Jamie Carragher: "2006-09 is the strongest the Premier Leagues ever been”

[renandstimpyfan83]

No, the issue is the likes of Fulham and Brighton try to play a style of football that’s beyond the quality of players at their disposal, so generally get hammered when up against the decent teams, and the likes of City and Liverpool can now get 95+ points annually, something just as good - and probably better - teams 13 years ago couldn’t.

Pulis-era Stoke, Bolton and Blackburn etc played to their own primitive strengths, so therefore made games more competitive.

Burnley play a similar way and are essentially City’s bitch so I don’t think it’s that simple.

With the way the game has changed, I don’t think sides could get away with that approach nowadays. If those Stoke Arsenal games took place in 2021, Stoke would be down to eight men by half time.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

Milan and Inter won Champions Leagues within 4 years of Calciopoli, while Roma were a serious Champions League outfit then too; it’s naive to cite it as an example of why English teams flourished during that era.

Milan in 2007 was basically a last hurrah for that side. Inter were the best Italian side of that era but underachieved in Europe until the second Mourinho season. I wouldn’t call Roma a “force” in Europe. The did knock out a terrible Real Madrid side but were twice comfortably defeated by United and lost on penalties to Arsenal, who at Champions League level were never up there with the top English sides.

In the mid-late 2010s you’ve had six really strong teams outside of England who could challenge every year. In that era there just wasn’t that depth in quality.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

Agree, everytime someone says modern football is 'better', particularly compared to a period as recently as 10 years ago I'm left scratching my head and asking what has changed so much? What is 'modern football'?

Just watch an average Premier League game from 2009 and then another from 2019. It should be pretty obvious.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Milan and Inter won Champions Leagues within 4 years of Calciopoli, while Roma were a serious Champions League outfit then too; it’s naive to cite it as an example of why English teams flourished during that era.

Chelsea should/would have beaten Barcelona and reach another final if UEFA didn’t have an agenda against them, and do everything they could to ensure Pep’s doped-up dwarfs got to the final.

That Liverpool midfield 3 of Mascherano, Alonso and Gerrard that never won the league is an upgrade on what City, Liverpool and United currently have at the top of the table, as were any 3 of Essien/Makelele/Ballack and Lampard.

English football had a post-Ferguson decline of about 5 years, but looks to be heading back to where it once was.

Due to their financial situation they couldn't replace the players they had and started to lose big players. Any team that loses its stars will begin to suffer. When we beat Milan in 09 they were a clear shell of what they had been. Shevchenko and Kaka leaving was something that rarely happens at really big clubs. Add that to the aging legends who they tried to replace with cheap transfers(likes of Oddo, Kaladze) and it was always going to end in tears.

No one ever took Roma seriously, stop it. Juve were extinct which historically had always been a big player in the CL.

Inter somehow managed to get a few cheap transfers right but they were all stop gaps. Jose did well to leave them when he did cause they were also an aging team from a bygone era.

I don't even know how this is a debate. We all know that Italian football collapsed in those days. Spanish football went into transition. It's not like they were beating high quality sides from around the globe.

 

[Pep's Suit]

Were things better when I was a guy in 20s? YES. What a surprise.

Maybe he's right, I don't know. But a lot of managers from that era played mainly negative, passive, simple football and didn't evolve with time.

 

[rollingstoned1]

Just watch an average Premier League game from 2009 and then another from 2019. It should be pretty obvious.

It isn't though, unless youre going to throw out phrases like 'phases of play' and 'progressive football' which to me is just a bunch of hot air. The teams outside the top 6 have more money, that's the biggest change. People confuse that for teams becoming better from top to bottom when that's debatable imo because that doesn't happen In a vacuum.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

It isn't though, unless youre going to throw out phrases like 'phases of play' and 'progressive football' which to me is just a bunch of hot air. The teams outside the top 6 have more money, that's the biggest change. People confuse that for teams becoming better from top to bottom when that's debatable imo because that doesn't happen In a vacuum.

The technical level is on average much higher, the pressing is much more focused and you see a lot less tactical indiscipline/stupidity from players.

 

[tenpoless]

I think one of the biggest difference was that back then, unless if youre really trying, you rarely find players who are good at one thing but failed at everything else. You look at the mistakes being made these days and wonder how did these players make it into the PL.

How many players struggle to do basic passing back then? how many captains were given the armbands just because they're one of the most expensive or oldest in the squad despite of glaring weaknesses? how many of them refused to work hard on the field because they're "flair" players? tactics change, they always do, but if you put the older teams vs the newer ones, what they lack in talent they will make up in hard work and that matters a lot.

Watching Chelsea vs United back then felt like watching two grown up men fighting in a ring, you either win or die. Watching them now feels like watching kindergarten kids throwing sands into each other and then one caught the sand in his eyes and begins crying "mummy, i have dust in me eyes". Then you look at RedCafe when we lose and people say "its okay because the team above us lose too" essentially saying it's okay if we never catch that team up.

 

[Mb194dc]

He's right and a quick look at the season reviews from that period confirm it. The big 4, Utd Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool were pretty much the best 4 teams in Europe. Only Barcelona and AC Milan for part of 06 to 09 were at the same level. There was also a lot of quality down the league. Excluding Derby of course...

