Have other teams caught up or have top teams dropped back ?

I keep hearing the argument that teams in the Premier League have gotten better hence the number of top teams dropping points. I totally disagree with this argument.

If you look back to when Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester United were formidable teams whose level of performance rarely dropped, you can see that the quality of footballer at those teams was significantly higher than the ones they have at present. As a result of this erosion of quality so-called lesser teams have more of a chance of creating an upset .. and often do.

Chelsea are relying on aged players who are NOT the players they once were and although they have some star names now, if you compare them to previous title winning teams under Mourinho are a shell of those teams.

Man United are devoid of any creativity these days and Ferdinand isn't the player he was in defence - add to that a keeper who is yet to find his feet and you can again see that they are not a patch on teams of days of old. They too are relying on some older players.

Arsenal have a tiny fraction of the quality that we used to have. No team in the past 5 years has really stood out to me for the season having played cracking football, a team might have a purple patch but generally the standard of football from the so-called top teams has not been anything special and I put it down to personnel as opposed to other teams getting better.

 

I mostly agree, especially with the analysis of the old top 3, but Man Citeh have certainly improved and the money has meant that no other team can buy a player they want. Also let's face it, without the Man Citeh money, we would possibly still have Clichy, Nasri, Toure, Ade. We may have been able to buy Yaya and Kompany. Other clubs may have got Aguero, Silva etc.

Anyway, that aside, the Spuds have certainly improved, helped in no small part by Man Citeh paying for 1 of their top scorers.

Liverpool have not improved and sides like Everton and Villa have gone backwards.

 

It's been a little strange over the past two years or so, hasn't it Mr Head? Teams which once one would not expect to struggle seem to do so and for the various reasons that you stated. It is though occurrences like these that give other teams as you say, the opportunity to shine. Who ever expected Utd to be beaten twice in a row and in the earlier event, by a ' relegation ' outfit? That said, I wish we were in a position to capitalise on these opportunities. Sadly we haven't been as fortunate...

 

Ahh City and their money. If only we had a share of that.

Everton are I dare say, in a worse position than us. They really have no money to spend at all. Then when you have some bad luck as well, it feels like the world has turned on you. I wish them well. I think David Moyes has done an excellent job on his meagre day to day existence budget and no thanks to the banks for that. With the EPL as it is thus far this season, it seems only Spurs have been able to make the best of what is going on around them. It's hard to imagine City's money not bringing them gold this year.

 

As clubs are being taken over by the mega-rich, as part of the exclusive club, it will continue to become more competitive!

 

Well, that said, look at Blackburn...

 

RVB mentioned Man city spending too, but, ok, that argument shows why THEY have improved but not why we have gone backwards. Ok, Man City are beating most teams but that doesn't explain them losing to Blackburn or getting whopped by Newcastle. Look at our loss to Blackburn .... and Fulham, we haven't been playing well for ages, even though we got a few fortunate results a few weeks back.

I think Arsenal, Chelsea and Man U would all have got battered by our teams of 5 years ago.

 

Yes, the top teams of Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal have all got worse over the course of 3-7 years, Arsenal being the longest.

Man U - No quality keeper; defence is now looking old and rickety; lacks creativity in midifeld.
Chelsea - Cech no longer the same; team as a whole is looking a little old; Torres has been a flop; too many managerial changes.
Arsenal - Constant loss of top players year after year; no suitable replacements; youth system has been an on and off success; keeper and spine issues took ages to resolve, which now looks to be solved; lack of top quality players.

 

I think that both the top teams (Man city excluded) have become weaker while the "lesser" teams have become stronger. Wenger said a few years back that he has noticed how improved training techniques and better diets adopted by most English clubs have eliminated or lessened the fitness advantage that the top teams used to enjoy. Wenger said something along the lines that when he first arrived at Arsenal he always knew that his team would have the advantage in the last 15 minutes due to superior fitness, this no longer is the case.

Just a thought, although I agree that the old "top 4" clubs have seen a decrease in the overall quality of their players in recent seasons (once again Man City excluded).

