Is the Premier League easier or are City/Pep this good?

[Bobski]

The top teams are probably better than they have ever been, certainly in terms of depth, clubs from 20 years ago might have had strong starting line ups( mostly 5/6 top players and a few average types) but nowhere near the back up depth, and those players who now are on the bench for the the top teams would then, have been competing against them adding to the competitiveness of the league. Look at Jesus and ZInchencko, rotation players at City, immediately among the best at Arsenal. This removes variables and makes any acheivements, be it club or individual much less impressive. 5 of the top 15 scorers of all time are playing now, Ronaldo, Messi, Lewandowski, Suarez and Zlatan, great players no doubt but they have been hugely aided by playing for absurdly stacked superteams.

Points and goal records being smashed in this era in France, England, Gemany, Spain shows this, super clubs in all those leagues who have a very easy time of it because of overhwelming talent advantage. The competitveness of the PL is an odd one, very competitive outside of City and Liverpool in a good year but the rest can barely lay a finger on them.

 

[ThinkTank@Cafe]

Pep is a genius. But he needs crazy amount of money and more importantly, time. Players get better under him. System betters players.

Pep is able to dominate any league given he has the deepest pocket.

He is not ideal though, his teams tend to do much worse in cup competitions.

 

[Lecland07]

Overreaction slightly, remember Liverpool scored 9 at the weekend, both clubs have only just come up, City always score lots against poor opposition because they keep the ball until everyone falls asleep.

Yes - I think people are forgetting they only drew with Newcastle 2 games ago. Newcastle were all over them for large periods of the game - they had chances to go even further ahead. Crystal Palace were 2 goals up in the first half in the last game, also - I really think it should have been 3 with the disallowed goal. They have great goal scorers and creators so will always be in with a massive chance of getting back into games, but I actually think they are beatable.

If you harass their back line and press them, I think teams will get a lot of joy against them (and they have in 2 of the last 3 games). With Haaland, they have definitely lost some semblance of control over matches over last season, where they were pretty much playing an additional midfielder.

 

[Andersonson]

Have you actually had your head in the sand? Or are you saying you believe that the declared figures are what gets paid there...?

There isn't even a hint of jealousy towards City - if you're owned and backed by a nation, everything that is and will happen is par for the course. The exact same will happen with Newcastle. I won't be in awe then, either.

Do you have any proof? Has there been any leaks that players get paid under the table? Any at all? Seems like straight conspiracy to me. American like

 

[Charles Miller]

One think that makes the Premier Lesgue more fun to watch is that there is much more tactical disorder compared with La Liga.

In the vast majority of EPL games i watch, at some point in second half the match become a battle of attacks, counter attacks, chances in both sides, players all over the place. Its more about entertainment than tactics.

Is rare teams like Newcastle or City that tend to be organized 90 minutes.

 

[footballistic orgasm]

Pep is a genius. But he needs crazy amount of money and more importantly, time. Players get better under him. System betters players.

Pep is able to dominate any league given he has the deepest pocket.

He is not ideal though, his teams tend to do much worse in cup competitions.

Didn't seem like he needed crazy amount of money and time his first season at Barcelona when they won everything? I mean that team had not won anything in the 2 previous seasons.
And every team his coached, his methods have been very quickly implemented (even in his first season with City), so i really don't think he needs a lot of time to implement his methods/tactics. Whether the methods get the results desired, is another issue.

His teams often get to the semi final stages of various cup competitions, what about that implies that they tend to do much worse?

 

[padr81]

They won the ucl in 2005 and made the final in 2007, also the English teams made up 3 of the four available spots in the semi finals from 2006 to 2008 for 3 consecutively years so better than anything we've had now.

Mid 2000's Liverpool literally did nothing current Chelsea haven't. Its a myth that all 4 were in a competitive league.

The best period of the 2000's had 6 English clubs in the final in 5 years, two winners (Liverpool and United.) and one all English final. 04/05-09/10. 4 different English teams made those finals (Chelsea, United, Arsenal and Liverpool).
The last 5 seasons have had 6 English finalists , two winners and two all English finals. 4 different English teams made the finals (Chelsea, City, Liverpool and Spurs).

The idea there was more competition is simply not true. That Liverpool team lined up with Hypia, Riise, Baros, Kewell and Djimi Traore. They then brought on Vladimir Smicer and Djibril Cisse. Them winning that competition was insanity on the same level as having Porto vs Monaco final the season before. The stars alligned the credit to them they rose to the occasion but every PL team that has played in the CL later stages since has been better.

I will give Liverpool the club credit, they are a special team in the CL much like Real but that team was nothing in the grand scheme of things.

A bit more perspective, in that time they finished 9, 21, 11, 4, and 23 points behind the league winners. So an average of 14 points behind the winners.
The season before in 04/05 they finished 37 points off Chelsea and behind Everton and in the meltdown season came 7th. 08/09 was their only title challenge.

