Is it easier to force your way to the top part of English football these days?

[Dancfc]

It got me thinking when I consider how Leicester, Wolves and now potentially Sheffield United are truly establishing themselves as a top half PL club.

There were never really any of those teams getting themselves in and amoungst the big boys in the 00s and they certainly weren't sustaining it like Leicester especially have. When Hull and Wigan had those unreal starts in 2008 and 2005 respectively we all knew they were winging it and gravity was going to pull them down, when the likes of Fulham and Boro qualified for Europe we knew it was a short (all be it spectacular)visit.

So what's changed now? Why are clubs coming from nowhere and managing to not only sustain a run of form over a season but sustain it for longer. Leicester's title win was expected to be the ultimate one off in what was otherwise going to be a yo-yo existence in the modern day, even Wolves despite owning Ruben Neves and João Moutinho were expected to dive down the league with extra responsibilities on the contintent.

Sheffield United don't look like a set up that will dive back down the league either, especially if they add some real quality to their already massively effective system.

So what is the big difference in the present day that allows the so called lesser clubs to sustain Europa or above form over longer periods of time?

Has Leicester in 2016 subconsciously given belief to these teams this is possible? Maybe before lesser sides on a great run it was always in the back of their minds that they are punching well above their station whereas now they've seen such "flukes" can be sustained in not just a season but beyond they have more belief and self confidence that they belong in the company they're sharing in the table?

Or is it a more simple explanation of the ever growing money in European competitions which is enough to allow clubs to grow and nail down their position in or around the top table?

Or a bit of both? Will be interested to hear further perspective on this.

 

[SambaBoy]

Money and good strategic planning.

Leicester have invested quite significantly since their PL win, but also they have invested well. It seems more clubs are utilising and put in place long term plans and there are less flops in the transfer markets for some clubs. Pereira, Soyuncu, Maguire, Evans, Ndidi, Tielemans were all great signings. In addition, hiring a good manager has helped propel them even further. Under Puel, they could put decent results together and if they had kept them they would be around 8-12th but with Rodgers, they are a much better outfit.

Wolves obviously have the connections with Fosun which has brought them Jimenez, Neves, Moutinho. Likewise with the manager in Santo, they have found a very competent manager and backed him. Wolves traditionally in the Prem would probably go after the likes of McCarthy, Allardyce, Pardew etc.

I don't think Sheff United will maintain it next season, I expect them to slide down the league but who knows.

Plus you did have Aston Villa back in the day who were mostly competing for 4th place with Arsenal but never quite achieved it. Everton are another one who have thrown money at it in recent years but can't close the gap due to poor investment on the playing and managing side.

 

[Sky1981]

I'd say flattening of the curve is happening.

A 20m player isnt that far behind a 200m player in quality these days.

This allows shrewd teams to be able to enter top half if they're good with their purchase.

 

[SpyLuke10]

A 20m player isnt that far behind a 200m player in quality these days.

nonsense. its more that these leicesters and wolves are financially comfortable enough that they dont need to sell their best players to bigger clubs, they dont need to do a dortmund, monaco, sporting lisbon, etc. they can actually retain their best players and continue building, and when they do sell their best players they get over the odds and can then almost more than adequately replace them. i dont see sheffield united remaining a top half club however. leicester and wolves so far are the only ones who seem like they've managed that.

 

[RooneyLegend]

The big teams are a hopeless bunch. Both in terms of quality of players and coaches. Look at us vs Leicester. They pretty much have a better squad and coach and look at how much richer than them we are. It's just mismanagement at top level clubs.

 

[Blades1889]

I’m not sure how we will do from now on with covid spoiling this season. I have faith in us to continue though but I can see why people would expect us to drop off. Personally, with the management we have it’s hard to feel anything but positive about the direction we are heading.

Back to the post, I think a lot of this is down to the ‘big’ sides being in transitional periods allowing others to creep in. Leicester have been smart in the market by selling big and having a good scouting system. With us, I think we have benefitted from the league being rather weak and us building from our momentum under Wilder and gaining confidence week in week out. It will be interesting to see how Leeds do should they come up.

 

[Needham]

It's a race thing.

If you're fast at running races. You have a better than average chance.

 

[hmchan]

Good scouting definitely improves the sustainability of these lesser teams, and it's true that they often spend the money right and bring the right players in. However, it's also worth to note that the closing gap is not only due to the improvement in these smaller sides, but also the decline from the larger sides.