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

How many players struggle to do basic passing back then? how many captains were given the armbands just because they're one of the most expensive or oldest in the squad despite of glaring weaknesses? how many of them refused to work hard on the field because they're "flair" players? tactics change, they always do, but if you put the older teams vs the newer ones, what they lack in talent they will make up in hard work and that matters a lot.

It’s literally the exact opposite. Plenty of defenders and goalkeepers couldn’t pass water and “luxury players” were indulged because pressing wasn’t such a big deal.

The thing about United and Chelsea games being between “grown men” is blinkered nostalgia too. Cristiano and Drogba were two of the biggest fannies to ever set foot on a Premier League pitch.

 

[rollingstoned1]

The technical level is on average much higher, the pressing is much more focused and you see a lot less tactical indiscipline/stupidity from players.

The English game is as chaotic now as it was then and before that. Any changes/ improvements people are seeing is only what they want to see.

 

[Daysleeper]

This is the weakest the EPL has been since 2016

 

[Pep's Suit]

Yeah, this league is so bad now that you literally have to spend £800m and hire one of the greatest managers ever to win it. Or hire that guy who won Bundesliga twice and made it to CL final with his underdogs but when he moved to England he still had to break transfer records for goalkeepers and defenders. Ohh that's because the league's so weak now.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Yeah, this league is so bad now that you literally have to spend £800m and hire one of the greatest managers ever to win it. Or hire that guy who won Bundesliga twice and made it to CL final with his underdogs but when he moved to England he still had to break transfer records for goalkeepers and defenders. Ohh that's because the league's so weak now.

Leicester didn’t spend 800m to win it and they did it with an average manager.
The worst Chelsea title winners in recent times took 93 points.
For what it’s worth, you had to break transfer records between 2006-2009 also.
I mean how much did Chelsea have to spend in that crazy spell that led to Mourinho winning that first title? It was a lot more than the rest wasn’t it? And he was also considered at that point one of the greatest managers, and Fergie is lauded as the greatest.

 

[Gio]

The thing is, less that a year ago we were all rewatching these “classic” games and although I wouldn’t go as far as saying they couldn’t trap a ball, the general quality of play seemed miles behind what we see nowadays.

It’s almost inevitable that we will be thinking the same thing about now in 15 years but that wouldn’t be recency bias it would be reality. It’s like saying that commenting on how Tekken 2 look likes garbage or that Jesse Owens was a tortoise compared to Usain Bolt is recency bias. If the average quality of football doesn’t improve over time then there’s something seriously wrong.

Maybe not the best example given Usain Bolt was in his record-breaking prime during Carragher’s 2005-2009 period and nobody has come close to hitting those times since. And not just him, the other top sprinters were regularly hitting levels that have barely been touched in the last decade. I think folk often throw athletics as always improving yet in most events it’s plateaud for decades.

What you are saying about the eye test is to some extent right but I draw a different conclusion. The strength of those top English teams was based on a contain-and-counter style that was formed on strong defences, hard-running midfields and the combination of quality and physicality up top. All the big teams followed the same model. And in Europe the opposition would often play the nice pretty passing patterns we see in the Premier League now, before getting blown away on the break.

The proof of the pudding is always in European results and the coefficients in the second half of the 2000s were off the charts. It was probably the highest it has been since the early 1980s when English sides won the European Cup (with a similar tactical model) 7 times in a row.

 

[Pep's Suit]

Leicester didn’t spend 800m to win it and they did it with an average manager.
The worst Chelsea title winners in recent times took 93 points.
For what it’s worth, you had to break transfer records between 2006-2009 also.
I mean how much did Chelsea have to spend in that crazy spell that led to Mourinho winning that first title? It was a lot more than the rest wasn’t it? And he was also considered at that point one of the greatest managers, and Fergie is lauded as the greatest.

Well, I don't think PL between 2012-2017 was that great.
Then you can argue that 00s PL managers were as much chequebook managers as the current ones.

 

[stevoc]

I think people these days are confusing fitter for better. What are the tactics nowadays? Run at the guy that has the ball and foul him if he gets past you? Modern football is a little shit for me.

Yeah i have a mate who thinks like this who at any point over the last 15 years was convinced that the current tactics popular in football are amazing and genius and anything in the past was dark ages football. Where managers just picked the team and then shouted ''Let's go boys, they won't like it up them''.

Too many teams these days concentrate the majority of their efforts on pressing to force the opponent into making a mistake as opposed to creating something themselves. Football as a spectacle is declining.

 

[stevoc]

Disagree with him.

Carragher’s argument is based on the assumption that more english teams were challenging for the european title and therefore that makes the PL in that era stronger.

However he’s ignoring the fact that the top spanish, german and italian(?) teams from that era were not as dominant as they have been in the past decade. So its not necessarily the fact PL was stronger back then but rather the rest of europe was not as strong as they have been recently.

Having said that i do agree with Carra on the fact that the 08-09 liverpool team were good enough to win the league.