 

[Red the Bear]

Mid 2000's Liverpool literally did nothing current Chelsea haven't. Its a myth that all 4 were in a competitive league.

The best period of the 2000's had 6 English clubs in the final in 5 years, two winners (Liverpool and United.) and one all English final. 04/05-09/10. 4 different English teams made those finals (Chelsea, United, Arsenal and Liverpool).
The last 5 seasons have had 6 English finalists , two winners and two all English finals. 4 different English teams made the finals (Chelsea, City, Liverpool and Spurs).

The idea there was more competition is simply not true. That Liverpool team lined up with Hypia, Riise, Baros, Kewell and Djimi Traore. They then brought on Vladimir Smicer and Djibril Cisse. Them winning that competition was insanity on the same level as having Porto vs Monaco final the season before. The stars alligned the credit to them they rose to the occasion but every PL team that has played in the CL later stages since has been better.

I will give Liverpool the club credit, they are a special team in the CL much like Real but that team was nothing in the grand scheme of things.

They were closer in the table to us than Chelsea have been to you lot in these recent years, if anything the league seems to be more of a 2 horse race between you and Liverpool these days, you could say the standard was lower those days and fair enough but by definition it was more competitive .

The league table affirms my statement.

Also they might have been shite but they did give us a good run for our money back in 2009.

 

[Liver_bird]

He’s the best manager in the world, a freak of nature. He also has far more resources than every other manger for the last 6 years. Give a world class coach a world class set up and finiancial backing this is the result.

It’s not too difficult to understand. Could we challenge him a bit more if we had some more financial backing? Possibly? But we’ve lost two titles to them by the narrowest of margins in 90 plus point seasons.

Your best bet to stop them is one of the other clubs with money being able to successfully combine a WC coach and a world class setup. Chelsea and United, Newcastle in time.

 

[padr81]

They were closer in the table to us than Chelsea have been to you lot in these recent years, if anything the league seems to be more of a 2 horse race between you and Liverpool these days, you could say the standard was lower those days and fair enough but by definition it was more competitive .

The league table affirms my statement.

Also they might have been shite but they did give us a good run for our money back in 2009.

The league table affirms nothing, they weren't regular challengers or even in the remote ball park of you guys, c'mon. They averaged 14 points off the top.
Thats like in 10 years time people looking back and saying ah I remember 2021 when the PL had 3 of the best few teams in Europe with City, Liverpool and Chelsea. Its simply false, two of the teams were miles ahead (as were United and Chelsea in the mid-late 2000's)

 

[Olmer]

5 of the top 15 scorers of all time are playing now, Ronaldo, Messi, Lewandowski, Suarez and Zlatan, great players no doubt but they have been hugely aided by playing for absurdly stacked superteams.

5 of 15? According to what criterions?
I'm not criticizing - just being curious.

 

[Red the Bear]

The league table affirms nothing, they weren't regular challengers or even in the remote ball park of you guys, c'mon. They averaged 14 points off the top.
Thats like in 10 years time people looking back and saying ah I remember 2021 when the PL had 3 of the best few teams in Europe with City, Liverpool and Chelsea. Its simply false, two of the teams were miles ahead (as were United and Chelsea in the mid-late 2000's)

While true that it was mostly a 2 horse race during most of that period (the same as now) the results were much closer.

Let's set the periods, pep came into his pump in his second season and since then the only 2 close races have been with pool by 1 point each while the distance with the third has been 19 and 26 in those years , now using our period of dominance for comparison the distant between us and third best placed team was as follows 21,4 and 7.

That's by definition more competitive , extend it to 2009 were Chelsea won by one point and the distance was 11 so even then it was more close than what we have now.

You could argue that Fergie did just enough to win and the actual distance between the top teams was larger which is fair but seeing how good we were in Europe (could have won 2 back to back titles) and seeing how we almost had 2 consecutive British finals in a row i say the average quality of top prem leagues was higher back then.

Now days you lot are so ahead of everyone else that it's ridiculous while constantly underperforming in Europe.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Unlimited funds from fake sponsorships certainly is like playing on cheat mode.

 

[FrankFoot]

While true that it was mostly a 2 horse race during most of that period (the same as now) the results were much closer.

Let's set the periods, pep came into his pump in his second season and since then the only 2 close races have been with pool by 1 point each while the distance with the third has been 19 and 26 in those years , now using our period of dominance for comparison the distant between us and third best placed team was as follows 21,4 and 7.

That's by definition more competitive , extend it to 2009 were Chelsea won by one point and the distance was 11 so even then it was more close than what we have now.

You could argue that Fergie did just enough to win and the actual distance between the top teams was larger which is fair but seeing how good we were in Europe (could have won 2 back to back titles) and seeing how we almost had 2 consecutive British finals in a row i say the average quality of top prem leagues was higher back then.

