The relative strength of the Premier League

Twigginater said:
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?
Click to expand...
You're thanking me showing you a list that proves that PL teams spend inflated sums of money on on building teams that are no better than their Spanish counterparts (and often worse)? Erm, Okay.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
Are you deliberately being thick?

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?
Click to expand...
That was going to be my first question...

I mean, I see the point he's trying to arrive at, which is that in the long run, you can expect money to equalise a lot of the disparities, if used efficiently (and not wasted on Raheem Sterling). But he's taking a really strange way of getting to it.
 
JPRouve said:
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.
Click to expand...

Insane. That's just insane.

If you can't look at the players that teams like Stoke, Sunderland and West Brom are signing and claim they're not better than similar teams lower in La Liga, I'm sorry but I can't accept it.
 
All seems a superficial comparison to me. It's competitive sports. What matters are the medals and trophies. Do people care a great deal about how rich german clubs were in the 70s or how strong that league was? All that sticks are what they won at club and country. In 20years' time and beyond, the discussion of which country was strongest during 2010+ won't be which league was richest or spent the most on players. One look and the answer is conclusive.
 
Donaldo said:
That was going to be my first question...

I mean, I see the point he's trying to arrive at, which is that in the long run, you can expect money to equalise a lot of the disparities, if used efficiently (and not wasted on Raheem Sterling). But he's taking a really strange way of getting to it.
Click to expand...

His point seems to be that clubs spending a lot of money in the premier league doesn't seem to arrive at success.

Well yeah, that's what I know.

But they're still drastically improving the quality of the squad.
 
Twigginater said:
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)
Click to expand...
But that is just one tournament. When Spain went to shit, and England did what everyone (bar Englishmen) expected.

Spain's number of players they produce is in a different level to England (or for that any matter, to any European country bar Germany and possibly France). It shows well on their successes, be it on club level or in international level when they won 2 euros and a world cup. When is the last time that England won a trophy? Or for that matter, went to a final? Or wait, when is the last time that England went to a semi final? Probably around the same time as Czech Republic.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
You're thanking me showing you a list that proves that PL teams spend inflated sums of money on on building teams that are no better than their Spanish counterparts (and often worse)? Erm, Okay.
Click to expand...

I have no idea at how you arrive at "no better than their Spanish counterparts"

I think they're a lot better.
 
Twigginater said:
Yes.

I get it. I think Premier League clubs have better teams.
Click to expand...
Better at what? Because it's obvious not at playing football.

You do know football isn't played on paper, right? You can't just say 'oh this collection of names is better so they have a better team' and ignore the domination of Europe by these supposedly weaker teams. It's ming bogglingly stupid.
 
Twigginater said:
I have no idea at how you arrive at "no better than their Spanish counterparts"

I think they're a lot better.
Click to expand...
By watching them.

I have no idea how you came to your conclusion? Probably transfer fees.

It's like the Townsend or Shelvey or even Benteke transfer. In La Liga those sorts of players would go for a lot less. The PL market is just much more inflated. It doesn't mean they're necessarily building a better team.
 
Revan said:
But that is just one tournament. When Spain went to shit, and England did what everyone (bar Englishmen) expected.

Spain's number of players they produce is in a different level to England (or for that any matter, to any European country bar Germany and possibly France). It shows well on their successes, be it on club level or in international level when they won 2 euros and a world cup. When is the last time that England won a trophy? Or for that matter, went to a final? Or wait, when is the last time that England went to a semi final? Probably around the same time as Czech Republic.
Click to expand...

THat's just one tournament, but the one before that was FOUR years ago! At a club level, when was the last time a succesful Spanish club blooded in a top quality youngster from Spain? They have ONE player under the age of 24 in their outfield squad.
 
Arguing with Twigginater for the strength of the might EPL and the mighty England is as pointless and brain damaging as arguing with Glaston about the strength of the mighty 'forever below Arsenal' Spurs.

I am out of this thread. Again!
 
Twigginater said:
THat's just one tournament, but the one before that was FOUR years ago! At a club level, when was the last time a succesful Spanish club blooded in a top quality youngster from Spain? They have ONE player under the age of 24 in their outfield squad.
Click to expand...
Saul? Koke?
 
Rado_N said:
Better at what? Because it's obvious not at playing football.

You do know football isn't played on paper, right? You can't just say 'oh this collection of names is better so they have a better team' and ignore the domination of Europe by these supposedly weaker teams. It's ming bogglingly stupid.
Click to expand...

