Are Man City the most boring team in the league?

Dec 29, 2021 -- 9:13PM, deliris wrote:

no, they are high level no doubt.

A high level but this is not entertaining to watch.

Brentford fans are singing about how boring Man City are. This second half has been horrible to watch.

1.20 away from home?

you wouldn't expect that even in Scotland

how short have City been in other games?

Dec 29, 2021 -- 10:01PM, Giuseppe wrote:

1.20 away from home? you wouldn't expect that even in Scotlandhow short have City been in other games?

Not sure but they're probably 1.1-1.2 at home to most of the bottom half teams.

At home to Norwich they'd be 1.07 or something.

Really is boring to watch when one team sucks the life out of it by having 90% of the ball. Yawn with 70 side way 5yrd passes per 5 minutes

They didn't even have a shot on target in the second half.  If they were playing in my back garden I'd close the curtains.

Barca under guardiola was the same, xavi, inniesta and busquets would make 300 passes in small triangle as a drill to bore the life out of an opponent. City are the same, it's ball retention at its best. U can't concede if u have the football for 81 minutes of the 90

No contest games are always boring for me. Nearly all the top teams in Europe play these games more often than not. Watching the likes of Spurs, Arsenal, Man U is much more entertaining the last few years. You genuinely don't know who's going to win most of the time. Chelsea under Roman have nearly always been a boring watch for me, whether they are good or bad, just something very boring about them.

i still prefer City winning to Utd or Liverpool no matter how boring they are

City over utd but City have technically become Utd

The prem is boring with the runaway leaders every season

i'm actually staring to like utd

it's so much more interesting when they are just an upper midtable team

you never know waht they are going to do, like in the 80s

To be fair I dont gate them anymore, Ive never liked Ferguson he always irritated me with his overrated “mind games”

Keegan and Newcastle lost the title because they couldnt defend not because they had their “minds taken” buy a dour Scotsman

City are just tedious now and I loved it when they pipped united to the title under Mancini

Bobby Manc

Top manager won things at pretty much every club

Dec 30, 2021 -- 2:13AM, SontaranStratagem wrote:

Top manager won things at pretty much every club

Lost an FA Cup final to Wigan.  Wigan.

To compete with city you have to be in their face from the off, too many teams stand off them, and let them do the passing routine. Basically got to work your arses off. Too many accept defeat before the ko.

This discussion shows what the money has done to the game here.

You try have ago at them you can get results
Stand off park the bus all game you get wracked
Beat you up if you let them
Far from boring I just want to see them Liverpool man get kick up the air a bit

Spain... Barca... now City.... this tica taca type football does eventually draw the boos from the opposing and neutral fans.

Yep... City are now very boring and their recent success has a very hollow ring to it. I'm guessing that true die hard City fans would agree

i suppose thats what you get when  you spend over £700m on players and bring a manager like Pep in
in a few years it will be Abu Dhabi versus Suadi Arabia as they try to out spend each other

1-0 to the Arsenal where boring 30 years ago
This type football in another league
People must miss neck brace football of the past !
If there calling this boring ,

Get the ball off them then. And then start passing to someone in your team instead of making a poor pass and showing you shouldn't be on anything like the money you are.

Having their two quickest players on the bench and the other unavailable was a problem last night.  ( Sterling , Mahrez , Walker )

city may well win at a canter but a league thats over before the turn of the year doesnt look good

Guardiola

champions league titles won without Messi: 0

he had an extraodrinary array of talent at Barca, half the Spanish national for **** sake, and he was responsible for signing very few of them

rommel is correct and really bad for the game in this country.

I find them very boring to watch.....however the opposition sitting off them instead of getting 'athletics level' fit and shutting them down instead of having the best view of their passing skills is truly baffling and idiotic.

It's all the more remarkable what Liverpool and Klopp have done on the net spend they did. Would be utter dominance under Pep if it wasn't for that. But once Pep goes it won't continue. He is the main reason for the level of dominance, not the money. United have spent more than him since he joined if you include wages.

For all the money he has spent a good chunk of it was on players that didn't really improve City at all. Guys like Mendy, Bravo, Torres, Ake, Nolito, Douglas Luiz, Danilo, Angelino cost about £200m. If you add Stones who has started less than half the league games since he joined and hasn't been great until quite recently and Grealish who hasn't had any impact yet really it's about £350m. I suppose at any other club bar PSG and United he might have had to spend better and not waste as much but it's his tactics that gets them 90+ points more than the quaity of players they have starting.

