Spain top 3 are clearly miles ahead but what other league is achieving more outside of their champions?
Are Schalke / Roma / Lyon / Marseille really outperforming Arsenal, City etc?
I'd say no.
The quality of the premiership is shocking
- Thread starter C'est Moi Cantona
- Start date
Are Schalke / Roma / Lyon / Marseille really outperforming Arsenal, City etc?
I'd say no.
You can compare the teams side by side in terms of personnel or you can compare their results in Europe. They're the only two variables worth considering here and they tell a fairly simple story.
The money is...well, it's money - but it's an insane amount of money. And it has - demonstrably - led to lesser English clubs investing heavily in non-British players who have improved the likes of Stoke City (or what have you, really - all across the board) dramatically.
If common logic applies, English sides should benefit from this wealth. It would be patently absurd if this were not the case. At the top the effect will be less noticeable, for the simple reason that the top sides in other leagues are stinkin' rich as well. But the by-and-by obscene amounts a standard PL team rakes in and is able to put to use should have some kind of impact. That is why I buy Glaston's mega league idea to an extent: It would be contrary to all known patterns if clubs that are ten times as wealthy as their counterparts didn't sport squads that reflected this discrepancy in terms of actual footballing quality.
Schalke and Roma aren't the best sides in their league, particularly in the case of Schalke. City are, with Chelsea's fall, supposed to be the best side in the league right now, but they're nowhere near the standard of Bayern, for example, or even Juventus, who have outperformed them in Europe recently.
Have City/Arsenal not improved their personnel over the last three/four years?
Not by much. City won the title in 2011/2012, and arguably haven't produced a side as good as that one since then. Arsenal have had some superb additions such as Sanchez, Cazorla and Ozil, yet they continue to linger in 3rd of 4th place each season, and rarely advance to the latter stages of the CL.
They are better but not great
But Chelsea this season and Utd since Fergie left are significantly worse
Liverpool are worse too
The spell for a couple of years when the pl was on top was more out of character than anything if the last 25 years is anything to go by
Chelsea are the champions but a it's City who are arguably the best side in the league, which other top country can claim that?
And that's my point. We seem to interchange every clubs CL result as a sign of this or that like that club is the standard bearer for this week. Place our 3rd place finishers result v Italy's or Germans equilivant and are our clubs really getting so outperformed that we can say were falling so far behind?
Roma for example have been a constant Italian representative in the CL yet they routinely get embarassed with some truely horrible results yet nobody compares that in a negative light v English sides. No Uniteds draw at home v PSV is the end of the world ..
Genuine question now as we go through the two leagues.
Who do we think have a better squad.
I don't know enough about this team to really give it a fair assessment, anyone with more knowledge want to give it a go?
R. Fährmann
4 B. Höwedes
27 S. Riether
9'
32 J. Matip
15 D. Aogo
5 J. Geis
51'
8 L. Goretzka
7 M. Meyer
19 L. Sané
25 K. Huntelaar
73'
13 E. Choupo-Moting
Coach: A. Breitenreiter
v
1 H. Lloris
5 J. Vertonghen
3 D. Rose
2 K. Walker
4 T. Alderweireld
15 E. Dier
19 M. Dembélé
81'
11 E. Lamela
23 C. Eriksen
20 D. Alli
10 H. Kane
1 T. Horn
5 D. Maroh
14 J. Hector
3 D. Heintz
33 M. Lehmann
7 M. Risse
6 K. Vogt
21 L. Bittencourt
27 A. Modeste
15 P. Hosiner
11 S. Zoller
v
1 J. Butland
3 E. Pieters
8 G. Johnson
17 R. Shawcross
20 G. Cameron
26 P. Wollscheid
14 I. Afellay
6 G. Whelan
27 Bojan
10 M. Arnautović
22 X. Shaqiri
1 Ł. Fabiański
26 K. Naughton
3 N. Taylor
6 A. Williams
27 K. Bartley
15 W. Routledge
4 Sung-Yong Ki
7 L. Britton
23 G. Sigurðsson
18 B. Gomis
10 A. Ayew
v
F. Wiedwald
23 T. Gebre Selassie
2 S. García
7 J. Vestergaard
4 Gálvez
8 C. Fritz
53'
16 Z. Junuzović
22 F. Bartels
44 P. Bargfrede
30'
11 L. Öztunali
21 A. Ujah
Who do we think have a better squad.
I don't know enough about this team to really give it a fair assessment, anyone with more knowledge want to give it a go?
