Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Racingqueen
19 May 24 18:03
Joined:
Date Joined: 02 Jul 11
| Topic/replies: 8,160 | Blogger: Racingqueen's blog
If Liverpool don't win their single league in 30ish years, this would be 7 on the spin for Man City

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  Previous 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 54
By:
morpteh mackem
When: 19 May 24 18:41
Also 26 points was enough to stop up on ( on gd ) . Time for FA to have a rethink . Bigger restrictions on spending, wages, not state controlled teams  perhaps ?
By:
tobermory
When: 19 May 24 18:46
It is competitive, in that there is competition for the title.

Not like City have it wrapped up in February every year.
By:
Racingqueen
When: 19 May 24 18:49
Yes they do. By Feb every year, there are 2 possibilities.....1 is City chuck it (Ie the year Liverpool won it and they lost 9 games and still finished 15 points clear of 3rd Crazy. Extremely rare.) or they win it.
By:
morpteh mackem
When: 19 May 24 18:49

May 19, 2024 -- 6:46PM, tobermory wrote:


It is competitive, in that there is competition for the title.Not like City have it wrapped up in February every year.


20 league teams, only 2 possibly 3  can win it. Rest are cannon fodder.

By:
tobermory
When: 19 May 24 18:54
So only City or possibly Arsenal/Liverpool can win it?

Well yeah they are the 3 best teams right now. Not usually gonna be more than 3 likely contenders in the last 40 years.

If Chelsea or Man United aren't competing for it, then it's not down to them not having enough money.

The contenders don't stay the same either. Arsenal were no hopers 3 years ago, wouldn't be surprised if Newcastle made a challenge before long.
By:
tobermory
When: 19 May 24 18:58
For a time when, before the season started, there would be 5,6 or 7 teams that could realistically win the title, you'd have to back to the mid 70s.
By:
Des Pond
When: 19 May 24 19:07
Money and flagrant corruption have just about ruined boxing. Now, along with VAR, they're well on their way to ruining football.
By:
morpteh mackem
When: 19 May 24 19:48
and  man city already odds on for next season....
By:
penzance
When: 19 May 24 19:54
People don't like wnrs or a winning mentality.
By:
rothko
When: 19 May 24 20:07
its been a poor PL this year evidenced by the performances in europe where the PL clubs were embarrassed

the standard of defending is woeful Cry
By:
PorcupineorPineapple
When: 19 May 24 20:13
To be fair, Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1 and the Bundesliga were all wrapped up weeks ago. Only one big league went to the final day. Only issue is that there was never really any jeopardy. We all knew City wouldn't slip up. If it had been Arsenal slightly ahead people would be calling it one of the best title races.
By:
Analyst
When: 19 May 24 21:01
Look at the bottom too - the predicted bottom 3 were the bottom 3.

Villa were a big surprise, but after that surprises were very limited.
By:
brentford
When: 19 May 24 21:07
its been a poor PL this year evidenced by the performances in europe where the PL clubs were embarrassed

Citeh outplayed the eventual winners in all likelihood and lost on pens while having to play in a 3 wat title tilt each weekend..

L'pool were really poor against an average side in Atalanta mainly because their focus was still the EPL title...
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 19 May 24 21:20
Newcastle beat losing semi finalists PSG 4-1
and almost won in Paris bar a VAR decision later
deemed to be an error.

Premier league is very tough, and competitive, and
teams get stronger year on year.

It's taking a lot out of the players though


Injuries seem higher than ever.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 19 May 24 21:22
It's possible the top teams get a slightly easy
ride as others won't put in the required effort
against them, thinking it a waste, and saving
energy for more realistic targets.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 19 May 24 21:23
Easier, not easy.
By:
PorcupineorPineapple
When: 19 May 24 21:32
Yeah, the "they failed in Europe" is always a crap line. It's a knockout competition. One bad game, one dodgy sending off, one bad VAR call and you're done.


