Jump to content

Signs of English football slipping?


Danny
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's been 'the' league for a few seasons now.

But as anyone would tell you part of what makes a league such a heavyweight is having its 4 or so main top sides being the sides everyone else has to beat.

Being the strongest teams who consistently top the table and look the part.

Italy has finally got its act together this season and the top 5 sides in the country are in their rightful places at the proper end of the table.

Spain are the same, the top 5 in that country are at the top.

But England is a different animal this year - the top 4 are in a muddled order and Aston Villa are bizarrely in there this year. None of the top 4 regular sides have fired on all cylinders - Arsenal are well off the pace, Chelsea's bandwagon has lost its wheels, and Liverpool are the only side who look like they could challenge Man Utd, albeit Man Utd themselves aren't exactly in the form of their lives.

Could it be that English football is slightly slipping now, and rather than being the big one - all 3 of the main leagues are pretty much equals now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never thought of the EPL as the "top" league but everyone has their opinions i suppose.

Look at the CL seeding this year. Look at the money going into it.

key word in your sentance.

just because its the richest don't mean its the best.

No, but the former sentence does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never thought of the EPL as the "top" league but everyone has their opinions i suppose.

Look at the CL seeding this year. Look at the money going into it.

key word in your sentance.

just because its the richest don't mean its the best.

No, but the former sentence does.

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

Five English teams have been in the final the last 4 years.

05 Liverpool (winners)

06 Arsenal (runners-up)

07 Liverpool (runners-up)

08 Manchester United (winners)

08 Chelsea (runners-up)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

Five English teams have been in the final the last 4 years.

05 Liverpool (winners)- Ac milan

06 Arsenal (runners-up)- Barcelona

07 Liverpool (runners-up)- Milan

08 Manchester United (winners)

08 Chelsea (runners-up)

AND AC milan alone have been in two of those 4

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

Five English teams have been in the final the last 4 years.

05 Liverpool (winners)- Ac milan

06 Arsenal (runners-up)- Barcelona

07 Liverpool (runners-up)- Milan

08 Manchester United (winners)

08 Chelsea (runners-up)

AND AC milan alone have been in two of those 4

Which means what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never thought of the EPL as the "top" league but everyone has their opinions i suppose.

Look at the CL seeding this year. Look at the money going into it.

key word in your sentance.

just because its the richest don't mean its the best.

No, but the former sentence does.

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

This post is based 100% on conjecture.

If you think the English sides have had an easy ride in the CL and are just 'lucky' to have a high seeding, then I suspect reasoning with you on this one is not going to bear fruit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

Five English teams have been in the final the last 4 years.

05 Liverpool (winners)- Ac milan

06 Arsenal (runners-up)- Barcelona

07 Liverpool (runners-up)- Milan

08 Manchester United (winners)

08 Chelsea (runners-up)

AND AC milan alone have been in two of those 4

:) Yes they have and I was delighted when they beat Liverpool in 07, I could just see Liverpool getting a jammy comeback.

So thats 5 English (4 clubs), 2 Italian (1 club) and 1 Spanish.

It's not easy to get that many teams in the final of the CL so it can't be an easy run of games. I think the definition of 'best' in this case would be most successful and it's clear to see that England can claim the rights to this from their recent domination.

It's inevitable that things will change and the recent league positions could well be a sign of that happening. Hopefully we will get a better idea after the next round of the CL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

Five English teams have been in the final the last 4 years.

05 Liverpool (winners)- Ac milan

06 Arsenal (runners-up)- Barcelona

07 Liverpool (runners-up)- Milan

08 Manchester United (winners)

08 Chelsea (runners-up)

AND AC milan alone have been in two of those 4

Which means what?

nothing just like the point of 4 english teams have made the final the last 4 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never thought of the EPL as the "top" league but everyone has their opinions i suppose.

Look at the CL seeding this year. Look at the money going into it.

key word in your sentance.

just because its the richest don't mean its the best.

No, but the former sentence does.

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

This post is based 100% on conjecture.

If you think the English sides have had an easy ride in the CL and are just 'lucky' to have a high seeding, then I suspect reasoning with you on this one is not going to bear fruit.

im not suggesting that for a second.

didnt put my point across well there at all, i mean in the group stages one team may have 3 average sides in it, the top seed say Man utd, may win all the games barring maybe 1 meaning they get MORE points than say a Barca that maybe has 2 Very good sides and a minnow say they draw 3 games and win the other 3 they will get LESS points for the seedings than what Man Utd will have got.

is that a bit better for you to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

Five English teams have been in the final the last 4 years.