R. Fährmann
4 B. Höwedes
27 S. Riether
32 J. Matip
15 D. Aogo
5 J. Geis
8 L. Goretzka
7 M. Meyer
19 L. Sané
25 K. Huntelaar
13 E. Choupo-Moting
Coach: A. Breitenreiter
v
1 H. Lloris
5 J. Vertonghen
3 D. Rose
2 K. Walker
4 T. Alderweireld
15 E. Dier
19 M. Dembélé
11 E. Lamela
23 C. Eriksen
20 D. Alli
10 H. Kane
1 T. Horn
5 D. Maroh
14 J. Hector
3 D. Heintz
33 M. Lehmann
7 M. Risse
6 K. Vogt
21 L. Bittencourt
27 A. Modeste
15 P. Hosiner
11 S. Zoller
v
1 J. Butland
3 E. Pieters
8 G. Johnson
17 R. Shawcross
20 G. Cameron
26 P. Wollscheid
14 I. Afellay
6 G. Whelan
27 Bojan
10 M. Arnautović
22 X. Shaqiri
1 Ł. Fabiański
26 K. Naughton
3 N. Taylor
6 A. Williams
27 K. Bartley
15 W. Routledge
4 Sung-Yong Ki
7 L. Britton
23 G. Sigurðsson
18 B. Gomis
10 A. Ayew
v
F. Wiedwald
23 T. Gebre Selassie
2 S. García
7 J. Vestergaard
4 Gálvez
8 C. Fritz
16 Z. Junuzović
22 F. Bartels
44 P. Bargfrede
11 L. Öztunali
21 A. Ujah
I just thought it's hilarious that you listed the same player twice without even coming close to his real spelling.
I wasn't refering to your list, I don't care about that dumb e-penis 'Which league got the best players' comparison. I think the lower and midtable teams actually have slightly better individuals than their european counterparts but are way behind in terms of tactical disciplin, especially compared to the spanish teams.
People just see the flashy Stoke attack (who are actually mostly overrated rejects from big clubs) and think 'Wow, the PL really has amazing depth' - but I doubt that teams in Spain, Germany or Italy would be impressed by that attack.
The french league is shit and Marseille aren't a top 3 team. And SChalke aren't a top 3 team either.
Over the years. If I'm comparing the German and Italian equilivants this year then They both have a great chance of only having one team each through to the knockout stages. An Italian side even fell in qualifying
Spain have 4 teams that are of quality sufficient to be sure of top 4 finish in England (Barca, Real and Atletico) or at least fight for it (Sevilla) and several teams who could be top half (Villarreal, Valencia, Athletic, Celta). The quality below that is very hard to compare against English equivalents, not say how you can say with certainty whether West Brom are better than Espanyol.
In Serie A you have Juventus, Roma, Inter and Napoli who could be top 4 in Europe and the likes of Fiorentina and Lazio who could be top half. Comparing Norwich with Genoa is again not possible.
Wolfsburg who are at best the third best team in Germany and possibly even 4th/5th now are clear favourites against a team who is fighting for the title in England.
Marseille when coached by Deschamps was a strong team but it doesn't change the fact that the french league isn't in the debate it's a poor league.
There are more factors to consider though. If we had two clubs in comparable positions in their respective leagues who bring a similar number of youth players of about the same quality into the first team, then yes, the financial advantage will soon turn into a lot more quality in the squad. But if you have to play catch up from the start because other countries have much better academies and you have to overpay for homegrown talents, who aren't even that great, because of the homegrown rules, a significant part of that financial advantage is already gone. Then there's the risk factor if you rely more on transfers and pay higher wages. No one can take the failed transfer of your hands anymore when you're at the end of the food chain. That might work for Real or won't matter for sugardaddy financed clubs like City, but it's a problem for midtable clubs.
As an example: I like Shaqiri and hope he'll do well at Stoke, but let's assume he continues with his inconsistent form that he showed over the last 2 years and turns out to be a flop. Bayern and Inter got rid of him without much problem, without making a loss, but there's no way any club in Europe will take him off Stoke if he doesn't excel there. Christian Heidel, the director of football at Mainz, argued that point last summer in regards to the money English clubs spend on wages. The clubs put themselves in a totally isolated position and take themselves out of that circular system everyone else acts in. Every failed transfer becomes a massive problem and we might see many cases like Adebayor over the next years. It's almost impossible to avoid and it again takes a lot away form that financial advantage.
And all that doesn't even touch the problem that even if English midtable clubs offer more money, many players still prefer to play for clubs with CL or EL football in other leagues for less money. English clubs need to be careful that they don't add all the 'mercenaries' without real ambition, who prefer the easy paycheck.
Even with that crazy tv deal and the insane amount of money, English clubs need to make sure that they have a solid foundation, one that is as good as in Spain, Germany and Italy. Without getting the basics right, without quality youth development and great scouting, English clubs can't really use that additional money effectively to gain the advantage you'd expect them to have by just looking at the numbers in financial reports.
Bookmakers who make a living out of this. They're around Evens while United are priced 5/2.
