Very strong but the 2 strongest teams are in Europa this year. So we probably won’t get an English team winning the champs.
The relative strength of the Premier League
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
It's not really that different. Buying Liga players is expensive for Real Madrid and Barcelona. It's part of the reason why Real Madrid has few Spanish players anymore, and very few players bought directly from La Liga. If the market isn't good you try to find a better one.
Yes, that's the problem. English clubs should stop doing that.
It makes sense to do this for a "world class" player, as we know they are few and far between. But for players who might be world class, it makes less sense: there's quite a few of those, and new ones pop up every year. You can just find a different one that isn't so expensive, or better yet, just wait. If you are doing a "project" and short-term results are not so important, you do not need the player right now so why overpay? It makes no sense.
There is also the problem that if you go so far above market values for these gambles, you won't be able to recoup most of that money if the player flops.
Who cares about appearances in the Quarter Finals and Semi finals? Or even number of runners up? Do you think people remember stuff like that? Did you know that Spurs got to the semi final of the European Cup in 1962 (and lost to the eventual champions, Eusebio's Benfica)? Or that Dundee reached the semi final in 1963 (and lost to the eventual champions AC Milan)? In the future, if we are going to look at this time as having been a dominant period for PL clubs then there is only one metric that matters and I think you know very well what it is.
That's why I make reference to the 70s and the early 80s when English clubs WON the Cup six years in a row and seven times in eight years, even though there were only one or two English teams in the tournament each time. Now that's dominance.
I think pretty much everyone posting here agrees that the PL has been the best league in the world over the last five years or so. We just disagree on how much better it is, why it is better, and so on.
The PL has two big, historical clubs (United, Liverpool) and two sugar daddy clubs (City and Chelsea). These four clubs are largely responsible for the PL's successes in Europe. La Liga has two big, historical clubs, but no sugar daddy clubs anywhere near the level of City or Chelsea, so of course it's weaker.
Last edited:
Interesting the only times English clubs won the final was when they played another English club. Not sure what that says but there we go.
First pages of this thread are comedy gold 
The reason why Real Madrid has few spanish players is that there's few world class spanish players and most of them are already at Barcelona or Real Madrid. Only few players like Rodri or Pau Torres would be worth buying.
This would not explain why Real Madrid has almost no signings from La Liga (which has an important minority of non-Spanish players).
How many players recently sold by La Liga clubs would have been good players for Real Madrid? I'd say not that many.
Reason one, Chelsea. Reason two, City.
had to bookmark this. all facts
they were developed here. He/she is saying he dont buy ready made ones
It's fun to see La Liga fans getting riled up now by this thread instead of us usual BL fans. It's like looking back at a fond memory.
Aye but we can buy those 4 world class players because they were already here.
Eh, one big reason why PL clubs don't buy ready made superstars these days is that the PL is a young league. Quite simply, the risk of spending big money on a 28 year old generally isn't worth it, not in a league dominated by 24 year olds
People are still looking at this the wrong way.
The revenues of the top clubs in Europe aren't that much different.
The difference is that the bottom half of the Premier League would absolutely batter the bottom half teams in La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1.
The revenues of the top clubs in Europe aren't that much different.
The difference is that the bottom half of the Premier League would absolutely batter the bottom half teams in La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1.
We will never find out if that is true.
It's pretty obvious that's true when teams like Villa, Leeds, Bournemouth, Everton, Palace, Wolves and Southampton can more or less go and buy any player from a team not in the Champions League.
It's far more risky to spend 100M on a young player than 180M on an experienced/confirmed one.
How are people looking at this the wrong way if the very same argument is being made on almost every page of this thread?
Mid table teams in EPL have more expensive players, but that doesn't mean that these players are better than cheaper players in other leagues.
You can't measure teams quality by how expensive are their players.
Last edited:
But does it really mean they are better teams when they sign a player like Schade from Freiburg's bench for 20m?
Casemiro says the PL is the toughest in the world
Close thread
Close thread
They overpay for those players, cause some of those players are pretty average, but somehow PL teams pay 50 million for some of them.
I think you're projecting a bit of Real Madrid's winning formula onto this. And while Madrid is probably the most successful club in Europe, I also think they are the exception to the rule. I'd say over the past decade, the most successful clubs were Madrid, Bayern, Barca, Liverpool, Chelsea and to an extent City - they might not have won the UCL but they probably were the most consistent team until the semi final. I'd say Bayern, Barca, Liverpool and City at the very least are clear examples of strong project focus. They decided on a philosophy and then dedicated all their transfer business to it. Chelsea and Madrid are more opportunistic in their approach but it is also worth noting that Chelsea won it once under a very system driven coach. And while Madrid don't seem to be so set on a certain style, they have developed their squad very continuously, even foregoing a direct Cristiano replacement. I also think they are playing very systematically in general since the midfield combination Casemiro - Kroos - Modric was so naturally possession oriented that they didn't really need to methodize it. I don't remember the year but in one Supercopa under Zidane, they really dominated them at will and it was as if they just had mirrored them. Barca during the Bartomeu years was actually a similar case I believe since they didn't really live by their philosophy anymore but it lived on since it was so deeply ingrained into the veteran players.