05 Liverpool (winners)- Ac milan

06 Arsenal (runners-up)- Barcelona

07 Liverpool (runners-up)- Milan

08 Manchester United (winners)

08 Chelsea (runners-up)

AND AC milan alone have been in two of those 4

Which means what?

nothing just like the point of 4 english teams have made the final the last 4 years.

Nope, I'm just not following your line of argument here at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

Five English teams have been in the final the last 4 years.

05 Liverpool (winners)- Ac milan

06 Arsenal (runners-up)- Barcelona

07 Liverpool (runners-up)- Milan

08 Manchester United (winners)

08 Chelsea (runners-up)

AND AC milan alone have been in two of those 4

:) Yes they have and I was delighted when they beat Liverpool in 07, I could just see Liverpool getting a jammy comeback.

So thats 5 English (4 clubs), 2 Italian (1 club) and 1 Spanish.

It's not easy to get that many teams in the final of the CL so it can't be an easy run of games. I think the definition of 'best' in this case would be most successful and it's clear to see that England can claim the rights to this from their recent domination.

It's inevitable that things will change and the recent league positions could well be a sign of that happening. Hopefully we will get a better idea after the next round of the CL.

Still wouldnt even come close to deciding which league is best as you are taking UCL results as your proof are these the only teams that play in each league

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never thought of the EPL as the "top" league but everyone has their opinions i suppose.

Look at the CL seeding this year. Look at the money going into it.

key word in your sentance.

just because its the richest don't mean its the best.

No, but the former sentence does.

No it doesn't.

seedings are based on 5 years worth of performances , means nothing on how strong a league is, in that 5 year period they could have played so called easier teams , where as the others may have played the so called better teams in europe. the seedings are worthless imho.

This post is based 100% on conjecture.

If you think the English sides have had an easy ride in the CL and are just 'lucky' to have a high seeding, then I suspect reasoning with you on this one is not going to bear fruit.

im not suggesting that for a second.

didnt put my point across well there at all, i mean in the group stages one team may have 3 average sides in it, the top seed say Man utd, may win all the games barring maybe 1 meaning they get MORE points than say a Barca that maybe has 2 Very good sides and a minnow say they draw 3 games and win the other 3 they will get LESS points for the seedings than what Man Utd will have got.

is that a bit better for you to understand.

Man Utd have had to face sides like Lyon, Roma in the group stages.

They've drawn with many such teams, they've even lost. Arsenal have had Milan and beat them. Utd also got Milan.

So, no, it's not a bit better for me to understand. Your entire case is bewildering m8.

Can anyone else help him out to make me see what apparently I can't currently see?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But as anyone would tell you part of what makes a league such a heavyweight is having its 4 or so main top sides being the sides everyone else has to beat.

So when "everyone else" or in other words 1 team, does start beating them, the league quality is slipping? and there was me thinking that was a good thing? after all its the very thing the SPL gets slated for, being a 2 team league, when in reality, even La Liga is a one team league at the moment, Inter have been running away with their league for the past couple of seasons aswell, it very well may be a sign that the league is doing well when its top teams are at the top winning as they should be, but what makes the league as a whole better is the general competition given by other teams

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never thought of the EPL as the "top" league but everyone has their opinions i suppose.

Look at the CL seeding this year. Look at the money going into it.

i'll start again.

CL has no bearing on which LEAGUE is the best it mearly suggests that some teams are better at knockout formats than others.

there are 20 teams in each league you are comparing 4 teams from each league.(if indeed 4 even make it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never thought of the EPL as the "top" league but everyone has their opinions i suppose.

Look at the CL seeding this year. Look at the money going into it.

i'll start again.

CL has no bearing on which LEAGUE is the best it mearly suggests that some teams are better at knockout formats than others.

there are 20 teams in each league you are comparing 4 teams from each league.(if indeed 4 even make it)

doh

Could you do me a wee favour and regale me with the exact format of the Champions League...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best teams from each league are in the champions league so it does give an indication of the quality of the leagues.

No it doesn't, Orange Clement is right.

We can all go home now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...