Klopp has spent 480 million

Most of those mentioned just buy up players to stop them going elsewhere. Those teams could field two sides in the premiership comfortably.

Don't give them ideas about entering 'B' teams into the competition.

Klopp has spent 480 million Laugh


genuine question  - what is the net spend?

2016/17
Liverpool: spend £71.91m;income £76.84m;net spend £+4.93m.
Manchester United: spend £166.50m;income £42.53m;net spend £-123.98m.

2017/18
spend £156.49m;income £175.05m;net spend £+18.56m
Manchester United: spend £178.56m;income £40.95m;net spend £-137.61m.

2018/19
Liverpool: spend £163.98m;income £37.19m;net spend £-126.79m
Manchester United: spend £74.43m;income £27.50m;net spend £-46.94m.

2019/20
Liverpool: spend £9.36m;income £37.44m;net spend £+28.08m
Manchester United: spend £204.10m;income £73.06m;net spend £-131.04m

2020/21
spend £74.39m;income £38.88m;net spend £-35.51m.
Manchester United: spend £75.15m;income £16.56m;net spend £-58.59m.

much less than man u and obviously 2021/22 was the same. Man City and Chelski obviously are the big net spenders

what is more impressive about Klopp is that Pep inherited a very strong squad who had already won the EPL and the likes of Aquerro were at their peak

God forbid that Newcastle might be able to spend these sums now

it isn't fair

they are buying success

Pep Guardiola's net spend heading into his fifth season at Manchester City is negative £533m - that was not including the last transfer window

Dec 30, 2021 -- 5:56PM, rothko wrote:

Pep Guardiola's net spend heading into his fifth season at Manchester City is negative £533m - that was not including the last transfer window

Maybe you can show us how you arrived at this figure.

sorry last 2 transfer windows

SEASON    SPEND    REVENUE    +/-
16/17    £193m    £32m    -£161m
17/18    £285m    £82m    -£203m
18/19    £70m    £49m    -£21m
19/20    £150m    £62m    -£88m
20/21    £134m    £40m    -£-94m
Total    £    £832m    265m    -£567m

sorry was a bit short £567M

shouldn't be a minus there

the word "spend" alreadt implies a net outgoing

Big difference between spending money from player sales, like Liverpool did, and just spending oil money. Even Chelsea's net spend is quite good over the last few years. They bought Lukaku in the summer for £100m and still had a negative net spend. Tomori, Abraham, Zouma, Livramento and Zappacosta fees more than covered it.

But for those who think it's just about money, consider that if City win the league again this year at a canter, they'll have done it two years in a row without a striker. That is down to the manager and is unprecedented. They are scoring 2.5 a game this season on average so far, even more than last year. Won't be too far off 100 goals again without a No.9.

I find the whole Premier League fairly boring - I haven't watched MOTD for years.

Its all pretty predictable over the full season, because there is such monetary difference between the teams.

It's much worse in other leagues. PSG's wage bill is 3 times the next highest in France. Its mainly down to Klopp and Pep in England rather than money. Chelsea and Man U aren't far off City in terms of money and are both well ahead of Liverpool on spending too. A massive source of revenue nowadays is profit on player sales. Chelsea and Liverpool are brilliant at this. The likes of City, Man U and Arsenal are awful at it. Liverpool have managed to largely bridge the spending gap to United and City thru profits on player sales primarily.

The difference with PSG and City is that they rarely need to sell players and rarely make profit on players they buy. They don't have to because they have a bottomless pit to tap into and don't have to operate in the real world. FFP does little to stop this even though that's exactly what it's there for. Chelsea are similar - they have a £1.4bn interest free debt on their books repayable to Roman on 18 months notice but notice is never given. Basically all the money he has pumped in over the years and they don't operate in reality either.

Its all pretty predictable over the full season, because there is such monetary difference between the teams.


It's been the same since English factory owners started paying Scots to 'work' in their factories 150 years ago. Loads of teams went bust in late C19th or stayed amateur at best. money has basically always run the game whatever people think about the 'good old days'.

Yes £20 a week maximum wage 1961 which allowed clubs such as Burnley, Huddersfield, Ipswich etc to become champions.