The big 4 used to have a squad of players heads and shoulders above the rest, but this privilege is diminishing nowadays. United, Chelsea and Arsenal are playing a lot of mediocre players who might even struggle to start regularly for a midtable side. The club management is chaotic to say the least and you often hear fans express their resent towards the board.

By the way, things didn't go as smooth as you suggest for Leicester. They were once 2 points away from the relegation zone after their title winning season and this got Ranieri sacked. Puel also had a hard time and was fired later. Their quick recovery and success this season just made people feel that they have sustained since 15/16.

 

[OleBoiii]

There's probably some truth to it.

Scouting is easier than ever, general athleticism is more important than ever, and the price difference between a good player and a great player is obscene. On top of this, "mercenary mentality" is more common these days, so in many cases it the priciest players may not even be worth it.

 

[Pughnichi]

Sport science too has helped an awful lot bridge the gap

 

[Sky1981]

nonsense. its more that these leicesters and wolves are financially comfortable enough that they dont need to sell their best players to bigger clubs, they dont need to do a dortmund, monaco, sporting lisbon, etc. they can actually retain their best players and continue building, and when they do sell their best players they get over the odds and can then almost more than adequately replace them. i dont see sheffield united remaining a top half club however. leicester and wolves so far are the only ones who seem like they've managed that.

Nonsense?

Enlighten me. How much do they spent?

 

[11101]

Money, sports science and coaching has leveled the field a bit but i don't think its any easier to rise up. If anything, the top level has sunk a little. Forgetting the usual media hype, other than City last year, the last 10 years have produced fairly unremarkable champions. That's more why competent also-rans are able to challenge from time to time.


Don't forget in the 80s Wimbledon forced their way from Division 4 to Division 1 and an FA Cup win by mixing rugby and MMA. That would never happen now.

 

[JPRouve]

There's probably some truth to it.

Scouting is easier than ever, general athleticism is more important than ever, and the price difference between a good player and a great player is obscene. On top of this, "mercenary mentality" is more common these days, so in many cases it the priciest players may not even be worth it.

How is it more common? And we are talking about professional athletes, they play football for money and it has been the case for half a century.

Edit: To answer the OP, Wolves and Leicester are sugar daddied clubs.

 

[OleBoiii]

How is it more common? And we are talking about professional athletes, they play football for money and it has been the case for half a century.

The difference lies in the expectations of clubs and fans. No one really expects a player to put loyalty and "honor" above personal interests anymore. We still appreciate it when they do, but it's more of a pleasant surprise than something we half expect, even from homegrown players. I also think that young players these days are smarter in terms of thinking long-term.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this "mercenary mentality". But it's not unthinkable that this mentality can prevent you from reaching your true potential or makes it harder to give 100% on the pitch. Some players manage to combine the two, but not all.

That is why a determined team worth 60 million pounds with can beat a team worth 600 million pounds, even over the course of a full season. The same, adjusted for inflation, wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago.

 

[McGrathsipan]

A 20m player isnt that far behind a 200m player in quality these days.

Thats an indicator of the absolute state of the business off the pitch and the power that agents hold

 

[horsechoker]

Money, sports science and coaching has leveled the field a bit but i don't think its any easier to rise up. If anything, the top level has sunk a little. Forgetting the usual media hype, other than City last year, the last 10 years have produced fairly unremarkable champions. That's more why competent also-rans are able to challenge from time to time.


Don't forget in the 80s Wimbledon forced their way from Division 4 to Division 1 and an FA Cup win by mixing rugby and MMA. That would never happen now.

Now it's called "tactical fouling"

 

[balaks]

Money - most teams in the Premiership can realistically outspend most of the teams in Europe now.

 

[JPRouve]

The difference lies in the expectations of clubs and fans. No one really expects a player to put loyalty and "honor" above personal interests anymore. We still appreciate it when they do, but it's more of a pleasant surprise than something we half expect, even from homegrown players. I also think that young players these days are smarter in terms of thinking long-term.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this "mercenary mentality". But it's not unthinkable that this mentality can prevent you from reaching your true potential or makes it harder to give 100% on the pitch. Some players manage to combine the two, but not all.