So to me, it rather seems that "not enough focus on projects" would be a better description of what's holding the English teams back. We can now see it with United: They finally installed a DoF and a coach with a clear idea how he wants to play and suddenly it all seems more streamlined and metholodical. I think once you have got that going you can put a focus on short term improvements. But lots of English teams tried to make this second step before the first one in the past. I think this is reflected in the popular saying on here "we're x players away from a title challenge" - always looking for the missing piece but a little bit neglecting the greater picture.
A lot of the comments over recent pages seem to have suggested the Premier League isn't that strong because of the midweek Champions League results.
I think they might edge it but it wouldn't necessarily be as clear as you expect. If you assume that the very best team in each league is vaguely on the same level most seasons, then you could even argue that the bottom half PL teams aren't really all that much stronger although they have more money. After all the Premier League champions typically average more points per game than in other leagues last time I checked. So from that angle it seems that the quality difference between the best English side and the rest of the league is often greater than in other leagues.
I don't think that's necessarily true, but on the other hand the assumption that the bottom half teams of the other top leagues are significantly worse because they have less money isn't based on anything.
To people who don’t watch the PL these are crap teams that overpay for second rate players.
Well it's probably the biggest indicator, especially over a number of years, how strong a particular league is when competing against the best teams from the other major European leagues.
UCL wins doesn't necessarily translate to having the best league. Serie A in the 90's is testament to this. Italy had 3 winners in the decade, which is equal to the number of winners Spain had. However, Italian clubs as a whole were more competitive in European competitions, for a myriad of reasons, hence why the league was considered the best in the world at the time. So even if the premier league isn't producing winners every season, English teams are consistently going deep in the Champions League, Europa League and Conference League.
Also you make reference to this period but at the time the Bundesliga was considered to be the strongest league in Europe. They consistently had teams going deep in all the 3 major Uefa competitions. In fact the 1980 Uefa Cup semi final featured 4 German teams, the only time a semi final has featured teams from one nation in any Uefa competition. If you include the quarter finals, then there were 5 German sides. That's pretty substantial. So to disregard teams that play in the quarters and semi's, is to disregard the argument of strongest league in Europe.
First pages of this thread are comedy gold
I know! Some of the arguments made against me at the time !!
Comparisons are never perfect because conditions in each league are different. But look at Barcelona. Since 2008, any manager who doesn't win the league in their first try is either fired immediately (Martino, Setien) or sometime after (Koeman). Guardiola and Luis Enrique both left the season in which they didn't win it, and Valverde was fired when his team were 1st in the league. It is a very competitive environment where short-term results are incredibly important, just as in Real Madrid. Bayern have also won every league title in the past decade, and they have fired two managers when they didn't like what they were seeing (Ancelotti, Kovac). They are very demanding environments.
When I say "too much focus on projects," I am mostly referring to the mentality where short-term results are not given much priority. Where not competing in the league is brushed off. Liverpool for example had an uncompetitive 20/21 season, a competitive 21/22 in which they nonetheless failed to win the two major trophies, and are having a difficult 22/23 season where they probably won't win the two major titles. That would be three seasons without major titles won. You don't survive that at Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern, etc. Or Ole's stint at United without winning trophies. Or the new Chelsea hierarchy accepting the idea that this season is "a write off" with a manager that has 4 wins in however many games.
Also, if we're going to talk Liverpool: they spent 3+ years on the Brendan Rodgers project. They achieved nothing, won no major titles and had to rebuild the whole squad once he was fired and replaced by Klopp. So that's five years wasted, three on Rodgers and two on Klopp having to rebuild the team.
Last edited:
No it isn't. Younger players keep resale value. And again, at 28 you are OLD for the current PL
That maybe so but it's really not as meaningful as you think. The best PL sides put up similar points totals and GD as the best from other leagues afterall
Resale value is a secondary criteria for PL clubs, especially if they perform and get to the C1 spots.
How much resale value for Coutinho, Dembele, Joao Felix, Grealish, potentially Nunez etc? Betting huge on young players can make you loose good chunks of money as well.
On top of that, PL big clubs are a "final destination" for top players, meaning a lot of them will spend many years there (if they perform) until their resale value drops anyway.
Yup!
Missing the point. Every transfer has the potential to fail. But a 20 year old who fails can still be resold relatively easily. A 30 year old, not so much
I would say 100M is kind of confirmed these days, even if they are young.
Antony, Martinez, Nunez?
I am completely outdated
Did they really reach 100m?I was thinking more about Tchouameni or Pogba type of guy.