Is The Premier League Tougher Than It Used To Be?

Is It?


  • Total voters
    64

AberGooner

Well-Known Member
Trusted ✔️
Not moving any goal posts. My original post is very specific in stating the year 2000. In the year 2000 the top earner at Celtic was near on par with the top earner in British football who played for United. You brought up 2002 (which cements my point)

The money in England went one way and in Scottish football the other. English football continued to smash records and Scottish football ended its records and money in it regressed.

The top teams in Scotland who spent years to that point in 2000 competing with the top teams in England financially went to a point where they couldn't compete with the bottom teams. That situation came about almost overnight. That's why the EPL has improved significantly from where it was then to now. The situation in Scotland is just one example. The top teams in Italy who were the big dogs in the 90s have been out paced by mid level English teams. If the top teams are being out paced what chance have lower teams in Italy? They cannot offer the same financial package as a Crystal Palace or Brighton. In Spain it's a similiar picture. The top 2 are bigger than the top English clubs but below that the wealth gap is off the charts. Osasuna cannot offer a package equivalent to Leeds.

That gives English teams a competitive advantage over every other league. And the outcome is a league that is stronger than it was 20 years ago, stronger than it was 10 years ago. And until that wealth gap ends it'll continue to be the case. It'll continue to attract the best and the best of the rest.

As someone from Scotland you should see it first hand. We seen it with the decline in players who either don't come or leave quickly. What happened in Scotland is now rippling out across Europe and beyond.

If your base point is 2000 why mention Laudrup and Gascoigne? They where long gone by then. A quick Google tells me Larsson didn't sign his big deal at Celtic till 2001 either, by which point Sol Campbell was already on more than double that.

The top teams in Scotland never competed financially with England since the Sky money came into the game, this is not just a recent thing. Outwith Celtic and Rangers the highest fee ever spent by a Scottish club is £1m, there really never has been any comparison in my lifetime.

I can't speak for the finances for the leagues abroad but it's not like Sky paying big money into the PL is a recent thing either, it's happened since 92. Barring Serie A in the 90's no other league has been able to compete with that. You had a promoted side signing Anelka in 2002, when have Osasuna ever been able to do that? Again though that's nearly 20 years ago now, not a recent thing.

We can argue about quality of players from then and now, that's impossible to prove, it's a fact though that the financial gap between the PL and the rest of the world was as big then as it is now. Granted with the inflation of fees it looks a lot bigger on paper.
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted ✔️
If your base point is 2000 why mention Laudrup and Gascoigne? They where long gone by then. A quick Google tells me Larsson didn't sign his big deal at Celtic till 2001 either, by which point Sol Campbell was already on more than double that.

The top teams in Scotland never competed financially with England since the Sky money came into the game, this is not just a recent thing. Outwith Celtic and Rangers the highest fee ever spent by a Scottish club is £1m, there really never has been any comparison in my lifetime.

I can't speak for the finances for the leagues abroad but it's not like Sky paying big money into the PL is a recent thing either, it's happened since 92. Barring Serie A in the 90's no other league has been able to compete with that. You had a promoted side signing Anelka in 2002, when have Osasuna ever been able to do that? Again though that's nearly 20 years ago now, not a recent thing.

We can argue about quality of players from then and now, that's impossible to prove, it's a fact though that the financial gap between the PL and the rest of the world was as big then as it is now. Granted with the inflation of fees it looks a lot bigger on paper.
Quick review of the top 20 richest clubs in world football suggests differently.
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted ✔️
Not sure what you mean by that.
That the financial gap was as big as it was then as it is now. The number of English clubs in the top 10 and top 20 is a factual way of showing that's not the case.


In there it says as of 19/20 there were 12 English teams in the top at a collective value of under 4billion. The nearest is Germany with 5 teams at 1.5billion. Look through the rankings and see the growth of English teams (oddly enough the demise of Scottish teams)
 

AberGooner

Well-Known Member
Trusted ✔️
That the financial gap was as big as it was then as it is now. The number of English clubs in the top 10 and top 20 is a factual way of showing that's not the case.


In there it says as of 19/20 there were 12 English teams in the top at a collective value of under 4billion. The nearest is Germany with 5 teams at 1.5billion. Look through the rankings and see the growth of English teams (oddly enough the demise of Scottish teams)

That's only natural with the Sky in the game coupled with CL money. It was only the early 2000's that it became top 4 getting qualification into the CL. The rest of Europe don't have the luxury of Sky either. Again though a club valued at 3billion now wouldn't have that valuation in 2000 for example with inflation and all that.

Aston Villa for example have had the financial capabilities of outspending say Getafe a lot longer than the last couple of seasons. Money isn't a great indictor on whether the PL is better now than it was 20 years ago.
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted ✔️
That's only natural with the Sky in the game coupled with CL money. It was only the early 2000's that it became top 4 getting qualification into the CL. The rest of Europe don't have the luxury of Sky either. Again though a club valued at 3billion now wouldn't have that valuation in 2000 for example with inflation and all that.