You can tell some football on paper. You just have to. I know that right now if I was offering you a football club and I offered you Sunderland's or Rayo's squad you'd take Sunderlands.

I know if I offered you Stoke's or Malaga's you'd take Stoke's.

Apart from Barcelona and Real (who I have said are better than their English counterparts but would find it a lot harder in the Prem), Spanish record v Premier League clubs isn't that great is it?

I mean this year City battered Sevilla and Liverpool knocked out the fourth placed team in Spain?

Are Liverpool paradoxically better than Villareal but worse than Sevilla, while Villareal are better than Sevilla?
 
Revan said:
Arguing with Twigginater for the strength of the might EPL and the mighty England is as pointless and brain damaging as arguing with Glaston about the strength of the mighty 'forever below Arsenal' Spurs.

I am out of this thread. Again!
Click to expand...
:lol: It really is nuts.

I really thought plain old comparative numbers might do the trick.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
By watching them.
Click to expand...

How on Earth can you watch two teams in different countries and say one team is better than the other.

That logic is so so stupid. I'm sorry I've tried to be nice but it just is. You can not possibly watch two different leagues and compare the quality of the player.
 
Twigginater said:
What numbers?
Click to expand...
The ones that clearly showed that A) the PL clubs are living in an inflated market, and B) the correlation between their spending and the quality of their teams doesn't work when compared to La Liga teams. Newcastle, Sunderland Aston Villa should be decent teams by La Liga standards going by their spending, but they're terrible and would get smashed in that league as well.

Twigginater said:
How on Earth can you watch two teams in different countries and say one team is better than the other.

That logic is so so stupid. I'm sorry I've tried to be nice but it just is. You can not possibly watch two different leagues and compare the quality of the player.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean, if Barcelona never met Manchester City in the CL and embarrassed them, how would I know which team is better. HOW!?!
 
amolbhatia50k said:
The ones that clearly showed that A) the PL clubs are living in an inflated market, and B) the correlation between their spending and the quality of their teams doesn't work when compared to La Liga teams. Newcastle, Sunderland Aston Villa should be decent teams by La Liga standards going by their spending, but they're terrible and would get smashed in that league as well.


Yeah, I mean, if Barcelona never met Manchester City in the CL and embarrassed them, how would I know which team is better. HOW!?!
Click to expand...

But Newcastle, Sunderland and Aston Villa would be midtable clubs in La Liga.
 
Twigginater said:
How on Earth can you watch two teams in different countries and say one team is better than the other.

That logic is so so stupid. I'm sorry I've tried to be nice but it just is. You can not possibly watch two different leagues and compare the quality of the player.
Click to expand...
And btw, how on earth can you say Newcastle and Sunderland by virtue of spending a combined 80 million are better than most La Liga teams.

That's genuinely stupid logic.

Watching team's play is obviously a lot more sensible. And btw, I don't watch the two teams and go "rayo better than stoke". I see two strong leagues with one's top end being much stronger than the other, and the "rest" of both being of a good standard.
 
I can see it right now.

Aston Villa, relegated half way through the PL season, finishing 12th in La Liga :lol:

Newcastle with their bumbling mess of a team finishing 8th.

I wonder why we bother playing in the CL!
 
I've followed this thread throughout and it seems like Twigginater's core argument has revolved around

- The PL teams being stronger because they have more money. The strength of the national teams, youth academies in Spain in comparison to England is irrelevant, though
- matches in European competitions being largely irrelevant, which I'm sure has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Spanish teams have dominated Europe for the last five years whilst English teams have done very poorly
- English teams have to play more matches despite that not actually being the case at all
- The PL is more competitive and thus it's harder for English teams throughout the season so they suffer in Europe, despite there actually being zero evidence to support the idea that it is more competitive
- Right now England's producing better young players than Spain because of.. Dele Alli

Seems very concrete to me. Can't argue with that at all, really.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
And btw, how on earth can you say Newcastle and Sunderland by virtue of spending a combined 80 million are better than most La Liga teams.

That's genuinely stupid logic.

Watching team's play is obviously a lot more sensible. And btw, I don't watch the two teams and go "rayo better than stoke". I see two strong leagues with one's top end being much stronger than the other, and the "rest" of both being of a good standard.
Click to expand...

Because you look at the international standing of these players, you look at the players they've brought in and how well they have done in other leagues.

You look at players who have come from other leagues and how they have done there.

Sunderland for example, are ten times better than Rayo. You must know it if you look at their squads.
 
