have to wonder how much Guardiola's brother paid from his own money to become owner of Girona FC either, given that Man City's owners have a near-majority holding. It's a known fact that Mancini had his contract sweetened with money outside his official contract. Man City are already the biggest spenders. How much more are they spending outside official channels?
I don't think people will ever admit it. The key is Pep Guarduola.
There is nothing special about the size or quality of Man City's squad. Their squad size looks exceptional because Guardiola has a way of getting a minimum level of performance from every member of his squad that no other manger in football seems to be able to muster. That means every member of the squad becomes useful.
Look at City's forward line in terms of quality and numbers...how many of them would genuinely get into our team?
In midfield they have Gundogan, Rodri KDB and an over the hill Fernandinho.
The same story in defence. In terms of squad size, I even think ours is bigger.
The key is that Guardiola gets every member of his squad playing at a decent level. And trouble is he seems to be the only manager in football capable of doing it. If we had their squad, we'd want half the players sold for not being good enough, yet Guardiola has use for them.
There is nothing special about the size or quality of Man City's squad. Their squad size looks exceptional because Guardiola has a way of getting a minimum level of performance from every member of his squad that no other manger in football seems to be able to muster. That means every member of the squad becomes useful.
Look at City's forward line in terms of quality and numbers...how many of them would genuinely get into our team?
In midfield they have Gundogan, Rodri KDB and an over the hill Fernandinho.
The same story in defence. In terms of squad size, I even think ours is bigger.
The key is that Guardiola gets every member of his squad playing at a decent level. And trouble is he seems to be the only manager in football capable of doing it. If we had their squad, we'd want half the players sold for not being good enough, yet Guardiola has use for them.
Of course money helps. The combination of that quality of coach and the money is impossible to compete with.
My argument is that there is nothing special about City's squad...either the size or the quality, so the talk aboutbthe money they have spent takes a back role. They just have a coach that is way ahead of other managers in football...especially when it comes to league campaigns.
Pound for pound, is the 20 man squad City had out there yesterday that much better than ours...I don't think so.
With the exception of KDB, how many of those players were the caf calling for before they signed for City?
The man just has a system and the system just seems to ensure evey member of the squad plays at a decent level even when they are run of the mill players.
Klopp.
Bielsa.
However, you cannot ignore City's spending power. Both Klopp and Bielsa cannot afford the luxury of 100 million player being benched.
There is absolutely no denying that Pep is a world class manager, but you also cannot deny that he has been fortunate enough to be at clubs with great resources.
Yes fingers in ears and eyes closed - et voila, the playing is now equal and all that is happening is purely down to the genius of Pep and not the like for like squad who don't face fatigue or struggle without their best players even being in the team let alone firing on all cylinders like sides they're competing against in the league.
The enlightenment age that only extends to the PL and domestic competition. How curious.
Money also helps to keep Guardiola there. He spent less time as head coach at Barcelona, where he'd spent his previous career there. He spent less time at Bayern, where he'd inherited a triple (including CL) winning side. In addition to his own wages, which are likely to be sizeable and with as much on the side that we don't know about (if Mancini's example is any guide), Guardiola's brother is also the owner of an entire football club, who is also partly, and near-majority, owned by Man City. We already know Man City are spending more than anyone else in football. How much are they also spending on the side, that isn't accounted for in official accounts?
Guardiola is a very good coach, but he only played in easy projects and with a lot of money, he still lives today based on that Barcelona team's success.
Since 2011 he has never returned to winning football's top competition.
Winning national leagues in the teams with the most talent and money is debatable for some.
He has a defined style, some like it, some don't.
But he can't play like that at clubs that don't have players with extraordinary talent or the biggest budget to buy them.
And that values the work of other coaches.
Since 2011 he has never returned to winning football's top competition.
Winning national leagues in the teams with the most talent and money is debatable for some.
He has a defined style, some like it, some don't.
But he can't play like that at clubs that don't have players with extraordinary talent or the biggest budget to buy them.
And that values the work of other coaches.
It would be interesting to see Man City's accounts too. Let's not forget that they weren't exonerated of their accusations. The evidence was just held to be legally out of date (just). How many Guardiolas are being paid by Man City, and how much?
There is probably a lot of truth to this, we will never know the full amount being paid.
