On the continent there isn't one midtable team who needs that much, on the continent you build a european side with that money. While in England you purchase midtable players.
The relative strength of the Premier League
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
I don't disagree... The crux of my point was that whilst a few teams may be so spectacularly bad at spending money it may allow for them to be awful whilst spending lots of money, statistically it can't be the case that evrry team is awful.
If you gave Augsberg €50m to spend every season for the next 5 seasons would they inexplicably waste it, or would they be more likely to succeed? I'd assert the latter. I fail to believe that every Premier League is insanely bad and every European team is insanely efficient when it comes to signing players. More likely is that signings are more like to fail in the PL, Hernandez is a prime example.
English teams are not awful, but the money spent by the english market doesn't reflect the quality of the market at all. For example Aston Villa, they bought Veretout and Ayew for 22m€ but believe me or not those players worth around 6m€ combined, Lorient replaced Ayew by a better player with 2.5m€, Saint Etienne bought four better strikers for less than 12m.
This is true what you say. But there are also other factors. Firstly the small teams have to pay way over the market value to get good players. They have to overpay on the fee and also on the salary or else these players wouldn't consider them normally. Case in point being Nzonzi, who was by far and away Stoke's best player for 2 years. Sevilla got him for only €7m. He had one year left in his contract, Stoke were desperate to keep him, Leicester offered more money, both Stoke and Leicester offered more salary yet he went to Sevilla. The small teams are overpaying just to have flops like Affaley and Imbulla.
Secondly both Germany and Spain produce superior domestic talents. If you take away all the foreigners english teams would not be able to compete with them. The financial advantage allows them to bridge the gap and then maybe even surpass in some cases but not in every case. I think this is one of the reasons why the quality of Serie-A went down in recent years. They stopped producing the kind of talents they used to and they don't have premier league money to make up for it either.
Good posts. At the same time, you have teams like Pescara who won Serie B with a trio of Verratti, Insigne and Immobile, now probably valued at 100m+, and 7th placed Sassuolo who have been punching above their weight with talents like Berardi, Vrsaljko, Duncan, Sansone and previously Zaza. The difference between Sassuolo and 7th placed Stoke really isn't that big despite budget differences, although no EPL fan who never watches Serie A would admit to that.
Would they win it? Probably.
Would they do it the exact same way? Don't be stupid. I have a friend, an American who has never followed football until last year. He spent all last year watching German, Spanish and English football deciding which team he would support. He eventually fell on Arsenal (I KNOW LOL). His observations on the top leagues are as follows.
The Premier League is a harder league to win, not because the teams are better, but because the teams play not to lose, they don't play to win. He also believes that from his observations, that PL league teams build around this premise, play not to lose, and as such care less about technical players and more about athletes who can play fast direct football so that they can excel in the park the bus and hit on the counter style that just about every team in the PL outside the top few teams play. They don't play like that in Germany, and they don't play like that in Spain. In both Germany and Spain they play very open positive football, even the relegation battling teams tend to play that way.
This allows teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid and Bayern play much easier matches on average. They are not playing teams built around athleticism to defend and hit on the counter week in and week out, which is what the Prem has turned into in the last 5 years or so.
Last edited:
I haven't read his post, don't care to. However this is hilarious. You're being extremely disingenuous. Yes, teams in the PL sometimes run away with the league. The difference is, in Spain the same two teams almost ALWAYS run away with the league, and the gap between 1st and 2nd is dwarfed by the gap between 2nd and 3rd. In the PL Chelsea and United have dominated, true, but the general congestion at the top is actually there.
Nah, Barca and Madrid would still regularly destroy teams. They wouldn't do it every week, but then they don't in La Liga, either. They've had plenty of wins which would be classified as routine without being spectacular, and some tough ones too. I do think that a team like Barca would regularly annihilate the likes of Aston Villa, Sunderland, Newcastle and Norwich, for example.
It's worth noting that Barca didn't win a league game by four or more goals until November...and even that was against Real Madrid! Granted, they've won a fair few since, and they'd already won a few by three, but it highlights that despite what we say, and despite how incredible they are, they don't destroy every team they play against. And that would be the same over here. I really think a lot of the relegation contending teams would struggle to get anything off Barca at all except on a complete freak of an occasion, because they're so much better than anyone on display in this league right now. The likes of Stoke/Everton/West Ham would perhaps take the occasional point/win from them on a very good day, but Barca would still win most of the time, as they would against all sides in the league. Same sort of applies to Real Madrid, although to a lesser extent right now.