I do think there are issues with competitiveness in the league though. I was talking with a mate a few days ago about a game from 1999 - Derby v Liverpool. Least I think it was this one. I was compiling footy odds at the time and I think we had Liverpool at 11/10 on the weekend coupon. But money came in and we made the pretty unprecedented decision to cut the price. Had to ask all the shop staff to get the coupons and over-write it with 8/11. Doesn't matter now of course, but the point is this season Liverpool would probably be around 2/5 for the game. The gap between top and bottom has just gotten bigger and bigger. Top teams knew they would be given a test away from home. Now? It's a bit of a doddle. If anything, the crap teams are resting players for more winnable matches.

Amusing this is though that the ones most moaning about City's billions are the other big clubs who no longer have it their own way. Utd outspent everyone in the 90s and are still one of the very highest spenders now, but hide behind "well, we're big so we deserve to spend more". But their version of competitiveness just means they carry on winning like they used to and no-one else having the same wherewithal to spend billions. The game needs an overhaul. More sharing of revenues (inc down the ladder), more limits on spending and salaries, more focus on looking after the sport and the people who love it rather than chasing more record revenues.
By:
brentford
When: 19 May 24 21:36
Was good up to to the point it missed L'pool being big spenders in the 80's...
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 19 May 24 21:36
Real Madrid don't make excuses in Europe, they just win, can't be a coincidence, can't be all luck.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 19 May 24 21:40
The bottom 3 struggled.

The 3 that went down are likely stronger
than 3 that came up.

The teams 11-15th are way stronger than
they were in 70s/80s
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 19 May 24 21:41
If Real played in Premier league they'd find
Europe a bit tougher
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 19 May 24 21:45
Bruno has covered 423 km in Premier League this season.

Staggering(Mischief)
By:
brentford
When: 19 May 24 21:45
Madrid got the drop on EPL sides with massive spending beyond what top English teams were doing and still benefit now as Kroos and Modric are still part of it...

Utd and possibly Chelsea were the only teams that had both resources and (at one time) and profile to challenge them for the very best..

Utd were crippled by ownership model and as Chelsea had a much more challenging domestic picture (and no meaningful European pedigree/attraction in Chelsea's case..)
By:
PorcupineorPineapple
When: 19 May 24 21:49
Well, I'd agree brent. Not discounting Liverpool's self-interest remotely. But pre-Prem was a much more even playing field compared to what came later.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 19 May 24 21:52
Only 2 big teams in Spain, so get all the best domestic players
and their success in Europe makes others want to
go there.

Next level is fairly stable too, in Spain.

In England it's pretty fluid, albeit citeh are
currently dominant, but it's tough to finish top
4, because of competition.
By:
tobermory
When: 19 May 24 21:56
Utd were crippled by ownership model

No, they spend as much as anyone.

What player did they miss out on because Glazers said can't afford him.
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 19 May 24 21:57
don't know the numbers but don't think Madrid have outspent the English clubs on transfers in the last few seasons
By:
brentford
When: 19 May 24 21:57
yep but that's true across Europe really...La Liga was more competitive, Ligue one, Bundesliga,..even Eriedivisie

the EPL is the only one where if all big 6/7 teams got it right ten years down the line you could see (however unlikely the dice fall) a shootout between all of them...as finances would be close enough...

Munich might as well have a private league these days on finances alone..Leverkusen will have to sell from their title winning team..

and Madrid/Barca have for decades now beyond their own incompetence at times...with Barca's
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 19 May 24 21:57
they also bought a 100 million pound flop in Hazard, their marquee signing, and still won the CL with him as a periphery figure
By:
brentford
When: 19 May 24 22:00
Utd were crippled by ownership model

No, they spend as much as anyone.

What player did they miss out on because Glazers said can't afford him.


if they'd have had better owners they could have outspent everyone in Europe..

they sell out 70,000 plus when 8th in the league even after years of average performances..


couldn't keep Ronaldo, couldn't get peak Kroos, Modric, Benzema, Varane, Schweinsteiger, Bale, Messi, (peak years)
By:
tobermory
When: 19 May 24 22:25
couldn't keep Ronaldo

You think Ronaldo went to Madrid for the money? And would have stayed if United offered more wages?

Nah, he just wanted to play for Real Madrid. As did Bale, Modric, Kroos

When would peak Messi ever have left Barca!?