Owners abused the rules that they themselves wrote with regard to payments from year dot. The difference being that the money involved was of a size where a successful local bigwig could invest a bit and with a bit of luck get a decent team together. That still happens except today on top of that, you have the super rich clubs but money has always ruled.

"It's much worse in other leagues. PSG's wage bill is 3 times the next highest in France."

PSG didn't even win their league last year

sometimes i get teh impression you're just here to show off and try to look smart

"Yes £20 a week maximum wage 1961 which allowed clubs such as Burnley, Huddersfield, Ipswich etc to become champions."

also Portmouth and Sheff Wed won titles in the 30s and 40s

only "small" teams to have won it since then have been Derby, Forest and Leicester

"Most of those mentioned just buy up players to stop them going elsewhere. Those teams could field two sides in the premiership comfortably."

this is a problem that doesn't get talked about enough

in the past big clubs always had top players but they didn't have 30 of them

those players should be playing for other teams

i ahte this byusiness of top clubs loaning out youngsters to samller teams that shouldnt be allowed

loans should "try before you buy"

clubs in lower divisons shouldn't be giving man city youngsters like bazunu experience

not sure Derby and Forest even were small teams

Forest at least had a fair bit of money back then i think

Leciester are really the only shock winners in the last 60 years

i would love Atalanta to win a championship in Italy

this is what football should be all about

in the past they probbaly would have

Yes and those clubs mentioned with their surplus players are wanting extra subs too.   What a surprise!!

MU were relegated in 1974

Spurs were relegated in 1977

Chelsea were relegated in 1988

Man City were in now Division 1 in 1998

I just can't see it happening any of that happening now - possibly Newcastle could go down.

Forest were a smallish club for the top tier - Derby the same and Leicester

I agree money has always being a big help to any club, but the differences are bigger now. You need a billionaire backer for a top 4 spot.

i ahte the five subs rule

favours big teams and shyte managers

if you've got your tactics and seclection wrong you should have to face the consequences

if your 100m start striker isn;t playing well just bring on another

Chelsea and Man City weren't big teams at the time

didn't Forest break the transfer record when they signed Trevor Francis? they must have had some money

another thijng, Liverpool' success in the 70s and 80s wasn't based on money

they didn; even get huge crowds back then

"I agree money has always being a big help to any club, but the differences are bigger now."

yes

it would be virtually impossible for a club like Man Utd to get relegated now

missing out of the champions league for a season or two is about as bad as it is going to get for them

even if they had a horribvle start to the season, 10 defeats in a row, they would just keep changing the manager and but an ecntire new team in january

limit all clubs to 20 senior professionals

make them use youth players when squads are stretched

Dec 31, 2021 -- 1:07PM, Giuseppe wrote:

"It's much worse in other leagues. PSG's wage bill is 3 times the next highest in France."PSG didn't even win their league last yearsometimes i get teh impression you're just here to show off and try to look smart

Why does it matter whether they won their league last year? They won it 7 out of 8 years before that. Are you trying to suggest that the French league is competitve?

The disparity in France and Germany is massive. Bayern took the second placed team's centre half, centre mid and manager last summer after winning the league by 13 points. At least you have a few genuine contenders for the league in England at the start of most seasons.

"Are you trying to suggest that the French league is competitve? "

yes

Montpellier (!), Monaco and Lille have all won league titles in the last ten years

all since PSG was taken over by Qatar

Utd have a higher net spend then City since Pep took over........so not sure unlimited spend always works as proven in Utds case

yes utd are just as bad

i don't care where the money comes from

utd don't have a "right" to spend money just because they have more fans

They don't have a right to spend their own money? That's a new one.

Make the Premier League a total salary cap league, but allow the clubs playing in Europe to have a separate squad and extra players allowed for domestic cup games - Say total salary allowed per playing EPL squad is £100m.  Then you would really find out the best managers and the EPL would be more competitive.

another thijng, Liverpool' success in the 70s and 80s wasn't based on money

they didn; even get huge crowds back then


WALOFS  Suppose dalglish and Souness were for peanuts to =name just two.  They got 43,000 crowd v York City  ( FA Cup '85 )

I remember going to Anfield in the 70s for a game that they could seal the title on if they won. They managed to win it at a later date but at 1.30 the gates were closed for a 3pm kick off.

