The all amazing competitive EPL

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 ?

It is competitive, in that there is competition for the title.

Not like City have it wrapped up in February every year.

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 . Extremely rare.) or they win it.

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.

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.

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.

Money and flagrant corruption have just about ruined boxing. Now, along with VAR, they're well on their way to ruining football.

and  man city already odds on for next season....

People don't like wnrs or a winning mentality.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Easier, not easy.

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.

Real Madrid don't make excuses in Europe, they just win, can't be a coincidence, can't be all luck.

Was good up to to the point it missed L'pool being big spenders in the 80's...

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

If Real played in Premier league they'd find
Europe a bit tougher

Bruno has covered 423 km in Premier League this season.

Staggering()

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..)

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.

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.

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.

don't know the numbers but don't think Madrid have outspent the English clubs on transfers in the last few seasons

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

they also bought a 100 million pound flop in Hazard, their marquee signing, and still won the CL with him as a periphery figure

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)

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.

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...

Don't want to be grafting every week in prem league when you can
saunter through most weeks in la liga, in better weather,

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.

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.

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..

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

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.

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..

It's all a bit skewed by having a block of youngsters
come through that were fantastic players and set
club ethos at high bar.

It's quite hard to judge things, dogmatically over a short
space of time. Then you change owners/ manager, coach
scouts, agents, and the focus alters.

Fergie did a fantastic job at the end of his
tenure with somewhat limited resources. All the
more credit to him for that,

I watched all those games, it's just not strong enough argument to say Madrid found a way. We know City will always have more possession and make more passes and have better stats against any team. Madrid have won 5 going on 6 CL titles in the last 10 years, that cannot be a coincidence or luck. There were also times where Pep kept outdoing himself, like playing no striker in the CL final or holding midfield player, Rodri inexplicably on the bench !

Liverpool also reached 3 Champions League finals in 5 seasons under Klopp so I don't think the rigmarole of the Premier League really plays a part. Fergie made 3 finals between 08-11.

Don't know why people don't give Madrid more credit

It's all a bit skewed by having a block of youngsters
come through that were fantastic players and set
club ethos at high bar.

Indeed, you could not just by another Scholes or Giggs, however much money you had.

Utd didn't spend from strength crucially because the Glaziers were more interested in profit

Trying to replace a great team when it is still going is tricky, and not just about money.

eg Who could they have signed to replace Vidic/Ferdinand around 2009?

Even if you are prepared to pay a record fee for the best centreback out there, why would they come as they would be 3rd choice for at least a year.

So they had to go with Smalling, Jones and hope they would turn out to at least be Bruce/Pallister level.

Should have promoted Pique earlier before he left

re City v Madrid

City won 2 of the ties with ease. Madrid squeaked the 2 desperately close ones.

City have been better than Real for 5 years.

But Rio and Vidic were at their absolute peak in 2008, why would you drop one of them for an inexperienced player.

They were and are the better team, City are better than any team that's knocked them out over the last few years, but you have to take on a different mentality in Europe, it has always seemed to me that Pep to his disadvantage, doesn't adapt and plays exactly the same way every single time, you will never see him shut up shop for example and be more pragmatic when needed, Ancelotti does it all the time in Europe and doesn't care about the bruised ego of being dominated with possession, he said before the City match they will have to suffer, and that's Madrid.

Could have played Pique in a different position just to keep him at the club idk.

Quality in the premier league has been the worse for years.

City win the league, yet for most part they didn’t look a patch on the previous season yet they still won it.

Defending was woeful and that was proven by the record amount of goals. More mistakes more blunders than ever before. Every team plays out from the back even when they can’t beat the press like Burnley have proven, yet they all continue with the same blue print. The team who masters the press the best has a greater chance of winning the league , see arsenal team who came so close, yet in terms of world class players they don’t have many, just a lot of good players.

Teams like spurs, Newcastle, man United, Brighton and Liverpool to a slightly less degree have been ravaged by injuries throughout the season. Chelsea have had injuries recently and whole new team to galvanise into a team.

Europe is often a great way to judge the strength of the league and they’ve been out classed. You can’t say premier league has left it’s mark, United and Newcastle both finished bottom of their groups and out of Europe, yes injuries didn’t help, but given the money premier league clubs spend, they have a greater squad depth in terms of full internationals then the rest of Europe.

City has already said haven’t been at their sparkling best, they should beaten Madrid, but not being firing the same as previous season meant they didn’t manage to do it. Arsenal struggled past Porro and Bayern controlled then with relative ease. Europa league all Liverpool, Brighton and West Ham was easily beaten in the end and Villa was cooked by the Greeks with ease.

The league has been bang average this season.

United a mess in transition
Chelsea a whole new team needing time
Spurs a new philosophy and loss their one world class player on eve of season.
Liverpool finished well down previous season, they had whole new midfield and even with Salah struggle for 2nd half of season was close enough

West Ham conceded loads of goals yet always in top half, says it all really

The rest had good and bad stages throughout the season, suppose teams was lucky to play them at those moments

3 teams came up was doomed from early stage

Teams that can’t match the quality of the bigger teams, VAR has taken away any advantage they could gain by being dirty and tough because u tickle a player now u get sent off!

Here is something I noticed, there has been many games where a team has been getting battered early in game and there hasn’t been one booking that was unheard of years ago, player’s emotions have been taken out of the game now, u get steamroll u break up the game, now teams are six down and not one booking and barely any tackles are being made! How can u bridge gap in todays football. Those who come up could go back down again, only thing next season is that two of them coming up only went down the previous season so might have a better chance of staying up!! Fear for Ipswich

The PL has become more competitive relative to the other euro leagues, not the other way around. 3 going for the title this year until the last few games. Name another euro league which hasn't been a one horse race for weeks. They've all gone backwards while the PL became more competitive.

In Europe you had very inexperienced teams in Arse, Newc and Brighton. Pool in the EL and not the CL. Nobody prioritises that comp over a title race. Experience counts for a lot in Europe but it's also a cup comp and the best teams don't always win those or go thru.

Do you expect every big team to challenge for the title every year? Why are you talking about Spurs and West Ham being poor as a barometer for how good the PL is?

whilst the PL is competitive the quality particularly the defending has been very poor

The games between the top teams have been dire. I actually fell asleep watching the cheaty v arsenal game

The performances in europe have also been dire with man u and newcastle finishing bottom of their groups against the likes of the mighty Copenhagen

with only Villa making a semi final in the crap europa competition says it all really

just noticed bottom 3 only won 14 games between them and some of them were against each other

Villa Bologna Stuttgart Girona and Brest all made the UCL this year.  In a normal season be lucky if one rag made the UCL across the major 5 leagues

I wouldn't blame Newc too much, they were in a group of death against much more experienced teams. United were woeful in a poor group they should have got out of. Both should have made at least EL on paper but not performance. If Liverpool were in the CL and United/Newc in the EL England would have got the 5th place imo.

Real Madrid have always prioritised the CL over the league. They are obsessed with it. No other club does that. The league is the priority for everyone else. Their team is built to win it, not to dominate over 38 games. To perform in the biggest games. Very hard for English teams to compete esp with tight title races to play as well in recent years.