Fergie never liked signing big name players who had not already played in England ( Other than that one year when he signed Veron and Van Nistelrooy, who was not that big at the time)

His big money signings were from other English clubs, and the ones from abroad were always smaller fees on prospects.
By:
brentford
When: 19 May 24 22:32
Quite possible Madrid and Barca are more attractive but he wouldn't have even been tested on wage areas and the transfer fee would have appealed massively to ownership - at that point though you essentially declare you can't compete with those teams ....you've sold your best player to one of them at his absolute peak.

Fergie left in 2013 just as the squad had been run down and Madrid's had been massively invested in...

Barca did it more homegrown and had such talent they did Madrid for a period...

Barca continue to produce more talent from their academies...
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 19 May 24 22:37
Don't want to be grafting every week in prem league when you can
saunter through most weeks in la liga, in better weather,
By:
tobermory
When: 19 May 24 22:53
Fergie left in 2013 just as the squad had been run down and Madrid's had been massively invested in..

I wouldn't say it was run down in the sense of penny pinching.

They made similar types of signings as 10 years before, but they just didn't work out...

eg Phil Jones was meant to be a Rio Ferdinand level prospect.

Under the Glazer ownership they have generally got the signings the manager wanted.
By:
tobermory
When: 19 May 24 22:57
With Ronaldo from what I recall he felt he'd achieved everything he could at United after CL Final in 2008 and Fergie persuaded him to stay one more year.

And then let him go. He just wanted to go to Madrid so no sense forcing him to stay IMO. Did well to get that last season out of him.
By:
brentford
When: 19 May 24 23:02
Football at top level had already changed massively  - 

Madrid were buying top end proven peak talent..

.....after Fergie (who'd won the league with oldies, retreads and potential in a weak season 12-13)  ...Moyes signed Felliani that summer and then out of desperation they brought in Mata in January..
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 19 May 24 23:18
City have won 1 CL in 8 seasons under Guardiola

They were KO'd by Monaco in R2, Liverpool, Tottenham, Lyon, Real Madrid in the quarters, Real Madrid in the semi's and Chelsea in the final

So regardless of people thinking Madrid have it easy in La Liga, City were dumped out by 3 English clubs, 2 French clubs and Real Madrid twice over 2 leg affairs ruling out pure luck or bad VAR calls, which from memory, there were none, I don't see how Real Madrid having it easy in La Liga explains City being knocked out 7 times during his tenure and Madrid winning 3 going on 4 CL titles instead, they also have great recruitment at the Etihad, a big squad with high quality bench players in general, La Liga is a tough league anyway, even during Fergie's reign, they had a bad record in Spain, winning just 2 matches from 18! drawing 8 and losing 8, and that's when they were dominating English football, they've won several Europa leagues in the last decade or 2 more than any other country, and even Atletico Madrid and Valencia made a couple of Champions League finals since the year 2000, it's as strong as the premier league.

Nobody can say City haven't had the players or managers to match Madrid's record since he took over City
By:
tobermory
When: 19 May 24 23:44
Football at top level had already changed massively  -

Madrid were buying top end proven peak talent..


But wouldn't you agree that Fergie never liked spending the biggest fees on players from other leagues? Before and during the Glazer era.

His biggest signings were always players proven top class at other English clubs, and, once City had their money, they were inevitably going to get some of those players.

United did get Berbatov/Van Persie.
By:
brentford
When: 20 May 24 00:02
in regard to SH's point..

City have thrice had the better of Madrid over two legs out of 4 knockout meetings (watch the games or see the stats) but only advanced once...

massive credit to Madrid for finding a way but Cup comps do throw up anomalies...maybe a knock on City as well in the biggest moments..but they should have had them beat in those games...

as regards Fergie, Tobes' ...I suspect that's right as  partly a product of his era and maybe Utd already not having a structure to look beyond the manager (understandably perhaps at that time) but as I say Utd didn't spend from strength crucially because the Glaziers were more interested in profit and interest payments being met on a horrendous ownership model...

once you slip..you have to overpay (if the finance exists) and without credible structure over transfers ...you'll keep doing it..
Page 1 of 2  •  Previous 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com