By that logic Spanish teams were maybe not as good as they seemed between 2014-2018 as the English clubs weren't as dominant as they had been the previous decade.

I'm not sure thats how it works, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. Were English teams dominant back then because other leagues weren't as good? Or did other leagues not do as well because the English teams were so dominant?

 

[Trequarista10]

I don't think those Liverpool teams were as strong as Carragher thinks. It was United or Chelsea, just likes it's been Liverpool or City for the last 2-3 seasons.

Liverpool were a good cup team at that time if I remember right.

Perhaps, Ronaldo leaving the PL had a more widespread impact and stopped the concentration of top talent in the top 2-3 teams in England.

That was a quality and well drilled Liverpool side. They could play ourselves or Chelsea and have the better of the game for the most part. The central core of the wide was formidable and as good or better than anyone else's. Their biggest weakness was a lack of quality or firepower on the wings, as a result they couldn't break down certain sides. I seem to recall them having a number of 0-0 home draws against bottom half opposition under Rafa.

 

[stevoc]

The thing is, less that a year ago we were all rewatching these “classic” games and although I wouldn’t go as far as saying they couldn’t trap a ball, the general quality of play seemed miles behind what we see nowadays.

It’s almost inevitable that we will be thinking the same thing about now in 15 years but that wouldn’t be recency bias it would be reality. It’s like saying that commenting on how Tekken 2 look likes garbage or that Jesse Owens was a tortoise compared to Usain Bolt is recency bias. If the average quality of football doesn’t improve over time then there’s something seriously wrong.

Yeah that pretty much describes recency bias to a tee mate.

And Football changes and evolves, it doesn't necessarily always get better though.

 

[Renegade]

As good as Grealish is, I don’t think he’d be considered the best player in the league in 06-09.
With the exception of Bruno which current United player starts in our teams back then?

 

[FootballHQ]

City and Liverpool (when they’re not in an injury crisis) have fantastic defensive units though. Admittedly, United’s and Chelsea’s were better (though the tactics certainly helped for the latter), I wouldn’t say Liverpool or Arsenal’s back fours were anything special. In fact, Arsenal’s defense was notoriously poor.

I'd generally agree on Arsenal being the weaker of the six but then they did get to the CL final in 2006 without conceding a goal in knock outs and they played Real Madrid, Juve and Villareal in that run. And kept Barca scoreless in the final until about 75th minute and with 10 men for large chunk of that.

Liverpool was really interesting. Back 4 with likes of Hyypia, Carragher, Finnan and Riise and they played a ridiculously high line with Reina being a sweeper keeper long before Alisson turned up. You'd think that would be a striker's paradise but they barely ever seemed to concede in CL knock out games in that time bar a crazy second leg match v Chelsea one year. Also probably showed what a top class DM Mascherano was in those times and also Alonso.

Back then most English clubs in CL knock outs were nearly as strong defensively as Atletico Madrid are routinely yet had fantastic attackers in final third.

Now yes Man. City are very good defensive unit but look at it in champions league, exposed by likes of Monaco and Lyon since Pep came in.

 

[MrMarcello]

There were four spots from 2001-02 onwards. The “big 4” became so dominant because they qualified for the Champions League every year and continued to have a much higher revenue than everyone else. It took City being bought by the Emiratis to break that up.

Chelsea were one man's decision away from having to sell off Terry and a couple others. Roman chose to buy them over a couple other options and that cemented them as top four going forward. They were not a regular top four prior to 2003. Was a rotating quartet between Chelsea, Leeds, Liverpool, and Newcastle for 3rd/4th for a good 5-7 years, with Arsenal and United fighting for top spot, save Liverpool's fluke runner-up finish in 2002.

Edit: I must have responded to the wrong post.

 

[dal]

I remember 05-08 it was so easy to play in Europe. The English teams would just shit all over other teams who didn’t press.

Then Pep cottoned on the the press and everyone believes it was his idea.

I remember hiddink South Korea team in a World Cup they just hunted in packs remarkable viewing.

 

[giorno]

In relative terms, he's right. Though, the PL of the last 3 seasons or so is comparable

 

[berbatrick]

Just watch an average Premier League game from 2009 and then another from 2019. It should be pretty obvious.

there are full matches from 06/07 and 07/08 on youtube and i reached the opposite conclusion.

 

[Irwin99]

I think most people would argue that defenders in those teams were generally of a much higher standard but I wonder about the goalkeepers too?

The emphasis nowadays with teams playing out from the back probably invites more errors but were the likes of VDS, Cech, Reina (and he was a very good goalkeeper once) of a higher standard? Or at least more consistent? Arsenal's GK of that time was always a glaring weakness in their team so maybe we can factor that in as evidence against this argument.

 

[MrMarcello]

Look at that CBs in that era: Rio, Terry, Campbell, Carvalho, Vidic, even Carragher and Gallas were quite decent.

What I'd give for United to find a Rio or Carvalho today.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

League was different. Stronger as a whole with the top 4-6 teams, but the bottom half was garbage compared to these days just because teams then didn't have the same access to funds to sign players.

So basically there's more parity now. I think that makes the league as a whole a bit tougher, but the big games aren't as amazing as they once were.