Nailed it
It's also possible that your friend is not right . A few days ago Barcelona eliminated one of the best Arsenal in years with little sweat. You think that a half of the table P.L team would hold Madrid at Bernabeu?
Funnily enough french football players say the opposite, they love England because teams play to win.
Surely it would make more sense to allocate equal points to each group winner?
Other wise is loaded to reward the top table. We already know their best is better than our best.
This is supposed to measure relative strength of the league not just who wins the big prizes.
In Barca's first 10 La Liga games, their results included an initial two games in which they beat Bilbao and Malaga 1-0, lost to Celta Vigo 4-1, lost to Sevilla 2-1, beat Eibar 3-1, Getafe 2-0 and Las Palmas 2-1. That's the majority of games in which Barca have either won by one or two goals, and not won.
Bearing in mind that this Barca side is pretty fecking incredible (the above isn't meant to discredit them), this kind of counters the argument that they continually thump teams every single week. They do it incredibly often...but that's because they're brilliant, and they'd do that in the Premier League too. Transfer Barca's first 10 results to Premier League teams in the equivalent positions, and this is what you'd get...
Stoke 0-1 Barcelona
Barcelona 1-0 Everton
Tottenham 1-2 Barcelona
Barcelona 4-1 Aston Villa
Manchester United 4-1 Barcelona
Barcelona 2-1 Bournemouth
West Ham 2-1 Barcelona
Barcelona 5-2 Sunderland
Barcelona 3-1 Southampton
Swansea 0-2 Barcelona
Now, I'm not claiming that to be at all representative/conclusive of what would happen at all, since tables can change quickly/easily, and it's being very selective because Barca have started to destroy teams more regularly later this season, so I'm not using this as a be all and end all or anything (just for hypothetical interest), but the above does still have them winning 8 out of 10. Does anyone find that unrealistic? I'd struggle to see them not beating Villa by at least six. Maybe Sunderland, too. I'd struggle to fathom our side or West Ham beating them at all right now, unless Barca fielded a weakened team, for example. Their current La Liga form would probably be similar, if not better, in the Premier League.
Bearing in mind that this Barca side is pretty fecking incredible (the above isn't meant to discredit them), this kind of counters the argument that they continually thump teams every single week. They do it incredibly often...but that's because they're brilliant, and they'd do that in the Premier League too. Transfer Barca's first 10 results to Premier League teams in the equivalent positions, and this is what you'd get...
Stoke 0-1 Barcelona
Barcelona 1-0 Everton
Tottenham 1-2 Barcelona
Barcelona 4-1 Aston Villa
Manchester United 4-1 Barcelona
Barcelona 2-1 Bournemouth
West Ham 2-1 Barcelona
Barcelona 5-2 Sunderland
Barcelona 3-1 Southampton
Swansea 0-2 Barcelona
Now, I'm not claiming that to be at all representative/conclusive of what would happen at all, since tables can change quickly/easily, and it's being very selective because Barca have started to destroy teams more regularly later this season, so I'm not using this as a be all and end all or anything (just for hypothetical interest), but the above does still have them winning 8 out of 10. Does anyone find that unrealistic? I'd struggle to see them not beating Villa by at least six. Maybe Sunderland, too. I'd struggle to fathom our side or West Ham beating them at all right now, unless Barca fielded a weakened team, for example. Their current La Liga form would probably be similar, if not better, in the Premier League.
Relegation threatened Norwich have been notoriously attacking at times, perhaps to their own detriment. Newcastle have gotten the odd good win/draw against bigger sides, with high scoring games, despite also being threatened with relegation. Bournemouth are now mostly free, but for much have the season were contenders and (again) play decent football.
As @Cina said, if the gap between the top two come the end of the season is similar to that of the Premier League, then the idea that they can prioritise European games is doubtful since one slip up will hand the advantage to the other. How far ahead Barcelona and Madrid (and sometimes Atletico) are of the rest doesn't make a difference with regards to that specific point.
At the end you had the score of all the teams from the same league and you will have your ranking by league.
For example: The first have 15 points and last 1 points.
Group 1:
1.Barcelona 2.Bayern 3.Paris 4.Juventus 5.Leicester
Group 2:
1.Dortmund 2.Atletico 3.Tottenham 4.Napoli 5. Monaco
Group 3:
1.Real Madrid 2.Man City 3.Lyon 4.Inter 5 Hertha
So you have Bundesliga 25pts, Liga 29pts, EPL 22pts, Ligue1 22pts, Serie A 21 pts.
