Maybe in Eredivisie but nowhere else.
The relative strength of the Premier League
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
Maybe in Eredivisie but nowhere else.
Correction, winning a competition means nothing. Winning it 3 years straight means even less. Evidently, many of the sides who you outperformed to win the competition have better teams than you. Its just the laws of football.
Precisely. Going by his line of argument mid table/lower end PL teams should be stronger than Seville. So why aren't they? Is it because *shock horror* it's also about how well you're managed and how well you spend the money?
Well you only get in the competition in the first place for doing poorly in the league! You'll be hard to find a large club who've been in the Europa League three years in a row.
Spain had more success in the last 4 years than England in the last 40. In case you forgot, less than 4 years ago:
^ Don't see any Deli Ali level player there, Balu
Yep. That win 4-0 against Italy was wonderful to watch. The white Pele scoring goals after goals and Steve Me and Fat Lampard running the show in the middle.
By my argument (Money = Quality) normally. Real Madrid, Barce, Manchester United, Bayern Munich and Man City would currently be the best clubs in the world.
Barce, Bayern, Man United, PSG and Juventus would win their respective leagues.
However, there are large clubs who struggle to get into that competition year after year. For example, Liverpool.
Spain had more success in the last 4 years than England in the last 40. In case you forgot, less than 4 years ago:
Completely different team will be playing now obviously was my point.
Yeah, a lot of massive clubs in the Premier League will miss out this year...
EDIT: Liverpool who were good enough to get to the final come eighth in the league.
Chelsea who did well in the CL finished 10th...
Best clubs, yes. Not best teams. Which is what the discussion is about.
And? None of the 5 players Newcastle bought for a shitload of money this year is a better DM than he is?
So were Fulham. What a team.
I mean, it's pretty telling that we've got three of the four teams in the CL semi finals as being three of the top five richest clubs in the world.
Money has a direct correlation with success.
Yep. In the starting lineup the only players who played in 2012 and who will play now are: Casillas, Ramos, Pique, Alba, Busquets, Iniesta and Silva, with other players like Cazorla, Mata, Torres, Fabregas and so being there too. Completely different.
Torres, Mata and Carzola aren't in the squad. Obviously players like Casillas, Iniesta and others have declined.
Not in England right now, which kinda points to an underlying problem. A massive one.
Is it a problem? I'd argue that the money being sunk into the English game creates a better quality league with multiple clubs managing to spring upsets.
It may change how English clubs do in the CL (As Mourinho and Bale have alluded to in their interviews) but it creates a compelling league that continues to grow and attract viewers.
EDIT: There was much talk in German papers about players being poached into the Premier League this last summer. I think their league is one that certainly needs to worry more.
Indeed, my mistake. Didn't see that Del Bosque has made the list.
Casillas has declined, but then they have De Gea who is better than Casillas ever was. Iniesta has declined but they have new starts like Koke or Isco.
You only have to look at the following to see how flawed the argument is:
1) United - Over 200 million spent over two years yet the football is terrible and we finished 5th in the league.
2) City spent 153 million last summer and have had a miserable league season. They've been pathetic.
3) Chelsea spent 66.15 million and have been rubbish.
4) West Brom spent 32.5 million. What a team they have.
5) Newcastle spent 49.25 million and were a joke.
6) Sunderland spent 31.45 million and just about survived.
7) C. Palace spent 25.5 million. They're bang average.
8) Liverpool spent 78.4 million. I mean, come on now.
9) Aston Villa spent 54 million. They had a great 15/16.
10) Southampton spent 36.7 million. Nice team, but that's a lot of money by La Liga standards.
There's a trend there of a lot of teams spending a lot of money because they have it and people knowing they have it. La Liga teams spend a fraction of those sums and build just as good teams if not better.
1) United - Over 200 million spent over two years yet the football is terrible and we finished 5th in the league.
2) City spent 153 million last summer and have had a miserable league season. They've been pathetic.
3) Chelsea spent 66.15 million and have been rubbish.
4) West Brom spent 32.5 million. What a team they have.
5) Newcastle spent 49.25 million and were a joke.
6) Sunderland spent 31.45 million and just about survived.
7) C. Palace spent 25.5 million. They're bang average.
8) Liverpool spent 78.4 million. I mean, come on now.
9) Aston Villa spent 54 million. They had a great 15/16.
10) Southampton spent 36.7 million. Nice team, but that's a lot of money by La Liga standards.
There's a trend there of a lot of teams spending a lot of money because they have it and people knowing they have it. La Liga teams spend a fraction of those sums and build just as good teams if not better.
We can argue about who is stronger nowadays all you want. It's going to be quite hard to do.
My point was using Spain's continued international success as proof that they produce better quality youngsters is now not fair as they haven't done anything more than England in the past four years (by this I mean since the end of the last Euros, we'll have to see about this summer)
Am I?Are you now discrediting the standard of competition in the Europa League..
I'm saying that a poor/average team can go on a good cup run and make a final. Anomalies happen.
That's flawed as you're not looking at the money recouperated as well. Aston Villa for example spent nowhere near 54 million realistically.
That correlation is particularly true with wages and the problem is that in England the wage market is extremely inflated which makes it a poor evaluator. So in theory you are right money has a direct correlation with success but english are so poor at board level that they destroyed that logic.
Edit: You can use money as an evaluator within the league but not outside of it, that's why I said several times that the PL lives in its own market.
YES! Thank you!
Eh? How does it matter how much they recuperated?
The whole point is that more money spent does not necessarily equal a stronger team.
You're bringing up`irrelevant points.
Yeah, English clubs have to spend more on wages and transfers.
They are still bringing in better quality players though.
I just gave you a list of nearly half the PL teams and you're playing the anomaly card
Of course money spent has to recognise how much money was collected as well. Aston Villa lost their club captain, their star striker and about 10 squad players.
I just gave you a list of nearly half the PL teams and you're playing the anomaly card
If you're showing me a list of money spent in the Premier Leauge and showing that it's hard to do well in this league because everyone is spending money... well. Thank you again?
La Liga teams have far higher standards, superior coaching and scouting. I swear, there are always good technical players popping up out of nowhere in La Liga playing like they've veterans. I never even heard of Cedric Bakambu, yet the guy has 20+ goals for Villarreal. Sevilla has Gameiro scoring 20+ goals too while he was quite average before his move to Sevilla. Before 13/14 I never even heard of Krychowiak, yet he's been a solid midfielder for them.
Yep, football is not about winning. It is about spending money.No, they are not, they are bringing more expensive players. Only City, Chelsea and United actually bring better players on a regularly basis, the rest mainly brings average players at top quality price.
Are you deliberately being thick?
Of course money spent has to recognise how much money was collected as well. Aston Villa lost their club captain, their star striker and about 10 squad players.
La Liga teams don't lose players? Isn't it better than PL teams recuperate big money for their players?
And how is ANY of that causing them to build a shit team?
What on Earth are you on about?
Sevilla beat Liverpool.
They also lost to Man City this year.
Football is about building the best squad and winning as many games. Spending money allows you to do this more easily.
So for example, you don't think that teams like Stoke, Southampton, Sunderland and West Brom are signing better players than Malaga, Rayo, Granada and Deportivo?
Bakambu is french and was one of our good young strikers while Gameiro was a very good french strikers but his physical attributes put him in a niche, Krychowiak was probably the best midfielder in Ligue 1 when he was there.
No, I don't think they do, they sign players who rightfully failed in other leagues, sometimes in big clubs and treat them like stars.