Well the argument made was that 2008 had better players, so Pepp may have paid a feck ton, apparently his team is weaker so it's simply amazing the football he's gotten them playing.
I understand we have more titles before premier league, I’m just talking recent history. They are catching us up and I don’t like it because I can see them dominating for a while yet.
clueless? Ok pal. They are catching us up and yes it’s a while off buts it’s happening. Slowly but surely they are dominating and catching us up. They have the potential to win the champions league pretty soon and yes it’s easy to look at the 90s/2000s.. but this modern era is there’s. I can’t see anyone but them dominating for a while yet.
there coming for us like it or not.
And yes I’d rather they won the league than liverpool.. but it doesn’t make city winning another title like some relief in my mind.. they are both shite. It’s lose lose. I don’t have to hope city win the league or enjoy it. Living in Manchester isn’t fun with them sweeping home the big honours right now, it’s terrible.
But the big clubs are, City, Liverpool, and Chelsea are all very good at the moment. All top European teams, among the favs for the CL, all of them. I don't remember the PL having 3 teams as good as this.
A lot of truth in this.
I've really got no idea where this recent trend of correct decisions being called "lucky" has come from.
The Wolves penalty might not always get given, but the handball earlier in the game certainly should have been, which evens it out.
For both Ederson penalty claims, it's been explained by referees why they weren't given (vs Newcastle the ball has already been taken away, vs Arsenal Odegaard fouls Ederson before Ederson fouls Odegaard). Commentators have chosen not to mention this because they get more out of the "VAR is bad" narrative.
There's nothing lucky about Xhaka or Gabriel costing Arsenal the game either, really. Both players are known for doing stupid things to cost their team games, particularly Xhaka, and I'd argue that the fact Arsenal continue to play them despite this makes Arteta fully responsible whenever they lose them points.
To play devil's advocate, if Liverpool set up their team so that two African players are supposed to score most of the goals, then suffer massively when they go to AFCoN, that's entirely their fault.
I agree with you, but (another topic),
when people talk about Pep, "it's easy if you have 2x11 world class players... "
When talk about City individual players, " Not many City's would get into.... " or "Rashford is much better than Jesus... "
Most people agree:
Alisson and Mendy (sometimes even Martinez or De Gea) are better than Ederson
Trent and James are better than Walker
Trent's also better than Cancelo (until this season Robertson and Shaw were included in this too)
Van Dijk (often Rudiger too) is better than Dias and Laporte, while Matip is better than Stones
Kanté is better than Rodri
Salah and Mané are better than City's wingers
Lukaku, Ronaldo, Jota and Kane are better than Jesus
I could go on and do the same for most positions. The only City player- before this season- who most people agreed was the best in their position in the league was De Bruyne, really.
And like you say, people will discredit Pep by saying he's got world class players all over the pitch, but I'm pretty certain if I started another thread entitled "Which Premier League players would you call world class?" it would only really be De Bruyne and maybe Dias appearing on most lists. People change their appraisal of the squad depending on if they want to make Pep look like he's got an easy job or if they want to make their club look stronger than City.
You can't say things haven't fallen our way recently, they absolutely have, it happened for Liverpool two years ago and its happening for us this season. The first pen vs Wolves (which was stonewall) doesn't have any effect on the 2nd, both Eddie ones could have been given and 9 times out of 10 Xhaka doesn't make that mistake or Garbriel doesn't get booked for dissent (which he was booked for not for scuffing the spot).
These things have all went our way. To deny it is as ridiculous as the Liverpool fans two seasons ago when they were getting a Bernardo like peno every 2 games and Pickford was literally throwing the ball into his own net. Its all swings and roundabouts but over the last month a lot of the big decisions that could have went against us have went our way. Its not a crime to say it, its football and it happens.
That doesn't mean we don't deserve to win or aren't the best just, like early in the season when things weren't falling for us, right now they are.
Bielsa... come on. He's got no clue how to get the best out of his defence, for starters.
City are the most boring team going. Spend £400m more net than your closest rival Liverpool the last couple of years (Liverpool).
Rotate your huge squad more than your Liverpool, leading to fresher legs.
Pass the ball to boredom.
When the opposing team gets the ball, foul them so they can't counter. It was the same at Barcelona.