Last edited:
Even that, is factually wrong. I mean you see Twigginator and other zombies claim that EPL is so competitive this year compared to Bundesliga who is an one horse race, but then Leicester is 5 points ahead of the second place, which is the exact same number of points that Bayern is ahead of Dortmund. And both Bayern and Dortmund are light years better than Leicester and Spurs.
This is spot on. In fact I would argue that it isn't only the best way, but it is actually the only way of comparing the quality of the leagues. 7 teams from these leagues play in Europe (which makes more than 1/3 of the teams in the league per year, and more than half of the teams if you compare in 5 years or so) and look at their results in 3-5 years and you have a quite accurate picture on the quality of the leagues. However, claiming that the 15th team in EPL is better than the 15th team in Bundesliga/La Liga (teams that Twigginater hasn't ever watched) based on the number of European flops that team has signed, and based on the amount of money it has spent, makes Twigginater happy.
I don't want you to say anything. It's Krychowiak.
Using the cups as a metric to measure teams throws up stats like Bradford being better than Chelsea and PSV matching United. It obviously doesn't work that well.
But English teams have an abysmal scouting policy. I mean, can it be more abysmal than it has been?
The money isn't king. If that was Atletico wouldn't win their league 2 years ago and reach UCL final, or fight with Barca this year. Or Leicester winning EPL. Money helps - a lot - but is only part of what makes a top team. There are a lot of other factors there.
One other thing is that EPL clubs spend more, but then La Liga/Bundesliga teams get a bunch of players from their academies for free. With English players being shit, and with English teams being more interested in signing the newest European flop than developing their own players, that compensates for the difference on money.
I think you're both right on accounts but we should differentiate that the scenario of 'how well would Barca/Madrid do in the Premier League' is based on their teams that have been built and succeeded in a different league. So yes, today and in the very near future they would regularly win the league and beat other teams with 'ease'.
However, I don't think Barca/Madrid would be the same team they would be today, if they had started in the Premier League 10 years ago. League competition financially and player durability, would massively affect their style of play and transfer policy.
It's a bit like Wenger's Arsenal invincibles and Mourinho's Chelsea, where after their initial (overwhelming) dominance, other teams in the league adjusted and they were no longer able to continue that streak. Barca and Madrid have been able to continually build on their foundation because there's less sustained competition (compared to the EPL).
Arsenal, Chelsea, City and Utd have had to continually adapt and change (and thus share dominance and vulnerability) because of the pace/competition/athletic style of the league.
Personally though, I think the league atm is the weakest we've seen in years but that's a completely separate topic and doesn't change the theories we're discussing.
Edit: I should add here though that it doesn't take away from the fact that the form, style and winning mentality Barca have shown in the past 10 years is absolutely incredible.
Maybe they're right though, 'playing not to lose' is basically playing the margins of doing everything in a game effectively to remain competitive during the full 90 mins, which in effect is 'there is always a chance to win'.
Last edited:
Not really. 1/3+ of league teams are guaranteed to play in Europe each year. In the last 5 years, I think that more than 10 teams from each league have played in Europe. Look at their results and it is a quite accurate way of measuring the strength of the entire league.
Oh, the guy who never watched football said so, it must be accurate.
How on Earth Barca would 'probably' win EPL? They basically embarrass each and every one of English top teams year after year? If they can humiliate arguably Fergie's greatest team of all time, multiple Arsenal and City teams, can you see them struggling with the mighty Watford and Villa? Or with Leicester for that matter.
Just look at the last 20 English-Spanish ties in Europe and see the results.
Barca, Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid would absolutely walk this EPL. It would be a massacre and they would easily win the league with 10+ points more than any current EPL team.
That's not what it means, it literally means playing for the draw. It's exactly how french team play and that's why the league is shit.
Case closed.
I'd written out a detailed reply after I got about 6 posts into the thread and then read the rest of it. The title should be "Twiggenator goes into meltdown about the strength of the Premier League"
Barcelona's front 3 would destroy most Premier League teams easily and rack up big wins like they do in Spain. Just look at how Suarez performed when he was at Liverpool (they scored like 100+ goals) and remember that instead of Sturridge and Sterling you have Neymar and Messi.
Also
at the bold bit. Observations from someone who's watched a year of football...Yes, they would.
Barcelona has fecking mincemeated almost every English team they have come against, they made City their bitches 4 times, have been humping Arsenal for years on end and took us down twice in the finals (once at a time where the PL was the best in Europe and we were the best team in Europe). They should have easily beaten Chelsea in 2012 which would have just been the icing on the cake.