He exaggerated but the teams are close, which once again means nothing because United are at the beginning of a rebuilding while Wolfsburg are settled.
I think you shouldn't overrate Wolfsburg that much. They're rather inconsistent and still haven't found last season's form yet. They're clearly inferior to Dortmund for example. I'd say United is still a slight favourite to win.
That is true - thankfully.
But the league in question does have a - let's say - general infrastructure in place. The clubs in question aren't standing at ground zero being infused with unprecedented truckloads of cash - they are already in a fairly decent state, relatively speaking. The sheer wealth they are now blessed with - which completely dwarfs anything their counterparts in other European leagues enjoy - must have an effect, possibly even in the narrowest perspective: Unless these clubs invest this wealth extremely unwisely, it should make a significant difference.
Again, though, the actual difference in question may not be measurable in the short term: There is no way to determine how strong a lower level Premier League team is compared to a counterpart in Germany or Spain. And due to the nature of European football - money wise and quality wise - there is no guarantee that any possible effect from this will translate directly into the higher echelon of English teams, making them any stronger in comparison with their European counterparts.
But money in general tends to boost the quality of teams - that is a sad fact of modern football. If the average Premier League also-ran can afford salaries that completely dwarf those of their European counterparts, it would be bizarre (nothing short of it) if this didn't make them stronger in pure footballing terms as well.
I don't think Arsenal's injuries are an excuse because the matches that put them in this position were at the start of the CL. As for us, the fact we're so close to the top of the PL during the rebuilding and are in such a delicate position in the CL probably says it all. The top teams in England are just not very good. And it's not the first season in which this has happened.
I know that, but as the OP my main point was the fact Leicester are top, United are playing such boring football, City are struggling in many games, Arsenal are just doing their usual, Chelsea have lost the plot, and we are all struggling in the CL once again, it is saying an awful lot about where the prem is right now, no matter how much money we all throw at it nothing is improving atm. Having a lot of mid table teams in the league you're talking about is pointless.
People can say all they want about wanting a competitive league where anyone can beat anyone, and where we can have a Leicester playing some of the best football in England, but it's not good long term, we will slowly slip away as the main league, and importantly lose our fourth champions league spot.
I see no reason why we can't have what we've got but where we can also dominate the CL, Chelsea, United, Liverpool, City, Arsenal, and even Spurs (long term) all start the season genuinely having aspirations of winning the league, I don't see another top league in this position, we don't need a Leicester to add further spice, we need these top clubs dominating home and abroad.
Maybe reducing the number in the premier league and having a winter break would help, as would the top clubs spending their money more wisely, but prising the best players from the lower ranking prem clubs is only going to get more difficult given most just don't need to sell anymore.
Last edited:
But most clubs in Bundesliga "have" to sell important players every season anyway, English clubs showing up with their TV money is a lot more like a blessing instead of a scourge in terms of sales.
A club like Hoffenheim for example was never likely to be able to keep a hold on a player with Firminos weekly performances, chances are he would've ended up at Dortmund, Wolfsburg or Schalke for €20-30m if it weren't for Liverpool bidding €40.
Son was not a key player to begin with and I think on the continent they would've gotten €15-20m tops for him.
Heidel himself said that the offers from German clubs for Okazaki were around €4m, from Leicester they got €11m, in relation Schalke paid just €1m more than that for their hyped CM talent Geis, who was linked with half of Europe by the media - they were probably praying for an offer from England for that one too.
One would assume that. But it certainly isn't true for English top teams who spend as much if not more as the continental top teams, so why shouldn't it be the same for lower teams?
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/tran...10&saison_id_bis=2015&land_id=&nat=&pos=&w_s=
Transfer balance for the past 5 seasons ranks English teams at positions 1, 3, 4 and 9. The first three ahead of Bayern, Real and Barca, but results don't nearly reflect that.
Dortmund are #31, behind most of the PL, Atletico are #59..
If you look at the balance of the past three season English teams actually make up half of the top 10, both Manchster clubs more than doubling Real and Bayern.
So maybe money isn't the best indicator for squad strength?
Last edited:
A lot went to Aston Villa which explains a few things
Yes but who apart from Bayern show any sustained consistency in Germany? There's only so much talent that can go round and the money aspect not only sets up the risk of continually selling your best players but closes the expensive PL tranfer market to German clubs as well. Its not as if there's 10x Chicharitos out there to step into the void.
It may be good for Leverkusen to sell to Spurs instead of Wolfsburg but who will Wolfsburg then buy? Wolfsburg etc are then losing out on their 1st or even 2nd choice targets.
This policy is ok if the best you can hope for is to sustain the quality of the league but the odds are it will never improve from where it's at.