It's just a chore to watch. I mean I'm sure people hated Ferguson's United, but they never played such boring and cynical football, heck the standard of opposing team was lower back then and United still registered lower point tallies than City do now. Most years there was a close challenger, I mean we finished a point or two behind teams like Chelsea loads of times.
I mean kudos to City for winning, but it completely kills my interest in watching the league. They won't care and nor should they, but it's just a bit crap that this is what winning the league amounts to.
Rotate your huge squad more than your Liverpool, leading to fresher legs.
Pass the ball to boredom.
When the opposing team gets the ball, foul them so they can't counter. It was the same at Barcelona.
It's just a chore to watch. I mean I'm sure people hated Ferguson's United, but they never played such boring and cynical football, heck the standard of opposing team was lower back then and United still registered lower point tallies than City do now. Most years there was a close challenger, I mean we finished a point or two behind teams like Chelsea loads of times.
I mean kudos to City for winning, but it completely kills my interest in watching the league. They won't care and nor should they, but it's just a bit crap that this is what winning the league amounts to.
Well, Liverpool shouldn't be their closest rival in the first place, since Chelsea and United have (almost) matched their spending.
Its a combination without the money theres never a Guardiola, the biggest factor in Cities change is our money, we have to be real about that.
But... the biggest factor in our current domination is Pep. Before Pep it was a title every 3 or 4 seasons and post Pep it'll be something similar. Pep is the one of the elite managers. Give him the best and he'll dominate like no one else. No one is capable of consistently winning and dominating vs weaker teams as Pep is. More often than not given the resources he wants/currently has he's going to win about 75% of his league games every season, no other manager in history can touch this. Their are better managers is certain situations and arguably better managers overall (theres a strong argument that Klopp would be a better manager in charge of 19 of the 20 PL teams), but no one is better at being the best whilst having the best than Guardiola, he's the ultimate flat track bully.
But... the biggest factor in our current domination is Pep. Before Pep it was a title every 3 or 4 seasons and post Pep it'll be something similar. Pep is the one of the elite managers. Give him the best and he'll dominate like no one else. No one is capable of consistently winning and dominating vs weaker teams as Pep is. More often than not given the resources he wants/currently has he's going to win about 75% of his league games every season, no other manager in history can touch this. Their are better managers is certain situations and arguably better managers overall (theres a strong argument that Klopp would be a better manager in charge of 19 of the 20 PL teams), but no one is better at being the best whilst having the best than Guardiola, he's the ultimate flat track bully.
Like I said earlier, the surprise isn't that Guardiola is winning titles. The surprise is how close Liverpool have run them on multiple occasions. If Guardiola is setting the revolutionary standard, Liverpool should have been nowhere near that level, let alone matching it on a couple of occasions.
The football is aesthetically pleasing, but then, who denies Pep is a top class coach? What part of him having, and using, resources that widen the gap to an insurmountable distance at league level does that omit?
Not even that it’s just a convenient argument, if you give Klopp the leniency to have 100m pound players on the bench I don’t see how to at negatively affects him or any manager to be honest.
How is that Devil's Advocate, though? Liverpool were savvy in the market and snapped up talent others overlooked, which enabled them to compete in the first place. Equivalent level talent(s) from richer nations would have been - and still is - out of their price range.
As was mentioned earlier in this thread, Klopp even managing to compete with City, let alone overcome them, is a feat in itself.
This will be an interesting thread to bump in a few years when Newcastle are doing the exact same thing City are, which will be a given once they get going and turn over that whole squad in 2-4 windows, tops.
Isn't that picking or choosing, according to transfermarkt they've spent less than United the last 5 years for example? Shouldn't the argument be other teams that have matched their spending aren't performing to the level they should.
The following link shows City aren't the biggest spenders in the PL in neither the last 5 nor 10 years.
In the last 5 years they've spent just €90m more than Arsenal total and €60m less than United. Liverpool should be commended for over achieving when you compare the spending of United and Arsenal who have both seriously outspent Chelsea, whose spending has been over exaggerated for the last 10 years too based on a couple of seasons at the start of both of their lotto wins.
The biggest spenders of the last 10 years (according to transfermarkt not Padr81 before half the caf attack me).
United
City
Arsenal
Chelsea
West Ham
Liverpool
Villa
https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1