Point stands anyway, they could decimate the very best we have to offer, so imagine what the hell they would do to the lower teams in the league. Btw it doesn't get any worse with than anecdote; an American who started watching football last year
It's 2nd best. Don't know why it's so hard to admit. Years of "bestest league in the world" acoustic irradiation from Sky Sports must be causing this. Spurs, title challengers, best defensive record in the league, at home, fail to keep an average European side in bad form, down to 10 men, with Welbeck/Giroud leading the line from scoring in one of the biggest games of the season when the title is on the line. Exciting. But absolute average quality-wise.
And then you've got these weird "more games, tired for Europe" sort of arguments.
Barcelona games this season: 48 (after today's match day)
Arsenal games this season: 42
Arsenal actually got tonked, at home, by a side that is playing every 3 days since the turn of the year and is in 2nd gear right now physically due to the amount of games played. Messi, Neymar and Suarez did not even take part in the team training session before the Arsenal game. They got a day off instead. But sure, they'd struggle in the mega competitive Premier League. The only league where the bottom table teams are stronger than its top teams, which are getting regularly embarrassed by Barca and Co.
And then you've got these weird "more games, tired for Europe" sort of arguments.
Barcelona games this season: 48 (after today's match day)
Arsenal games this season: 42
Arsenal actually got tonked, at home, by a side that is playing every 3 days since the turn of the year and is in 2nd gear right now physically due to the amount of games played. Messi, Neymar and Suarez did not even take part in the team training session before the Arsenal game. They got a day off instead. But sure, they'd struggle in the mega competitive Premier League. The only league where the bottom table teams are stronger than its top teams, which are getting regularly embarrassed by Barca and Co.
La Liga is easily the best league atm. They have outperformed in Europe and have the best players play in their league.
PL is also good, its too tiring due to intensity, lack of break and added games. They should revamp League cup. The league is evolving and it's headed in a positive direction. I can see PL teams performing very well in the near future.
PL is also good, its too tiring due to intensity, lack of break and added games. They should revamp League cup. The league is evolving and it's headed in a positive direction. I can see PL teams performing very well in the near future.
Again I do acknowledge that English teams, particularly some of them, waste tens of millions every year. However what are the chances that 15 teams all turn out to be stupidly ineffective in the transfer market? I also accept that Spanish and German teams have the monopoly of local talent, but again a lot of this seems to get mopped up by the big two teams in each league and quickly then gets mopped up by richer PL teams.
The truth is that there is no way that every team in the PL can throw 4-5 times the transfer fee and salary at certain players and not (even almost accidently) come up with a better team. The sheer law of averages suggests the Premier League will have a very strong mid-low stronghold.
Last edited:
You should actually watch Bayern matches, because that's exactly what the vast majority of the opposite teams are doing. Defending with a 5-4-1 formation is not uncommon, especially in our own stadium.
Levante had a player salary cap of €200,000 a few years ago, teams like Getafe, Levante, Rayo, Las Palmas and Eibar survive by getting in loans or journeymen players who are out of contract. Plenty of Championship teams could afford to buy players from these teams and double their salaries if they wanted to. I agree it seems unlikely that lower table La Liga teams are better than lower table PL sides.
What happened to Capuano?
Okay, my observation from watching numerous of Barcelona and Real Madrid games over the last 3-4 years is, that the opponents are just as negative down there as lesser teams in England against the top teams. Rayo Vallacano is the only team that seems to be going head first at Camp Nou and Bernabeu, which give them some heavy defeats like 10-2 at the Bernabeu this season, but the rest aren't like that, even Atletico Madrid park the bus and play on the counter. I haven't watch that many Bayern games, but I don't think its much different either, when lesser teams go to Camp Nou, Bernabeu, Allianz Arena, Juventus Stadium etc. they will try to defend first and foremost, and hit the home team on the break. That's been the way to play top teams away for many years, simply because if you try to play against them, they have much better players who will punish the gaps.
Great to see that the level of discourse increased in this thread over night, people from both sides of the argument making great posts.
The fact about money is incredibly important. I'll compile a list of the transfers to and from different clubs soon and it quickly becomes apparent that Premier League clubs are buying some major talent.
Yeah but don't look at transfer fees, you look at players ability. You will probably have someone like Shaqiri way above Berardi even though he's worse. Knowing you it will probably be a list of players West Brom bought at extortionate fees with some Spanish side transfers at small fees with conclusion of West Brom being an incredible force and Spanish team being utterly shite dumb idiots not worth a second of anyone's time.
It's really not that important to HAVE money, it's important to spend it well which English clubs have not been doing for a while and it resulted in them not being competitive in Europe (that and the fact that the league is so exhausting it leaves them little energy to hammer Barcelona like they normally would).
Last edited: