Why are English sides dominating in Europe?

[Withnail]

That poster is saying it's not purely down to the managers not that it is absolutely not down to the managers. He's right that money is a pre-quisite and England always hard absurd amounts of it but didn't manage to gel it for awhile with quality coaching/running of clubs. That's changing now. Plus of course Europe's giants are a bit weak right now so it's opened up a vaccum for no so great English sides like Chelsea to make their mark.

I'm aware of that. Having watched the video I think they are misinterpreting what was said and arguing against a point that wasn't made.

Obviously better money brings better players and better managers in general.

However, if your recruitment is half-arsed and you employ LVG you're not getting to the CL final.

 

[ivaldo]

As as things stood last year Germany was?

Anyhoo, I think there's a difference between starting to become the dominant force and dominating. Just like Livepool weren't the dominant team on European because they won 1 EPl and made 2 CL finals. If this is domination I don't know what to call what Spanish football did between 09 and 2020. Need a new word for it perhaps.

Last year Germany had 1 team in the finals, not 3 as we see this year, or 4 the year before last. Are you trying to say that's comparable?

That is also domination. Are we only allowed one period of domination in history? If we go and win six on the bounce I suppose we can no longer say Spain was dominating during that period. And it's not just because 1 team wins it's, it's because we see a glut of teams in finals and semifinals. How often do we see as many teams making it to the finals and the latter stages of both European tournaments?

 

[Withnail]

They were building things up and moving on the right trajectory. Nobody gets it right first time. The spine of City's team was brought in during that period, it just needed finishing touches made. All down to the money, though.

Plus, the money spent literally doubling in the most recent timeframe is not something to be ignored.

Every top club was building things up and moving in the right direction?

I think you're taking some of what he said too literally. Obviously you need money to do well. That's kind of a given.

 

[Dante]

There are three factors to this: Money, GOATs and tiredness:

Money matters. The Premier League has been the richest in Europe for years and - despite the lack of recent trophies - still the strongest player for player. That's not changed. It's just we happen to be in a part of the cycle when it's easier to see.

Also, between 2008 and 2018 either Messi or Ronaldo won 8 out of 11 Champions Leagues. It may be true to say that Spanish teams were winning in Europe. But it's more accurate to say that the two GOATs had a duopoly of the top prize. If you took the top player out of every CL team in Europe, it would have been a much more even playing field.

You also have to factor in the more gruelling nature of the PL. Players joining from other leagues always comment about how much more physical and competitive it is from game week 1 to game week 38. By contrast, most other domestic competitions have all the strength concentrated at the top, meaning they get plenty of opportunities to take the foot off the gas. This obviously leaves them with more in the tank in May, when European trophies are finally decided.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Aside from Bayern, the rest of Europe is levels below where they should be.

Exactly. I don’t even think there’s an argument to say the PL teams are really that good - you basically have City and Chelsea under a Tuchel suit European football/are hard to beat - but the simultaneous drop off over the last couple of seasons from Real, Barca, Juve, Atheltico has been staggering.

That said, with that drop off has come a hell of a lot more entertainment in those leagues. Genuine title races in LL with more than two teams, Inter winning the Serie A...PSG might not win Ligue 1. For the average fan, competitiveness across the whole league is key.

 

[André Dominguez]

Because other leagues can't compete at the moment against a very good and strong EPL marketing which gives english clubs a even higher financial leverage?

 

[phenry]

Money is definitely one of the reasons but this doesn't explain the dominance. Madrid and Barca have also spent quite a lot over the past few years but most of their signings fail, and they are still relying on their overrated so-called star players who have past their best. I really hope English sides could maintain this dominance like La Liga did.

The absence of a domestic fear of failure has to blunt their edge a little bit

 

[Wilt]

Money money money

 

[Zen86]

That's kind of the point being made.

That's more the exception rather than the rule. Enough money will eventually buy success regardless.

 

[Tarrou]

has anyone mentioned money yet?

that

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

PL Money. Fulham have a bigger transfer budget than Bayern Munich.

 

[Withnail]

That's more the exception rather than the rule. Enough money will eventually buy success regardless.

I'm getting the impression you haven't even watched the clip.

 

[Red Star One]

Money, top managers and a bit of luck Barça/Madrid/Juve are all truly awful this season, still far off domination - only two Champions Leagues taken by English clubs in last 12 seasons, this year will be 4 in 14 which is not so bad but we are yet to witness levels of dominance we’ve seen from La Liga in Messi/Ronaldo heights.

 

[Varun]

Erm, money, loads of it which in turn also attracts the best managers.

Get the best players
Get the best managers
profit?

 

[romufc]

Its quite funny money is being mentioned as the key factor.

Yes the PL has more money but he likes of Barca, Real, Juve, Inter, Milan and PSG have spent the same amounts as some of the PL clubs. They pay some ridiculous wages as well.

The biggest thing is managers. The PL has the best managers which is the reason English teams are dominating.

Juve have a manger who has never managed before
Barca have a failed Everton manager.

Just have a look at Chelsea for example, looked really mediocre under Lampard, as soon as a better manager took over, they look a different prospect.

 

[largelyworried]

Most of it is down to the failures of others, to be honest. City would go toe to toe against better versions of Barca, Real, Bayern etc, but Chelsea certainly wouldn't. Both Atletico and Real were poor against them. They were well organised, hard to beat and took some of their chances, but that's about it. Some years you need a bit of magic to reach the CL final, but not this year. This is the weakest competition in some years.

As for us in the Europa, well, we're a big fish in a small pond. It's not easy to get to the end of knockout competitions, things can easily go wrong, but at the same time, you would expect us to reach the final given the level of competition. The same way I'd expect Barca, Real, Juve or those kinds of teams to reach the final if they were in the EL this year.

 

[AkaAkuma]

The video highlights managers as the variable that's changed, stating that the premier league has always had money, BUT: it's also a case of better investment. Both Liverpool and City invested well. Chelsea to an extent are also seeing youth investment paying off.

So it's top level management and investment.

Spanish clubs investment has also been poor the last 4 years.

 

[Lay]

I really don’t think English clubs are that great either, they’re just better than the rest.

 

[Thunderhead]

I really don’t think English clubs are that great either, they’re just better than the rest.

I think this is probably it tbh.

How long do people think it will take Barca, Real to get back to the top of the tree? and what do people think it will take to get them there? better managers, players obviously, how much will it cost them?

 

[Ajr]

Drugs

 

[AkaAkuma]

It's not luck that Barca, Real, Juve have fallen behind. They've invested poorly.

 

[RedDevilzFox]

Its a cycle.

 

[AkaAkuma]

I think this is probably it tbh.

How long do people think it will take Barca, Real to get back to the top of the tree? and what do people think it will take to get them there? better managers, players obviously, how much will it cost them?

Get every transfer right and hope the PL get theirs wrong.

I don't see City ballsing up, neither united, Chelsea just keep throwing money at it. Pool I can see them investing poorly.

 

[GBBQ]

Because other leagues can't compete at the moment against a very good and strong EPL marketing which gives english clubs a even higher financial leverage?

I don't buy that, of the top 10 most expensive signings ever, only 1 is a transfer to an English club (Pogba to United for less than 50% of the cost of Neymar to PSG). some of these clubs are bankrolled by states or have their debts excused in order to bring in galacticos.

Look at the ballon d'or; since Ronaldo won it in 2008 only one UK based player has made the top 3 and that was Van Dijk. The "best" players are still playing at the glamour clubs.

No club has a better financial leverage than PSG yet for all the stars they have bought they still don't have a champions league to their name. Its down to management, Klopp and Pep have done amazing things at their clubs, Tuchel (who took PSG closest) looks to be getting a tune out of the Chelsea team, Solskjaer has instilled a mindset that sees us believing we can win most games even when we're a goal down. Rogers has kept Leicester fighting for CL after their improbable win under Ranieri, Bielsa is doing great things with Leeds and even 9th place Everton have a manager who won the CL 3 times.

Having so many managers who are making the most out of their teams means there are rarely any dead rubber games any more (except of course against Southampton). You might win a match but you'll know you've been in a battle against most teams.

 

[MU655]

It is not just money. Barcelona have wrecked their finances due to bad investments. How many times have they spent over 100m on a player? Three times: Dembele, Coutinho, and Griezmann. About £380m spent in the last three seasons.

Another team that has gone a bit under the radar is Atletico. They have spent a lot of money in recent years. They have spent £450m in the last three seasons.

Real Madrid have spent £450m in the last three seasons. Well, actually they spent it all in just two seasons. Nothing spent in the last summer.

In comparison. Man city spent £370m, Chelsea spent £440m, Manutd spent £350m, and Liverpool spent £250m. So, on average, in the last three seasons, Spanish teams have spent quite a lot more.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Its quite funny money is being mentioned as the key factor.

Yes the PL has more money but he likes of Barca, Real, Juve, Inter, Milan and PSG have spent the same amounts as some of the PL clubs. They pay some ridiculous wages as well.

The biggest thing is managers. The PL has the best managers which is the reason English teams are dominating.

Juve have a manger who has never managed before
Barca have a failed Everton manager.

Just have a look at Chelsea for example, looked really mediocre under Lampard, as soon as a better manager took over, they look a different prospect.

I'd agree with this in that there are actually very few 'proven' top level managers and most are in the PL. I also don't think the PL is even that good this year, football as a whole has struggled due to the fixture lists and covid, if you picked the top four from the PL based off squad depth & luck with injuries, you'd basically get City, United/Chelsea and one other (probably not Leicester which I think is testament to Rodgers, maybe Spurs or Liverpool), I don't think you'd find any City, United, Chelsea fans saying their respective managers are reinventing the wheel (i.e. City are obviously happy to have won the league but also would have been disappointed not to have won it).

I do think the weakness of the La Liga/Serie A teams coincided with the fact clubs, as soon as covid hit, became focused on minimising losses. Unless you are City, Chelsea or PSG...no coincidence they made up 3/4 semi finalists it would be super high risk to appoint an expensive manager and then you have to back him, there is a definite trend of clubs appointing former players without elite level experience right now - Lampard, Ole, Arteta, Pirlo, Xavi apparently waiting in the wings at Barca. I think it'll become more and more common because it makes so much sense; supporters are more patient, managers less likely to want to/be able to move and they are much cheaper.

 

[2 man midfield]

Everyone else shat the bed. That’s why it’s so annoying that we lost away to a Turkish also ran, because I think we could have had a good shot at the CL this season. There’s no stand out sides apart from City, and we’ve already beaten them this season.

 

[André Dominguez]

I don't buy that, of the top 10 most expensive signings ever, only 1 is a transfer to an English club (Pogba to United for less than 50% of the cost of Neymar to PSG). some of these clubs are bankrolled by states or have their debts excused in order to bring in galacticos.

Look at the ballon d'or; since Ronaldo won it in 2008 only one UK based player has made the top 3 and that was Van Dijk. The "best" players are still playing at the glamour clubs.

No club has a better financial leverage than PSG yet for all the stars they have bought they still don't have a champions league to their name. Its down to management, Klopp and Pep have done amazing things at their clubs, Tuchel (who took PSG closest) looks to be getting a tune out of the Chelsea team, Solskjaer has instilled a mindset that sees us believing we can win most games even when we're a goal down. Rogers has kept Leicester fighting for CL after their improbable win under Ranieri, Bielsa is doing great things with Leeds and even 9th place Everton have a manager who won the CL 3 times.

Having so many managers who are making the most out of their teams means there are rarely any dead rubber games any more (except of course against Southampton). You might win a match but you'll know you've been in a battle against most teams.

You have to look at the league as a whole. Every EPL team is getting good funding, which makes the league highly competitive, therefore big teams profit from it by being used to play against high demanding physical and technical teams. Not to mention that the EPL mangerial and coaching staff is amazingly high in quality nowadays.

It's a bit like the Serie A in their prime days, when they had fortunes to spend on players before Calciocaos and Calciopoli. The competition was so good at Serie A that even if you faced a small italian team it would be a very difficult match. In those times, it would be a rare event if an italian team would not reach at least a final of any of the UEFA competitions in one season.