That is why a determined team worth 60 million pounds with can beat a team worth 600 million pounds, even over the course of a full season. The same, adjusted for inflation, wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago.

Your first paragraph is wrong, players never put loyalty and honor above personal interests, players and clubs have never been loyal or honorable. It's a total fallacy, in all generations the vast majority of players have moved for glory and/or money.

 

[jackal&hyde]

I'd say it's mostly down to some of the established big clubs going through difficult periods, United, Arsenal in particular. If the others teams would have improved so much we would have seen them doing very well in Europe but that's not the case. Things will get back to "normal" once United, Chelsea and Arsenal complete successful rebuilds.

 

[11101]

Now it's called "tactical fouling"

And the rest.

I love this picture of Vinnie Jones 'tackling' Martin Keown. No hint of an attempt to even look at the ball let alone win it:

Also from Keown

You would line up in the tunnel and look across to see Vinnie Jones head-butting the toilet door and John Fashanu practising martial arts

Players would be getting season long bans now for the stuff they were getting a warning for.

 

[OleBoiii]

Your first paragraph is wrong, players never put loyalty and honor above personal interests, players and clubs have never been loyal or honorable. It's a total fallacy, in all generations the vast majority of players have moved for glory and/or money.

While they are extreme examples, I doubt we'll ever see a Totti or a Gerrard again. The mere existence of such players put the bar much higher for the rest. Loyalty was never the norm, but it was certainly not unheard of either.

Let me give you a concrete example of how times have changed in terms of following money. Let's say that Newcastle, now with Saudi owners, manages to sign Sancho ahead of us and Liverpool after both teams express clear interest. Newcastle has not proven anything yet, but they are going to build a team of superstars and offers slightly higher wages. In the current climate, no football fan would bat an eye. The only people who'd react negatively would be salty United and Liverpool supporters, and maybe the political types(because of the Saudi owners). If the same thing happened back when City got wealthy owners, even neutral fans would react strongly and call the player a mercenary. Times have clearly changed.

 

[JPRouve]

While they are extreme examples, I doubt we'll ever see a Totti or a Gerrard again. The mere existence of such players put the bar much higher for the rest. Loyalty was never the norm, but it was certainly not unheard of either.

Let me give you a concrete example of how times have changed in terms of following money. Let's say that Newcastle, now with Saudi owners, manages to sign Sancho ahead of us and Liverpool after both teams express clear interest. Newcastle has not proven anything yet, but they are going to build a team of superstars and offers slightly higher wages. In the current climate, no football fan would bat an eye. The only people who'd react negatively would be salty United and Liverpool supporters, and maybe the political types(because of the Saudi owners). If the same thing happened back when City got wealthy owners, even neutral fans would react strongly and call the player a mercenary. Times have clearly changed.

You didn't gave me a concrete example of changing times, you described the 80s-90s in Europe. And the two examples that you gave are anecdotal, you made a swiping statement about a new mentality that isn't actually supported, Totti and Gerrard were homegrown players of two of the biggest clubs in the world, two of the wealthiest clubs in their respective countries, these players don't actually move that much because there isn't a lot of clubs that can afford them in terms of wage or transfers fees. I could mention Alaba, Koke, Saul or Messi, sometimes people overlook the fact that whether a player moves or not depends almost entirely on where he was developed in the first place if Totti or Gerrard were respectively developed at Salernitana and Accrington Stanley, they wouldn't have stayed in their clubs for that long.

So going back to your first sentence, you are going to see it again simply because top and wealthy clubs produce top players that they keep because everyone's ambitions are fulfilled.

 

[OleBoiii]

@JPRouve

Were you not around when City(and Chelsea for that matter) first started picking up top players who were linked to bigger clubs? There was clearly a different climate back then. Or are you suggesting that people will react similarly if(when?) Newcastle starts doing the same?

Gerrard and Totti played for teams most people wouldn't consider top 5 or even top 10 in the world at times. They could have moved for both more money and glory by moving to a different league, but they didn't.

 

[JPRouve]

@JPRouve

Were you not around when City(and Chelsea for that matter) first started picking up top players who were linked to bigger clubs? There was clearly a different climate back then. Or are you suggesting that people will react similarly if(when?) Newcastle starts doing the same?

Gerrard and Totti played for teams most people wouldn't consider top 5 or even top 10 in the world at times. They could have moved for both more money and glory by moving to a different league, but they didn't.