 

I agree that Man City and Tottenham are they only top 6 clubs to have improved dramatically over last season. I think there are fundamental flaws to each squad, and that also includes Tottenham and City. In my opinion they are:
Arsenal- One man team / Sloppy defence. A decent squad but not good enough for top 4 being held up by the superb RVP. When he goes it could be a massive struggle. The defence is sloppy.

Chelsea- Oldies / Sloppy defence / Reliance on Mata and to some extent Sturridge. Drogba, Lampard and Terry rule the roost. Though Terry isn't a worry, an unhappy Drogba is Tevez waiting to happen. Lampard's career is ending and he needs to accept that but if he sulks the team will suffer. Mata and Sturridge are world class but aren't backed up by a creative midfielder behind them. The defence is very weak on the right.

Liverpool- No creativity / Poor squad / One man team- Suarez is more Liverpool than RVP is Arsenal. They're team is poor with only some good players such as Adam and Gerrard, but considering how injury prone Gerrard is, it is a bad situation for them. I can't even name their back four, but I remember Enrique being the only one that I admire.

Man City - The only real floor is the egos in this squad when tampered with are going to implode. It almost happened against Chelsea when they could have easily lost Kompany and Toure as well after loosing control of the game. However, that is the only real floor.

Man United - No midfield / Reliance on reputation / Shaky defence and keeper. Man United lack any form of decent midfield and that's that. They have so far run on the reputation of being a great club to hammer lower opposition, however if they don't add this month that may crumble. Their defence is also very shaky, with Rio and Jones not at all convincing. De Gea as well.

Tottenham - When Bale and Modric inevitably leave, there will be no squad left. Yes VDV and Parker will remain but they may not be able to replace the loss. Adebayor is also going to be a big loss.


Oh, these are just my opinions so please can we keep hatred at a minimum if you disagree? They're not fact.

 

I'd say it's a combination of the two. The rest of the league have caught up in terms of quality of players, training techniques, diet and fitness and subsequently performances on the pitch. Gone are the days when we used to hammer teams 6-0 and 7-0.

I also think as a result, the top teams are no longer able to immediately secure the talents of the top players. (City excluded) and where they used to have a monopoly on the best resources, this is now shared out more evenly (City excluded)

 

I think you'll find that Spurs are paying him what he is worth and City are paying him the balance of the ludicrously inflated package he signed a few years back. There is no way that this is a subsidy of any sort. We got him because we offered the most - same as any other deal.

 

Powerspurs. He wouldn't be in your team now if he was only going to be paid what your lot think he is worth. Citeh had to subsidise his salary to make the loan work. Therefore your squad is being subsidised. Indisputable fact.

 

Gone are the days when we used to hammer teams 6-0 and 7-0.


you have a remarkable memory.

 

Arsenal have declined the most out of the big 3; to the point where Spurs, LOL, are better than them

 

It wasn't a critism of Spurs, more of the rules allowing it.

 

If we had City's money.. with Wenger in charge very little would change.

We certainly would'nt go spending it on transfers. We already have a budget available that does'nt get spent.

 

In an ideal world I think that loan deals between PL league clubs should be restricted to young players really. But it wouldn't make sense to have a rule that loan clubs have to pay full wages - that would just strand overpaid players at whatever club they'd signed their overpriced contract. Anyway I guess you could simulate a loan deal by a transfer with a buy-back clause with the same economic effect

 

jayram - well reasoned .

 

I think that that is exactly what should happen in both cases. The loaning club (if in the same division) should pay full wages and a loan fee. The player should also be allowed to play against his parent club. If not what is to stop Citeh (for example) buying 5 world class players and loaning them to say spurs? These players would give spurs a much better chance of beating the other title contenders yet not of beating the parent club. Massive advantage for citeh.

As for the players themselves, tough. They went to that club for the money. They either lower their demands or they rot in the reserves of the parent club. No advantage gained to anyone, but a disadvantage for the greedy player and a disadvantage for the club who shouldn't have offered silly money to average players in the 1st place.