Spain has 2 great sides Germany 1 Then any of the best of English and Italian Clubs. The French have Improved with Monaco and PSG but other than that the rest of Europe don't stand a chance of winning it. There are only so many El Classicos I want to watch each year but they are easily the 2 best sides .
The Premier League is the toughest league I don't doubt. I don't think it has ever been the best because it has very rarely had the absolute worlds best, they have always been in Spain, Figo, Carlos, Zidane, Iniesta, Messi, Ronaldo, Xavi, Neymar, Ronaldo (Bra) etc etc. I think the only truly elite players of the World in the Premiership have been Henry, Ronaldo and possibly Suarez. Throughout its inception it has not created a single truly magnificent side that sweeps all before it and had the admiration of the world. Spain have produced 2 (possibly a third this year), I think Milan just scraped into the Premeirship years. I'm not going to count Munich last year (although others would). This despite no boudaries or ethics to produce home grown players. Its had all the money and none of the restrictions and it still only capable of producing winning sides.
I think the financial setup of each league makes it very hard to have both the world's top sides and the strongest league. You either keep the payments from TV, etc reasonably equal and let the league flourish, or bias it towards the bigger sides and let them dominate in europe.
I don't think that makes sense. It would if the Premiership top sides were not able to compete financially with Spains, but they do. The real reason is their weather and more importantly how they play and are coached.
Could anyone in the Prem have afforded Bale, Suarez, Rodriguez? Granted Real sold di Maria, but equally they had the playing talent to sell for such a price. The Prem can compete up to £40m or so, but any higher and they're hamstrung by FFP. They can afford top internationals, but they'd struggle with the truly world leading signings. And the only players who'd command such a fee now to allow those kind of purchases would perhaps be Hazard and Aguero, although I'm probably missing a couple.
Since 2005 1. Manchester City 619 million 2 Real Madrid 515 million 3. Chelsea 397 million 4.Paris St Germain 378 million 5. Manchester Utd 344 million 6. Barcelona 336 million 7. Liverpool 258 million 8. Bayern Munich 250 million 9. Zenit St Petersburg 218 million 10.Napoli 182 million
Its not something that can easily be quantified by ten year spending trends, partly because the English clubs were at the top around 2009, and FFP hadn't kicked in yet. The top club in the list Man City were coming from a position where Darius Vassell and Andy Cole were their strikers, so their squad had little resale value, and they bought poorly. Someone will no doubt prove me wrong and blow £80m on someone this summer, but as the price for top players has spiralled, I just don't think English clubs can keep up with the very top prices.
There's really no such thing as FFP. 10 years is plenty to make it quantifiable. It just shows that depite having 3 of the top 5 spenders we are not capable of producing magnificent sides. Barca are well down and yet there side will go down in history as an all time great. The very best want to play fo Barca or Madrid because of how they play, the history and their links to S America which still produces the absolute best players in the World. Premiership clubs do not have the heart to produce the best. Too interested in winning only.
I think the tv payments point is key though. The even spread means the English league is more competitive and any given match is more likely to be difficult to predict than in the La Liga (to pick the extreme opposite). Having that competitivity, combined with a lack of a winter break, I'm convinced means the English clubs struggle to maintain performance. But the the way the teams play and are coached has an impact too. The weather' say very interesting point - where were you going with that Carrabuh? I think it's a good one.
Can't argue on production of talent, the Spain third team would be better than the English first team, and there's no doubt that having the blueprint from La Masia or similar helps with having an identity which extends beyond the current manager.
But their first team squad did even worse than England at the last world cup, failing to get even the one measley point we accrued.
The weather has a strong influence on how teams play, the Spanish, S Americans cannot waste energy running after the ball at full pace. They don't have to keep warm in training or throughout games and so focus on the skillsets. As each country developed its style from its early roots it became intrinsic later on, English now like all action running around (keeping warm). The warmer countries you get, generally the slower the pace and greater skillset. Africa does buck the trend a little however but I think it is due to influence from the Premier League and their natural physique. The West African sides, Ghana, Cote d' Ivoire, Nigeria are very physical reliant. The North Africans tend to be a little more refined, thoughtful, mechanical and tactical and I'd bet they get there influences from France. No idea about South Africa, they certainly don't play like the Dutch.
I thought you would say something like that. I was also expecting something about our windy rainy weather lending itself better to hoofball. I think there might be something in what you say though.
£780 million NHS contracts awarded to private companies this week. Including Circle who ditched the Hinchingbrooke hospital! Well done Tory voters!
One of the greats things the British Government has put in place in recent times being dismantled by a bunch of greedy pricks who just want to be a mini America. What a sad time we live in.
For myself I will say this. I support the ethos of an NHS and admire the principles on which it was founded. However, it has become a huge hungry beast with an appetite that could eat the whole economy and a happy medium has to be found that protects the integrity of the service while constraining the budget to make it comply with the tightening economic belt of the current times. A bloody hard act to pull off but that is what politicians are there for.
Constraining the budget means quite simply people remaining untreated. Do you think that will also apply to the Tory MP's that vote for it? Personally I think not.