Or Newcastle.The top of Bundesliga has always been quite volatile over the past years, this has nothing to do with the PL and financially Budesliga clubs could never compete with their PL counterparts anyway, for the players it was always the big paycheck vs EL / CL football in Germany. And whoever decides for the money now likely would've done so before too. I think it will be mostly the same transfers just with more money and more wages paid by English clubs for the same category of players.
The Bundesliga clubs have been very lucky that English teams have been spending a lot of money with them, with the lowest TV revenues and viewing figures of the traditional big four European leagues.
I can't really see the situation improving going forward if Bayern remain so far ahead of the rest.
I can't really see the situation improving going forward if Bayern remain so far ahead of the rest.
What do you mean by 'very lucky'? The 18 Bundesliga clubs have overall a higher revenue than La Liga and Serie A with 20 clubs and that's without transfer money counted. It's the 2nd richest football league in the world. The league makes the biggest profit each year (more than the PL), has the healthiest balance between wages and revenue and is still increasing in quality. German clubs have never been dependent on income through transfers and we aren't now either.
You make it sound as if we should be thankful that the English clubs let us have a share of their broadcasting deals or else we couldn't compete. That's utter nonsense.
Well, what one may class as the top English teams (Chelsea, City, United and Arsenal) must necessarily be compared to the top teams in Europe. And they fall short, clearly so - in a way that is quantifiable too. But with few exceptions what we class as the top teams in Europe are on par with the English elite in terms of finances. It's a matter of moneybags teams in England underperforming relative to other moneybags teams - more than anything. The gap between the English elite and the non-moneybags teams in Europe is far less dramatic. To put it in extreme terms, the money has at the very least made the likes of City better than almost any European team that cannot be classed as A-list in terms of finances.
What we're talking about here (going with Glaston's mega league concept) is a large group of teams - maybe a dozen or so - that populate the mid- and lower levels of the Premier League. Now, these sides have a HUGE advantage (which is about to become even bigger) over their European counterparts in terms of finances. Does this mean they will automatically become proportionally stronger in footballing terms? No, of course not. But if there was NO correlation between wealth and quality, that would be unprecedented - bizarre, even. It would mean that a dozen (or more) teams failed systematically to take advantage of their financial muscles.
I'm not saying this positively isn't the case - but I repeat that it would be absurd if it were.
Well if we look at the transfer spending then only PSG has been on par with City over the past 5 years. And btw: City are 17th in the European club ranking, behind teams like Atletico, Benfica, Dortmund, Porto, Schalke, Valencia, Napoli and Basel who I wouldn't exactly classify as lavish spenders.
I don't doubt that there is a correlation beetween wealth and quality, if you spend more chances are your squad will improve. But in football there are a lot more factors to success than that.
And if the very cream of English football seems to be lagging behind in so many other factors that it actually more than makes up for their financial advantages why do people assume that the same isn't likely lower down the table?
Because, as suggested above, the discrepancy is much more dramatic down the table. The benefits of financial "doping" are bound to be less marked at the top, because - again - the European rivals which currently outperform the English are on the same level money wise (more or less, and with few exceptions). Down the table this picture is completely different: A relegation battler in England virtually swims in cash compared to the Spanish equivalent.
It's a matter of degrees, simply put: You can do a shoddy job in many a sense, not getting the best out of your expensive squad, but THAT kind of difference in pure money terms should be significant. And it's not one team - it's a whole batch of teams that are all swimming in money compared to the equivalent batch in other European leagues. Again, I fully agree that you can't simply buy your way to an actually well functioning, well performing side - but this is a huge discrepancy we're talking about, not a slight edge.
Agree man. They don't understand.
EPL is stronger than Bundesliga because we get all of their players. On the other side, Serie A is stronger than EPL cause they get all of our important players.
Pogba?
Evra?
Morrison?
Balotelli?
Diamanti?
Gervinho?
Dzeko?
Salas?
Cuadrado?
Even not top-tier clubs like Roma get important players from English top teams like City, Arsenal and Chelsea. Juventus can get whatever player they want from United, as we saw from the cases of Evra and Pogba. Milan are in midtable and they got Liverpoo's striker. etc etc
Serie A > Premier League
Premier League > Bundesliga
Ungrateful little bavarian, bend before the financial power of the PL.
The Spanish league is comfortably ahead of the rest IMO. I don't watch that much of German football but based on the teams I do see I reckon the premier league is stronger but our top teams aren't close to Bayern.
I don't really buy that there's a bigger degree of financial advantage between the 8th and 20th placed teams in England and their European counterparts than there is between City, United, Chelsea and Atletico, Juve, Dortmund.
But yes, like you said it should make a difference, it probably does make a difference. But it's pure speculation if it helps English clubs to make up for the disadvantage all the other factors cause (like it does to a certain degree at the top level) or if it helps English clubs to gain an advantage.
I may just put a bet on United then.