Twigginater said:
Because you look at the international standing of these players, you look at the players they've brought in and how well they have done in other leagues.

You look at players who have come from other leagues and how they have done there.

Sunderland for example, are ten times better than Rayo. You must know it if you look at their squads.
Click to expand...
Is that so? What did you think of 13 million pound Mitrovic? How good was his "international standing"? And after that assessment you made, how good was he really? Did you know that he cost as much as CL winning Rakitic cost Barcelona? :lol:
 
Twigginater said:
Because you look at the international standing of these players, you look at the players they've brought in and how well they have done in other leagues.

You look at players who have come from other leagues and how they have done there.

Sunderland for example, are ten times better than Rayo. You must know it if you look at their squads.
Click to expand...
It's worse than I thought.
 
Massive Spanner said:
I've followed this thread throughout and it seems like Twigginater's core argument has revolved around

- The PL teams being stronger because they have more money. The strength of the national teams, youth academies in Spain in comparison to England is irrelevant, though
- matches in European competitions being largely irrelevant, which I'm sure has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Spanish teams have dominated Europe for the last five years whilst English teams have done very poorly
- English teams have to play more matches despite that not actually being the case at all
- The PL is more competitive and thus it's harder for English teams throughout the season so they suffer in Europe, despite there actually being zero evidence to support the idea that it is more competitive
- Right now England's producing better young players than Spain because of.. Dele Alli

Seems very concrete to me. Can't argue with that at all, really.
Click to expand...

Well done you have boiled a complex argument into a load of sarcastic comments that completely go over what I've said.

Apt name.
 
Twigginater said:
How on Earth can you watch two teams in different countries and say one team is better than the other.

That logic is so so stupid. I'm sorry I've tried to be nice but it just is. You can not possibly watch two different leagues and compare the quality of the player.
Click to expand...

Twigginater said:
Because you look at the international standing of these players, you look at the players they've brought in and how well they have done in other leagues.

You look at players who have come from other leagues and how they have done there.

Sunderland for example, are ten times better than Rayo. You must know it if you look at their squads.
Click to expand...
 
Honest question then guys.

Answer me truthfully. The most midtable position in the league is 10th. Can't get more midtable than that?

In the Prem, Chelsea finished 10th. In La Liga it was Las Palmas.

Even though they've never played each other, can you tell me who the better team is?

And do you think their team is better than Sunderland's team?
 
amolbhatia50k said:
I can see it right now.

Aston Villa, relegated half way through the PL season, finishing 12th in La Liga :lol:

Newcastle with their bumbling mess of a team finishing 8th.

I wonder why we bother playing in the CL!
Click to expand...
If Twigginater was head of FA, he wouldn't allow English clubs and English National Team to compete in international competition, cause they're better by default.
 
Twigginater said:
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..
Click to expand...
That's a load of bollocks though and is clearly agenda-driven. It's a cop-out managers reach for to justify a poor European performance.

The vast resource gulf didn't seem to stop English clubs from dominating the Champions League in the second half of the 2000s. Nor did it stop the Serie A champions from dominating the European Cup and Champions League when that league was the richest in the world.
 
Twigginater said:
Honest question then guys.

Answer me truthfully. The most midtable position in the league is 10th. Can't get more midtable than that?

In the Prem, Chelsea finished 10th. In La Liga it was Las Palmas.

Even though they've never played each other, can you tell me who the better team is?

And do you think their team is better than Sunderland's team?
Click to expand...

Chelsea has the better roster and they are 10th because football isn't played by robots and isn't played on paper, Chelsea's players failed mentally.
 
Gio said:
That's a load of bollocks though and is clearly agenda-driven. It's a cop-out managers reach for to justify a poor European performance.

The vast resource gulf didn't seem to stop English clubs from dominating the Champions League in the second half of the 2000s. Nor did it stop the Serie A champions from dominating the European Cup and Champions League when that league was the richest in the world.
Click to expand...

Why woud Bale say it after moving to Madrid then?

In the 2000s the top Premier League clubs had way more money compared to the rest as they do now. Nowadays teams all over the Prem shop from the top table in the world.
 
JPRouve said:
Chelsea has the better roster and they are 10th because football isn't played by robots and isn't played on paper, Chelsea's players failed mentally.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not played on paper. Often teams can spring upsets.

But safe to say that, on paper at least, Newcastle, Sunderland and Chelsea all have much better squads? And you'd expect them to finish higher? Especially if Rafa Benitez (come from the second biggest club in Spain to a Championship club) was managing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.