Now days you lot are so ahead of everyone else that it's ridiculous while constantly underperforming in Europe.

Yep, the thing is that Pep has underperformed in Europe with City, looking at how much money he has spent.

If something, i think United 2007-2009 was better than this City, if we count European performances as well, not just the league.

Someone mentioned that SAF underperformed in Europe sometimes too, which is true, but context is everything...90s and early 2000s PL was far behind Serie A and La Liga, even behind Bundesliga and Ligue 1 in the UEFA coefficient.

Pep is managing City in times where PL is the best league in the world and leads the UEFA coefficient table by a good margin...getting knocked out by Monaco, Tottenham, and Lyon doesn't seems good.

 

[Josep Dowling]

A fantastic manager given £1b to spend. Of course they’re miles ahead of the rest.

 

[Red the Bear]

Yep, the thing is that Pep has underperformed in Europe with City, looking at how much money he has spent.

If something, i think United 2007-2009 was better than this City, if we count European performances as well, not just the league.

Someone mentioned that SAF underperformed in Europe sometimes, but context is everything...90s and early 2000s PL was far behind Serie A and La Liga, even behind Bundesliga and Ligue 1 in the UEFA coefficient.

Pep is managing City in times where PL is the best league in the world and leads the UEFA coefficient table by a good margin...getting knocked out by Monaco, Tottenham, and Lyon doesn't seems good.

Fergie did underperform in Europe but pep has been even worse.

 

[SimonB3]

He’s the best manager in the world, a freak of nature. He also has far more resources than every other manger for the last 6 years. Give a world class coach a world class set up and finiancial backing this is the result.

This is the crux of the matter!

I've never understood why people say that to really prove himself Pep has to go and manage a Stoke or Burnley and have them qualifying for the UCL....why?

He's the best of the best, he works with the best and gets the best out of the best...nobody asks why Ronaldo or Messi didn't prove themselves at Stoke or Burnley......Why should Pep?

If your a club with more money than you know what to do with, which other manager would you go for?

 

[jm99]

Pep is that good and he has turned the league into a farmer's league. If they win the league this season that's 5 in 6. That's the very definition of farmer's league. Haaland's scoring at a higher rate than he did in Germany as well.

Its not really though, over the last 4 seasons City have accumulated one more point than Liverpool, whereas only one season in the last decade has another side finished within 3 points of bayern, you can't just look at how many titles in a row one team has won and ignore any context

 

[Loon]

Every decade people say "the league the decade before was easier/no competition/football was simpler" and it's bollocks every single time. This goes back, as far as I remember, to the 70s.

"Everyone is entitled to their bit of history" - Ferguson

 

[FrankFoot]

Its not really though, over the last 4 seasons City have accumulated one more point than Liverpool, whereas only one season in the last decade has another side finished within 3 points of bayern, you can't just look at how many titles in a row one team has won and ignore any context

But City also ended way ahead of United by 8 and 19 points as well.

They truly making the PL look like a farmers league, especially the mid table teams.

 

[giorno]

One think that makes the Premier Lesgue more fun to watch is that there is much more tactical disorder compared with La Liga.

In the vast majority of EPL games i watch, at some point in second half the match become a battle of attacks, counter attacks, chances in both sides, players all over the place. Its more about entertainment than tactics.

Is rare teams like Newcastle or City that tend to be organized 90 minutes.

Mmm, the PL has greater tactical variety i would say - by which i mean PL teams are better at adapting to different styles depending on the opponent - but the second half breakdowns into attacks and counter attacks happens frequently in Spain as well. Mostly the difference there is the atmosphere+permissive refs+faster attackers on average give the impression of a higher tempo in England

You could argue that Fergie did just enough to win and the actual distance between the top teams was larger which is fair but seeing how good we were in Europe (could have won 2 back to back titles) and seeing how we almost had 2 consecutive British finals in a row i say the average quality of top prem leagues was higher back then.

2018 - liverpool runners-up, Arsenal in EL SF, City lost to Liverpool
2019 - all english CL final, all english EL final, City out to Spurs
2020 - COVID
2021 - Liverpool runners-up, City out in SF, West Ham in SF of EL

I'd say the PL is plenty dominant right now...

Now days you lot are so ahead of everyone else that it's ridiculous while constantly underperforming in Europe.

Superior depth, better coaching methods, better sports science/medicine, better infrastructure, "better tactics"

If 2006-2009 United had the same comparative advantages City have now, they would have dominated just the same. That side finished on 89, 87 and 90 points, and twice won the league with games in hand, meaning it could have been more

 

[TheLord]

I am convinced that he's the best manager and City are the best team ever in the PL. Five PL titles in the first seven years of management may never happen again. (they have the potential to go on to win a few more after this one is wrapped up early).