You hve built a fantastic "product", just don't ruin it now.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

It's because the PL has a larger number of wealthy clubs which can afford better players and managers. The odds favor the PL because they just need some of those clubs to have a good year.

The PL's performance in the CL is not particularly impressive, imo, especially if City end up winning it. It'll just be 'clubs that win the domestic league, also won the continental league', which is how this typically goes.

The EL is more impressive, and again, it's because of the number of wealthy clubs. Spain sent Granada to the EL.

 

[mu4c_20le]

It's because the PL has a larger number of wealthy clubs. The odds favor the PL because they just need some of those clubs to have a good year.

Chelsea v Real Madrid was obviously not about the odds though... you were thoroughly outplayed.

I think this is a freak year because both Madrid and Barca have invested very poorly. Pre covid they were spending like the world was about to end.

 

[Eugenius]

Barca and Real not replacing Neymar, Suarez, prime Bale and Ronaldo properly basically.

 

[giorno]

They make good points, but also part of it is just timing and luck of the draw, too. Real Madrid are basically still rebuilding from one of the most successful periods in modern football - hard to rebuild when you have most of the best players in the world starting at every position - and then invested poorly. Barcelona invested poorly post Neymar full stop, and repeatedly fecked up the managerial hires

Bayern fecked up too with Kovac - then won everything after replacing him, and this year it was an injury to their best player at the worst time, along with a few unlucky bounces, that saw them out against psg.

City were lucky in the semifinal against psg, no two ways about it

And the all english finals are only made possible by the draw keeping english sides separate from each other

 

[tenpoless]

Conquering it for one year is not domination. Too early talks.

 

[RedDevilCanuck]

Money, managers and undeniable English talent.

Looks like the youth teams are finally selecting the small kids with technique and vision instead of the big lad that gets stuck in.

 

[Rektsanwalt]

They bought in some of the best players and definitely the best coaches. Also Messi and Ronaldo declining (and their respective sides as well, just look at how old Madrid are).

 

[He'sRaldo]

P.E teachers vs real managers.

And quite a bit of money.

 

[Boavista]

The English teams are doing well at the moment while other usual contenders are going through weaker phases. I think too much emphasis is put on who's in the final anyway. It's still a game of fine margins, take the final two seasons ago for instance. Spurs scraped through against Ajax, and Liverpool overturned a 3-0 first leg deficit. Would English football be any more or less dominant if those two matches had gone marginally different? That's not a statement about English football necessarily, because the same applies practically every year. Although if it's the same clubs year after year then I guess there's sufficient data to say they've been dominant.

That being said, I expect the trend of English teams doing better to continue given the amount of money, quality managers and players. The Premier League will likely send four strong teams to the CL every year, and relatively strong teams to the EL, so the odds are high that some will do well. However only last year just one English team made it to the EL semi finals, and none in the CL, so I think it's a little early to talk of dominance beyond individual seasons.

 

[Bobski]

It doesn't speak highly of the current standard around Europe, because despite all the money the quality level in the PL is not blowing Me away. City are very good, maybe their best squad but certainly not the strongest 11 they have had recently. Chelsea were toothless most of the season while if we are honest about Utd there are plenty of areas to improve on.

I wonder if the compressed schedules with no winter break is helping the English teams with deeper squads. Either way hoping next season will be a higher standard from all.

 

[Thunderhead]

City were lucky in the semifinal against psg, no two ways about it

eh? apart from the first 30 mins in the first leg they were easily the better team, created more, nullified Naymar in both legs, stopped Mbappe in the first leg, didn't concede a shot on goal in the second leg and you're saying they were lucky!

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Chelsea v Real Madrid was obviously not about the odds though... you were thoroughly outplayed.

Chelsea being good this year is part of the odds I am referring to, as well as the money.

The PL sent four teams to the CL. One didn't do its job (United) and two weren't having great seasons. But Chelsea can afford to fire their manager halfway through the season and hire one of the most promising managers in the world to take over. He came in, improved them, and now they're in a final.

Chelsea hadn't been to a semifinal in ages, and we don't know when they'll play another one. So, like I said, you need good-to-great PL teams to have one good season. Hardly abnormal, at least not yet.