The relative strength of the Premier League

Sarni earlier

"We lost to PSV so we're not a good team."

Athletico fail to score past them in 210 minutes

"Well it's more the overall CL performance that makes them great."

City are brought up.

"Well they aren't a great team"

Honestly have no idea what I'm even arguing against at times.
 
Oh right.

Either way you'd have agreed with me in that argument then.

Interesting that a team in the quarters of the CL is not a great team.
Except, you missed the part where I disagreed with you.

City are potentially a top team. But they consistently under perform and hence are not. They've been dreadful this year.
 
Sarni earlier

"We lost to PSV so we're not a good team."

Athletico fail to score past them in 210 minutes

"Well it's more the overall CL performance that makes them great."

City are brought up.

"Well they aren't a great team"

Honestly have no idea what I'm even arguing against at times.
Whether due to him, or otherwise, you're mistakenly focusing on individual matches/ties.

I never advocated that.
 
Whether due to him, or otherwise, you're mistakenly focusing on individual matches/ties.

I never advocated that.

Well then what am I supposed to focus on? Tbh I probably shouldn't focus on one but it's really hard not to, I tend to group you all together into a big group (Football Hipsters who hate the Prem :))

I'm trying to prove here that the CL isn't a good measure of comparing football teams. Man City have just gone through. According to Sarni earlier when I questioned if Athletico were a good team.

"Yes, they are through to QF."

Now he'll come up with a reason why that doesn't apply to City.
 
Except, you missed the part where I disagreed with you.

City are potentially a top team. But they consistently under perform and hence are not. They've been dreadful this year.

My whole point in that thread that Insanity mentioned (I have been looking for that for ages!) is that because of the closeness in the PL not one team will have a great season where they consistently played good football. I think it was after we beat Tottenham 1-0 with no shots and I was saying it's a good result, because it's a hard game and no team in the prem will play great attacking football for more than 6/7 games this year.

I have absolutely no idea why Insanity would bring that up now.
 
Well then what am I supposed to focus on? Tbh I probably shouldn't focus on one but it's really hard not to, I tend to group you all together into a big group (Football Hipsters who hate the Prem :))

I'm trying to prove here that the CL isn't a good measure of comparing football teams. Man City have just gone through. According to Sarni earlier when I questioned if Athletico were a good team.

"Yes, they are through to QF."

Now he'll come up with a reason why that doesn't apply to City.
All of the following:

- The football the team plays
- Their performances/results in their league
- Their performances/results in Europe

It makes a hell of a lot more sense than focusing on a single aspect, or match.

Btw, the PL is my favorite league, the one I watch the most. But as per me it is the second to La Liga in terms of strength.
 
Oh im only talking about this game. Atletico aren't used to having more possession. They like to play on the counter. PSV made them play a possession oriented game and i think it was a good tactic. Their keeper also made two point blank saves.
That's also why Atletico isn't that good. Having more possession and be the attacking side is not just a matter of tactical choices, it is also a matter of quality. If you have to teams playing a match with the same tactics but different in quality, the better will have most of the possession and attack more.

Of course tactics and quality are connected, but in a sense that if the team isn't that good, you'll have a better chance of getting a result with defensive tactics. But that is also more about chance and less about control, if you don't have the ball you don't have the initiative and are to a certain extend dependent on the opponent not doing very much with the possession. And if they score first, you have the problem of having to attack, to do something you're tactics and players aren't made for. A really good team wants the initiative, make sure they win rather than taking a chance, to be really good you'll have to be able to take the possession and initiative, and create chances independent of the other side leaving space for counter attacks.

Of course you can win the CL with counter attacking football, but it's a bit less about supremacy and a bit more about riding your luck. Counter attacking football is the privilege of the underdog, the gamblers, not for the 'must win'-clubs. Fort Atletico the underdog position is fine, but to be up there with Barca, Real, Bayern and PSG year after year, they would have to make a big step and get a lot better with possession and attacking football.
 
All of the following:

- The football the team plays
- Their performances/results in their league
- Their performances/results in Europe

It makes a hell of a lot more sense than focusing on a single aspect, or match.

Btw, the PL is my favorite league, the one I watch the most. But as per me it is the second to La Liga in terms of strength.

Fair enough. I would like to point out I'm not saying we should focus on a single aspect. I was specifically arguing against that point which is the point that Sarni originally made.
 
That's also why Atletico isn't that good. Having more possession and be the attacking side is not just a matter of tactical choices, it is also a matter of quality. If you have to teams playing a match with the same tactics but different in quality, the better will have most of the possession and attack more.

Of course tactics and quality are connected, but in a sense that if the team isn't that good, you'll have a better chance of getting a result with defensive tactics. But that is also more about chance and less about control, if you don't have the ball you don't have the initiative and are to a certain extend dependent on the opponent not doing very much with the possession. And if they score first, you have the problem of having to attack, to do something you're tactics and players aren't made for. A really good team wants the initiative, make sure they win rather than taking a chance, to be really good you'll have to be able to take the possession and initiative, and create chances independent of the other side leaving space for counter attacks.

Of course you can win the CL with counter attacking football, but it's a bit less about supremacy and a bit more about riding your luck. Counter attacking football is the privilege of the underdog, the gamblers, not for the 'must win'-clubs. Fort Atletico the underdog position is fine, but to be up there with Barca, Real, Bayern and PSG year after year, they would have to make a big step and get a lot better with possession and attacking football.

That's an interesting point that I completely would have missed.
 
That's also why Atletico isn't that good. Having more possession and be the attacking side is not just a matter of tactical choices, it is also a matter of quality. If you have to teams playing a match with the same tactics but different in quality, the better will have most of the possession and attack more.

Of course tactics and quality are connected, but in a sense that if the team isn't that good, you'll have a better chance of getting a result with defensive tactics. But that is also more about chance and less about control, if you don't have the ball you don't have the initiative and are to a certain extend dependent on the opponent not doing very much with the possession. And if they score first, you have the problem of having to attack, to do something you're tactics and players aren't made for. A really good team wants the initiative, make sure they win rather than taking a chance, to be really good you'll have to be able to take the possession and initiative, and create chances independent of the other side leaving space for counter attacks.

Of course you can win the CL with counter attacking football, but it's a bit less about supremacy and a bit more about riding your luck. Counter attacking football is the privilege of the underdog, the gamblers, not for the 'must win'-clubs. Fort Atletico the underdog position is fine, but to be up there with Barca, Real, Bayern and PSG year after year, they would have to make a big step and get a lot better with possession and attacking football.
They're able to do it every season as of now, and over 38 game season's in La Liga. It appears that they are indeed a really good team, and less is down to chance than you think.

The last bit I agree with, but you also have to look at what is feasible. For them to dominate like that they need dominant players, and that will take time. They aren't going to match Real Madrid's set of attacking stars any time soon, so they have to find other ways to compete, which they are doing very well.
 
Amolb it seems the real crux of the matter is how we determine who is the better team.

Your "side" as it were seems to think you can tell how good a team is based on performances in their own league and the football they play.

That is fair enough. I think you can't do that. If my point is that I think the bottom ten in La Liga are a lot worse then I obviously will try and refute that claim.

Now my "arguments" have been numerous. Let's recap.

I originally tried to compare squads. That apparently won't work (despite it being the basis of the draft discussions here and also a load of you started doing it a few pages back looking at Tottenham v Tottenham.

I then brought up the relative size of the transfers. The Prem has a lot more financial muscle (some arguments against me there were valid enough. Some people tried to argue Stoke were getting into a financial black hole by buying a Bayern squad player for 6 million)

I then looked at stuff like the Goldeon Boy. Which shows that even lower league prem clubs have some of the best young talents in Europe according to the world's journalists.

I also have brought up the fact that pretty much every attacking player who has played in Bundesliga/Prem in the last two/three years has a much better strike record in Bundesliga.

They're all valid ways of potentially measuring. You can agree/disagree all you want. That's fine. However to start saying "Fifa rankings" and "Asking random people in the street" is just insulting to the time and effort I have put into this thread. This thread come along while I was doing a lot of working from home and I was locking myself away for days trying to finish some paperwork. It has flourished and brought forward great debate.
 
I was looking for that thread the other day.

I actually was arguing in that thread that in the prem it's hard to play consistently well. Out of interest, how many times have Arsenal or Tottenham had great performances this season?

Mate, are you telling me that in all the seasons we were great under Fergie, we only played good football only 5 or 6 times a season? Playing good football doesn't necessarily mean steamrolling the opposition 5 or 6 nil; sometimes you can perform well and still end up with a draw or a loss. I haven't seen all of Spurs games this season, but I am sure they played good football for more than 5 games; Leicester certainly have. Chelsea, last season, were excellent for most of the first half of the season. Their meltdown this term has very little to do with the PL being strong. City in a shit season, have had more than 5 good performances. May be even us.

It is hard to play consistently well in any league. I don't disagree with your point that the bottom teams in the PL are stronger than the bottom teams in La Liga or Bundesliga due to the money at their disposal. Though, their top teams are also much better than top teams in this league. What you are trying to do is make excuses for the failure of the top teams under-performances. I don't think Leicester winning the league or finishing in the top 2 will be the start of a new world order. It is more likely be an aberration that will correct itself next season.
 
Last edited:
Amolb it seems the real crux of the matter is how we determine who is the better team.

Your "side" as it were seems to think you can tell how good a team is based on performances in their own league and the football they play.

That is fair enough. I think you can't do that. If my point is that I think the bottom ten in La Liga are a lot worse then I obviously will try and refute that claim.

Now my "arguments" have been numerous. Let's recap.

I originally tried to compare squads. That apparently won't work (despite it being the basis of the draft discussions here and also a load of you started doing it a few pages back looking at Tottenham v Tottenham.

I then brought up the relative size of the transfers. The Prem has a lot more financial muscle (some arguments against me there were valid enough. Some people tried to argue Stoke were getting into a financial black hole by buying a Bayern squad player for 6 million)

I then looked at stuff like the Goldeon Boy. Which shows that even lower league prem clubs have some of the best young talents in Europe according to the world's journalists.

I also have brought up the fact that pretty much every attacking player who has played in Bundesliga/Prem in the last two/three years has a much better strike record in Bundesliga.

They're all valid ways of potentially measuring. You can agree/disagree all you want. That's fine. However to start saying "Fifa rankings" and "Asking random people in the street" is just insulting to the time and effort I have put into this thread. This thread come along while I was doing a lot of working from home and I was locking myself away for days trying to finish some paperwork. It has flourished and brought forward great debate.
I ask you this:

How can a team which consistently in recent times,

- plays better football than Manchester United, both domestically and in Europe
- has better results than Manchester United, both domestically and in Europe (for all the weak league talk they hammered Madrid 4-0 not so long back and consistently do well against them these days)

be worse than Manchester United?

I guess your answer will be that the bottom 10 in La Liga is so much inferior which I simply disagree with. If the bottom 10 in the PL was so strong I have no idea how Leicester City are top by 5 points. Despite their team being okay they've somehow found it easy swatting away those PL strong teams. I don't see much difference between the two leagues apart from La Liga's top sides being much stronger.
 
My whole point in that thread that Insanity mentioned (I have been looking for that for ages!) is that because of the closeness in the PL not one team will have a great season where they consistently played good football. I think it was after we beat Tottenham 1-0 with no shots and I was saying it's a good result, because it's a hard game and no team in the prem will play great attacking football for more than 6/7 games this year.

I have absolutely no idea why Insanity would bring that up now.

I brought that up as an example of you taking a position and then saying anything to augment your arguments. Those were the days when you would come out after every shit performance and qualify it with "I really enjoyed it".

Here's that thread:

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/it-took-60-minutes-to-get-a-shot-on-target.407795/page-8

My bad, you said 7-8 times, not 5-6 times.:D
 
We're better than West Ham and Leicester on paper, but football isn't played on paper.

As for the Atletico Madrid side of the argument - I think it's very far fetched to say we're a better team than them. We've done nothing since Fergie retired. They went toe to toe with Barcelona/Real in La Liga(and were seconds away from a European double) with limited resources compared to the latter. The argument that the other teams are poor doesn't hold weight IMO, when those teams consistently outperform Premier League teams in European competition.
 
Amolb it seems the real crux of the matter is how we determine who is the better team.

Your "side" as it were seems to think you can tell how good a team is based on performances in their own league and the football they play.

That is fair enough. I think you can't do that. If my point is that I think the bottom ten in La Liga are a lot worse then I obviously will try and refute that claim.

Now my "arguments" have been numerous. Let's recap.

I originally tried to compare squads. That apparently won't work (despite it being the basis of the draft discussions here and also a load of you started doing it a few pages back looking at Tottenham v Tottenham.

I then brought up the relative size of the transfers. The Prem has a lot more financial muscle (some arguments against me there were valid enough. Some people tried to argue Stoke were getting into a financial black hole by buying a Bayern squad player for 6 million)

I then looked at stuff like the Goldeon Boy. Which shows that even lower league prem clubs have some of the best young talents in Europe according to the world's journalists.

I also have brought up the fact that pretty much every attacking player who has played in Bundesliga/Prem in the last two/three years has a much better strike record in Bundesliga.

They're all valid ways of potentially measuring. You can agree/disagree all you want. That's fine. However to start saying "Fifa rankings" and "Asking random people in the street" is just insulting to the time and effort I have put into this thread. This thread come along while I was doing a lot of working from home and I was locking myself away for days trying to finish some paperwork. It has flourished and brought forward great debate.
These are totally invalid, actually extremely cringeworthy ways of measuring. In particular the transfer sizes do show just one thing: The Premier League is the most inefficiently run league. I can't think of any other league in which so many clubs are willing to spend so much money for so many mediocre players.
 
isn't this Twigg guy completely contradicting himself by going on about the Atletico vs PSV game, seeing as at the beginning of the thread he said you can't really judge teams by knockout games as anything can happen?
 
Here it is

Yes, but, it's the best way of judging a team as to me, a two game knockout doesn't take in to account many factors.

Seems flawed to me. All he's done throughout this thread is constantly change his opinion and views to try and prove his (god awful) point.
 
Out of interest @Twigginater , what could other leagues do so that you consider them equals or better than the Premier League?

Performing well in Europe doesn't matter, so what can they do to convince you? Playing quality football doesn't seem to be enough either, because they might just look good because they play each other and both teams are weak, right?

Do small Spanish, German teams have to buy Premier League players who then perform badly? Is that the best way to prove it? Others might call that bad scouting, tactics and man-management though.

And when was the last time another league was equal or better than the Premier League? Was it when Bergkamp performed so badly in Serie A that they named an award for the worst player of the week after him before he instantly was a huge success in England? Soon followed by Henry, who was equally awful in Italy but dominated the Premier League with ease? I personally wouldn't draw any conclusions from their performances in Italy and rather judge them from the time when they were used to the best of their ability and were happy on a personal level, therefore could show how great they really were. But that doesn't seem to be acceptable as a factor to you, so how bad was the Premier League during Bergkamp's and Henry's successful years compared to Serie A?
 
I'm pointing out why you can't use them!

But you also said that you can't compare teams from different leagues because they don't play in the same league. I'm beginning to think that something is wrong.
 
If his cringeworthy criteria fail Twiggi he can always go back to putting everything down to the PL being the super awesomest bestest league in the world ever and/or the other leagues being trash (because he says so).
 
Atletico being offensivley poor when asked to take control of games has fecked this thread up.
When we were a defensive rock and asked every single player to focus on the defensive side more than going forward, to not take risks while relying on our efficency in front of goal get us through, we were deemed the most boring side ever and an embarassment to our history. Atletico play that way on steroids.
They really are poor to watch and would face the same problems we have if they played in England. Having Torres play up top would stifle them instantly. He would be their Rooney albatross when the game goes from end to end a lot quicker than it does in Spain.
 
isn't this Twigg guy completely contradicting himself by going on about the Atletico vs PSV game, seeing as at the beginning of the thread he said you can't really judge teams by knockout games as anything can happen?
Poor @Twigg getting caught up in the feckwittery of his near namesake.
 
Atletico being offensivley poor when asked to take control of games as fecked this thread up.
When we were a defensive rock and asked every single player to focus on the defensive side more than going forward, to not take risks while relying on our efficency in front of goal get us through, we were deemed the most boring side ever and an embarassment to our history. Atletico play that way on steroids.
They really are poor to watch and would face the same problems we have if they played in England. Having Torres play up top would stifle them instantly. He would be their Rooney albatross when the game goes from end to end a lot quicker than it does in Spain.
Why? Atletico aren't like us at all. Instead of Rooney bumbling about they have Griezmann bossing it in attack. Instead of slow possession and a defence that isn't actually great, they pass it quicker and are actually defensively top class. Their CB's are top class, their fullbacks are excellent and their midfield has a nice mix of discipline and quality on the ball. They aren't very expansive but they are clinical (usually).
 
I'm pointing out why you can't use them!
Are you? Because you said this:
I think we are on a very similar level to Atletico Madrid yes.
Directly after the Atletico v PSV game? So technically you are. I didn't see you making these arguments about us and Atletico before the game? You're using the game to claim we are at the same level as Atletico, so you can try and claim the knock outs aren't foolproof, but in a weird, roundabout way you're still using them to justify us being at Atletico's level.
 
Why? Atletico aren't like us at all.
They are playing a better version of how we played from the start of the season to Novemberish..
They dont try to keep 95 percent posession but it is LVG's wet dream before he turned away from that style by public pressure.
We should try and get back to that for the remainder of the season imo but we seem to be playing this compromised hybrid where we are simply not good enough defensive or attacking wise.
Remember all those posts about how out defensive record was so good was due to keeping the ball so much and thus over -protecting our back 4? I say lets get back to that until the end of the season and ride this disaster out but that's a different topic.
 
Atletico being offensivley poor when asked to take control of games has fecked this thread up.
When we were a defensive rock and asked every single player to focus on the defensive side more than going forward, to not take risks while relying on our efficency in front of goal get us through, we were deemed the most boring side ever and an embarassment to our history. Atletico play that way on steroids.
They really are poor to watch and would face the same problems we have if they played in England. Having Torres play up top would stifle them instantly. He would be their Rooney albatross when the game goes from end to end a lot quicker than it does in Spain.

I understand what you are saying but that's a poot argument because we all know that in Sport bad matchups are a thing, a weaker team or league can be your kryptonite because of its characteristics. That's something that happens in TOP 14, very often the promoted teams have extremely strong scrums and lineouts becuase the Pro D2 is like that, the top of the TOP 14 is filled with skilled and fast players but the forwards aren't really better than the ones you will find in Pro D2, all of that will often mean that bottom table teams can destroy the scrums of top teams, that's what we saw last year with Oyonnax
 
At work now Balu, but I think the prem has been the strongest since about 2010. Really it's increased specifically this season and will be even better next season.
 
They are playing a better version of how we played from the start of the season to Novemberish..
They dont try to keep 95 percent posession but it is LVG's wet dream before he turned away from that style by public pressure.
We should try and get back to that for the remainder of the season imo but we seem to be playing this compromised hybrid where we are simply not good enough defensive or attacking wise.
Remember all those posts about how out defensive record was so good was due to keeping the ball so much and thus over -protecting our back 4? I say lets get back to that until the end of the season and ride this disaster out but that's a different topic.
Our defence was okay. Atletico's is phenomenal. Plus they've got a better midfield that wins more battles, and a better goalscorer.

I don't mind us going back to our old play style for a bit but it will take a lot more for us to be as good as them.
 
Hopefully United. An immediate step down in terms of quality, but we are far more wealthy and can overtake Atletico if we spend well and are managed properly.
God no. He would be crap in EPL going against top defenses each week. Like Alexis Sanchez, he would completely fail.

I would much prefer of we spend that money in elite world class players like Ross Barkley or Jamie Vardy.
 
Spanner, I'll respond well to people who deserve it. I respect Balu he is coming across well and making detailed posts. I have no idea how that post makes me a WUM and neither do you.
Because yoi chose somehow the year when EPL clubs dominance in Europe ended, as the year when EPL became the strongest league in the world.

Douglas Adams would have been proud with these type of arguments.