"They don't have a right to spend their own money? That's a new one."

of course they do

as do man city's owners

it's none of UEFA's business

Liverpool didn't sell out Anfield in the 80s

crowds were 30,000 - 40,000

sometimes under 30,000

they are actually a bigger club now than they were back then

their success was not built on money

season picked at random

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984%E2%80%9385_Liverpool_F.C._season

lowest league crowd 27,000 for Coventry, that;'s almost half empty

several games under 30,000

(judging by the crowd for Everton 45,000 which I assume was a sell out)

Liverpool v Man Utd

35,000 at Anfield

57,000 at Old Trafford

that's the 84-85 season in case the link is unclear

Liverpool finished second that year and reached the cup fonal so they weren't shyte

there was 50,000 at Arsenal v Liverpool at Highbury

Liverpool isn't a big city

lots of their fans nowadays are not from Liverpool, they are glory hunting fans from elsewhere

that is why the crowds are bigger

irish and norwegian fans couldn't afford to fly in for a game in the 80s, they can now

i think the mid 80s was the all time low for english football attendance

but liverpool's crowds were surprisngly low, even by the standards of teh time

Ref Liverpool in the late 1970s (not on the cheap)

Liverpool paid a record British fee for Dalglish in August 1977

Liverpool paid a record English to English club fee for Souness in Dec 1977

did Liverpool have more money than Utd, Arsenal and Spurs in the 80s?

or even Everton?

I ****g hate Liverpool but the truth is they never bought titles

how could Liverpool have bought titles with those sorts of crowds in a realtively poor city like Liverpool?

Liverpool were well supported in the late 70s - 55,000 at Anfield when Boro played there for FAC 6th round in 1977 - all the scousers had come to see Alf Wood

here are Liverpool's crowds from 76-77

a few 50,000+ crowds in the title run in

otherwise mostly 40-50,000

sellouts were rare

and crowds were lower in the 80s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976%E2%80%9377_Liverpool_F.C._season

football wasn't as popular then as it is now it was in decline and bottomed out in the mid 80s before recovering

They sold Keegan to Hamburg in 1977 to pay for Dalglish.

Top English footballers were on £500/week not £200,000/week as now.

37,000 for QPR

thats 2/3 full

yes everything was much more even back then

it was rare that any club "bought" titles

Dec 31, 2021 -- 8:58PM, Giuseppe wrote:

yes everything was much more even back thenit was rare that any club "bought" titles

Think Blackburn were the first team to buy the title.

maybe yes

though they still probbaly had a smaller or similar budget that fergie's utd

Dec 31, 2021 -- 9:10PM, Giuseppe wrote:

maybe yesthough they still probbaly had a smaller or similar budget that fergie's utd

Man Utd were spending funds that were generated by the club. Blackburn were entirely funded by an outside benefactor (Jack Walker).

Klopp has spent 480 million

And raked in how much by selling? In that time however, he has won the league and the champions league. Just saying. Happy new year!

In response to OP - Yes.

Liverpool is not a small city. Only Birmingham bigger. Obviously London is on a different level.

Derby & Forest were big enough clubs. As big as Man City or Chelsea in the day.

Arsenal the latest to get drilled

If every team played like Arsenal today against them, don't sit back but get in their faces, the league would be a lot more interesting. Sitting back works well against Liverpool but not City. That's been the case for years but few teams play like that against City still.

The mighty Villa used to get 40,000 in the third division early seventies. 62,000 for a cup match against Utd, 54,000 for a friendly against Santos. No wonder the future King of England is a fan.

"Man Utd were spending funds that were generated by the club."

so what?

"Liverpool is not a small city. Only Birmingham bigger."

off the top of my head Leeds and Sheffield are both bigger

are Liverpool even the most popular team in Liverpool?

Liverpool were an upper mid tabel team no bigger than Leeds who achieved success through good caching and recruitment

they weren#t the financial superclub they are today

The  best  team in Europe, and they are at last going to win the Champions league. {Premier League all over top bookmakers will be  paying out early) foot note Burnley at last  will be  relegated.Happy New Year.

Why are you pleased about a small town club being relegated and how do you think Guardiola would fare at Burnley under their budget?

Jan 2, 2022 -- 10:27AM, sparrow wrote:

Why are you pleased about a small town club being relegated and how do you think Guardiola would fare at Burnley under their budget?

its a cup competition and  pep 5 brains gets in a muddle,any certainty is foolish

sorry that was to sp