Is the Premier League getting stronger or weaker?

Schteve McLaren at FC Twente

 

No need for the apologies and i see where your coming from but it can't be a coincedence that English teams always progress.

Fair enough Real Madrid and Barcelona on there day are a class above the rest but what does that matter if on the day you can't put the ball in the net. That is a weakness in itself, Bayern have a habit of bottling it against the English teams and if Messi can't score a penalty when it matters then they don't deserve to be crowned the European champs.

I know im a little bit biased because i absolutley love the prem, was even happy to see Chelsea lift the cup. Even if it has gone to the heads of some of their fans. Anyway il admit we have become weaker when we can longer compete with Europes best and i can't see that happening for a while.

 

Thats a rather odd question to ask, as Keegan & Grant don't represent the standard of our league, and of the countries you posted, there will be many managers that are tactically inept, especially in the dutch & french leagues were the standard is fairly average.

However, talking of manages, such as Ramos (who was a success in spain) he was tactically shown up on a weekly basis in our league, so comparing managers from different leagues doesn't really make much of a point in terms of how strong a league is.

 

Cove, thats a long reply, you could have just typed " I was wrong to suggest a pointless table shows the English league has become weaker".

However humour aside, yes, a league becoming "weaker" doesn't mean its worse in all aspects, as a good example is the SPL (Scottish league), the league is now more exciting with the loss of rangers, but overall the standard has dropped.

The debate on the English league seems to be that not only has it become weaker, the quality has dropped and that I don't see any proof of, just opinions and we all have opinions.

And also, how did you come to the conclusion I don't know any other German teams then Dortmund or Bayern? The reason I mentioned these two teams, was because of the emergence of dortmund as a more successful force (notably in Europe) it has lead to more people talking up the german league, and while there are a number of other quality teams, IMO the overall standard drops short of the premier league and again, that is just an opinion, as there are no credible tables or "facts" to prove how strong a domestic league is overall, as European rankings and tables aren't relevant in judging the overall quality of a league.

 

There are two different arguments going on here.

One is about Europe and how half a dozen teams at most fare in Europe - and this season our entrants did not put on much of a show - partly I suspect because unlike Liverpool and Arsenal, Man City have not yet built a pedigree of experience in European competition - Chelsea have taken long enough and it has cost them several managers. It may be that during the transition from Liverpool and Arsenal to Man City and Spurs our success in Europe may dip slightly

Two is about the question - the Premier League itself. For me there is little change - the promoted sides do not tend to strengthen it nor do the relegated sides diminish it. The total squad of players playing in the Premier League is as strong as it ever has been, and yes each season the amount of points won in the top middle and bottom does vary but it always would - too many here seem to be mixing a "competitive" league with a better or worse one.

 

Not only that but I think it's fair to say no English team would have got out of City's group and 90-95% would have struggled to get out of Chelsea's.

There will be no English team in the last 8 which is pretty staggering considering the final is at Wembley, you'd think there would be extra motivation for English sides.

 

spurs61, the reason debates like this branch off into different directions is namely because the fans that claim its weaker have zero proof or facts and artempt to use odd logic (which is easily countered) or bring european success ( or failure) into the debate, which doesnt offer any insight into if the premier league has become weaker or stronger in the space of a few months.

I suspect overall there has been little change and the majority of any deemed weakness, is a temporary loss of form, from teams, mangers or players, yet this is countered by other teams, managers or players improving so it balances out and points to the league being of the same standard.

 

Who's to say who could've got out of which group? Our group in 10/11 contained the European, Italian and Dutch champions with the 3rd place German side, yet we won it.
The simple fact is that Man City have underperformed badly in Europe since their massive cash injection.
They should be able to win most games with their 2nd XI, frankly.

 

Inter were in decline though, as were Twente and Bremen were an average side. I was quite sure Spurs would have enough quality to get out the group.

City on the other hand had a Real Madrid side that had won the league with a record points and wins total and with arguably the best manager and player of the this generation, not to mention a Dortmund side that romped the league.

I agree City should have beaten Ajax home and away, but not many with a good knowledge of European football would have put money on City getting out the group. I still can't believe City were odds on at home to Dortmund, staggering how little knowledge of European football the bookies have, that's where the money is won

 

Chelsea & City both failed due to managerial decisions or failures and in mancini's case he failed with inter in europe so its not his strong point.

However regardless of how well city should have performed, dortmund and madrid are superior teams with a game more suited to european football.

But again, using 1,2,3 or 4 clubs from a specific league doesnt justify the overall standard as even when the premier league was deemed to be stronger, english clubs have always generally failed to perform in europe (since the champions league started), in terms of the football played but what saw english clubs get success, was.dogged dertmination & spirit with the odd great performance.

So i agree too european teams play a more expansive and attractive game but its been that way for the last 20 years.

 

You can't claim that Inter were in decline and hail Real Madrid as they're 16 points off the top, lying in 3rd in a 2 team league, DL!
They've lost more league games this season than Stoke or Everton and are struggling to stay ahead of near-bankrupt Malaga.
Dortmund are also 12 points off the pace in 3rd place and Ajax are behind Steve McClaren's Twente, again.

Mancini's just not good enough, in my opinion. He should be able to pick two teams that are capable of winning virtually any game with the squad he has available.

 

PNP, going by what you just said, you could.say La Liga is weaker as madird are out of sorts and the german league is weaker as dortmund are more focused on europe.

 

Don't they? They've both coached several Premier League teams, as have one dimensional coaches like Allardyce and Hughes, so its not like they were sacked three months into a job and were never heard from again.

 

Grant should've been and Keegan generally quit as soon someone looked at him a bit funny, though.

 

All leagues have one dimensional, tactically inept managers so why the focus on a select few from the premier league?

Also, I take it all current managers in the dutch, french, italian, spanish and german leagues are tactical masters?

 

The leagues stronger IMO. This season it appears United and City are a bit ahead of everyone else with Chelsea just behind. There's a large chunk of clubs in the bracket just behind. Previously it was 2-3 at the top then a large gap where 3 teams battled it out for Europe then a group of mid table clubs and then the relegation fodder. Now other then the bottom 4-5 teams, everyone is fairly close in the standings. Sure United might not be as strong as there were in 07-09, but that team was arguably the best in the world at the time. No one stays at the top forever.

 

Regardless of an irrelevant little cluster of teams that can't piss the league with 100 points any more, that does not mean the league is weaker despite the futile attempts of some of the fans of these teams. The majority of teams are finishing with more points than before, that means taking more points from the top teams. The previous guaranteed safety net of 40 points to stay in the league in no longer the case. In 2009/10 Bolton finished 14th with 39 points. In 2010/11 39 points saw Birmingham and Blackpool relegated. Now if that isn't evidence enough of of "overall" improvement in the standard of the league I don't know what is!

 

Sunderland and Villa being midtable is a damning indictment of how weak the league is. A Chelsea side in poor form beat them with relative comfort.. In fact ease and Spurs appear to be doing the same.

 

Villa mid-table? They could be in the relegation zone this evening.

 

Just seen. Wtf could have sworn Villa were midtable before we played them