I was around but it wasn't a new climate, in all generations players have moved to wealthy and ambitious clubs, players don't really care about history books. I mean how do you think top players ended up playing in bottom half Serie A teams in the 80s-90s? As for the second sentence, it's not as simple as you think both Totti and Gerrard where handsomely paid and played for teams that could reject big offers and did exactly that.

 

[SilentWitness]

4/20 clubs in the 19/20 transfer window spent under 40m. One of those clubs was Liverpool as they had pretty much built their squad in previous seasons and were clearly the best.

11/20 clubs in La Liga spent under 40m. 11/18 in the Bundesliga. 8/20 in Serie A.

Obviously I have plucked the 40m target a little bit but it does show the enormous disparity between the PL and other leagues. The only one that surprised me was Serie A, they've spent a very healthy chunk of money.

The PL tv deal is ludicrously good. It not only means clubs can spend more without rich owners but it also entices rich owners to takeover clubs which is why people like Sheffield United and Villa can comfortably spend 60m and 100m respectively.

The money is having a knock on effect on things like coaching, scouting and training. Improved facilities and development opportunities has enabled everything to move up a level. At the top level you can only really go down or have a freak season like Liverpool are doing which is why people are catching up.

 

[Sky1981]

While they are extreme examples, I doubt we'll ever see a Totti or a Gerrard again. The mere existence of such players put the bar much higher for the rest. Loyalty was never the norm, but it was certainly not unheard of either.

Let me give you a concrete example of how times have changed in terms of following money. Let's say that Newcastle, now with Saudi owners, manages to sign Sancho ahead of us and Liverpool after both teams express clear interest. Newcastle has not proven anything yet, but they are going to build a team of superstars and offers slightly higher wages. In the current climate, no football fan would bat an eye. The only people who'd react negatively would be salty United and Liverpool supporters, and maybe the political types(because of the Saudi owners). If the same thing happened back when City got wealthy owners, even neutral fans would react strongly and call the player a mercenary. Times have clearly changed.

Loyalty is sticking with the club when someone else are willing to pay you more.

Loyalty is sticking to pay your salary when someone else is playing better than you and earns less than you.

Anything other than those 2 are business transactions. You play, we pay.

Besides, the clubs are total arseholes at times. They demand loyalty but offers none. Once you stop performing youre deadwood and harrassed and abused by fans.

Take de gea, we called him traitor for wanting to join madrid, disloyal etc. Now once he's having a bad patch we call him useless and wants him sold.

 

[OleBoiii]

I was around but it wasn't a new climate, in all generations players have moved to wealthy and ambitious clubs, players don't really care about history books.

I'm not contesting that. The main difference lies with the fans and the media. These days you don't even have to pretend to care about the club. Fans have largely come to terms with the fact that money talks and that clubs take advantage of players anyways so they might as well be "selfish".

My theory is that this general acceptance from the fans also has a psychological effect on the players.

both Totti and Gerrard where handsomely paid and played for teams that could reject big offers and did exactly that.

If either of them had wanted to leave for Real Madrid(for instance), then it would have happened. And in terms of money and trophies it would probably have been a wise decision.

 

[xonyo]

I'm not sure it is "easier". Apart from the planets aligning for Leicester in 2015/16 the only time another club has gotten close to the top 6 spots is when one of the big 6 has an abjectly bad season. They obviously did amazing that year, but bear in mind they won with 81 points. Arsenal were second with 71. In 2015/16 Liverpool were 8th and Chelsea 10th.

2018/19 - Normal top 6

2017/18 - Normal top 6

2016/17 - Normal top 6

2015/16 - Leicester 1st. Southampton 6th.

2014/15 - Normal top 6

2013/14 - Everton 5th

2012/13 - Everton 6th

2011/12 - Newcastle 5th

2010/11 - Normal top 6

Aside from that one season and maybe this I don't think we're seeing anything completely unusual. Football runs in cycles and we've seen Southampton have 4 years in top 10, even getting 6th at one point before going back to fighting relegation.

Their cycles are maybe a bit longer now as they've more money that they don't have to worry about European clubs poaching players and it takes mega money for another EPL club to buy. But it's crazy to think they are now guaranteed top 10 for any length of time. In the end the team gets dismantled a la Southampton or the top 6 clubs bounce back a la Liverpool.