Aston Villa for example have had the financial capabilities of outspending say Getafe a lot longer than the last couple of seasons. Money isn't a great indictor on whether the PL is better now than it was 20 years ago.
Given the vigorous debates on here I'd say it is (to a point) and my Scottish football example reflects that.

Anyway and this isn't for yourself I've seen people on here ask for a point not backed up by emotion or position on Wenger. Whilst my position in Wenger is known and won't change Ive made points that aren't subjective. The EPL has attracted more wealth than any other league. The standards across the board have improved (except for referring :lol:)

And even if nobody wants to acknowledge that football has generally progressed. Pick up inverting the pyramid and read through. Knowledge has transferred and its been used to improve everything connected to the game. From players on the pitch to how quickly your beer is poured.

And for anyone really interested the potential decline in playing standards will be interesting. It will come the question is where and will it impact the EPL.
 

AbouCuéllar

Wishes to get banned elsewhere
I’m even more confused since don’t you repeatedly say that Arteta has managed in tougher/more high quality PL conditions than Emery’s 1st season and yet in Emery’s 1st season all 4 European finalists were from the PL, an unprecedented occurrence. So by your rationale here that totally disproves that point of yours.
Ha, classic Camus , fishing for likes, avoiding the actual question. So I'll ask again, I am quite confused, can you explain to me without muddying the waters, how this:

The thing is when discussing if the league is hard nor or before the same points people use to justify their positions can equally be used by the opposing party to refute it.

can apply to results in Europe? How can the results in Europe across 5 year periods be used by the opposing party (league hasn't improved truthers) to refute it??

As for your typically disingenuous point, I've literally said everything possible on this topic. I'll quote it all below. Though it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer your question: a) you're talking about a micro trend extremely prone to small sample size effects (much weaker Madrid, Bayern, etc. this season...Madrid eliminated by Ajax...) when we're talking about macro (5 year) trends b) even if that SSS is telling us something, it's telling us something especially about the clubs that have made a leap significantly since 16-17 to 17-18 (City, Liverpool, and finally Chelsea now), the points regarding the improvement in the league since Em*ry took over is more in the 4-10 area (with trickle down effects all the way to the bottom of the table), as I have written extensively about.

@Camus re: league environment I am surprised this is even a discussion...in 18-19 you had:

Negative differences re: league strength:
-much worse Manchester United
-similar level Chelsea, City
-similar Wolves
-Much worse Everton, Leicester, West Ham
-Quality competitors this season, like Aston Villa, Leeds, not even in the league, allowing teams that are currently either relegated or farther down the league toward the drop zone, like Watford, Palace, and Newcastle to occupy midtable positions

Positive differences re: league strength:
-Tottenham with Poch vs. current with Mou
-Worse Liverpool, basically have traded positions with United in terms of the 4-10 argument


I can't really believe there's even a discussion here. We're talking about clear and obvious league trends, but because...well, agenda, and the avoid all context at all costs philosophy prevalent, for some reason I am made to sound like a mad man for bringing it up...

Kind of thing that commentators and anyone with some common sense can see (changing league environment, league depth, especially from 4-10, really actually living up to its reputation), but for some reason (doesn't fit with rabid, nuance-less agendas?) is taboo to mention on A-M...


Indeed, and compare the potency of those Aston Villa and Everton squads to now Tottenham, Leicester, Arsenal squads (which are current top 6 competitors) in terms of quality and money spent...there's absolutely no comparison.

To refer to your post before, "how do you judge the quality of the league?", well, the best way is to look at results in Europe over a number of seasons. And there, aside from the logical comparisons...where it's clear that Liverpool and City of 5 years ago have nothing to do with the Liverpool and City of 5 years ago, it's clear that Chelsea's current version is better than any one in recent times bar *maybe* (and I don't actually think so, but rather that Chelsea team found Liverpool still in early construction and City in its first year adaptation phase under Guardiola) the Conte team, it's clear also that United's team, while similarly poorly managed as it has been since Sir Alex left, is of the highest level it has been since then.

The Villa and Everton squads you talk about, if you compare them then to now, you think they're at least as good or probably better. Yet they finished 9th and 10th last season. That should be saying something to you. Or seeing that there's no longer room for the surprise packages that would happen every year in the weaker period for the league (2011-2016)...the Wolves, Swansea, Southampton sides that were constantly getting in there with a good managerial level, that's no longer enough, because there's a higher managerial standard in general along with the talent standard always high and higher. Wolves dropped off in the last couple years as the standard rose, sides like your typical Swansea or Burnley don't have a chance and are rather fighting for relegation, a well managed team under Hassenhuttl like Southampton, the same, relegation fights, slots 13-17 at best...same with Brighton, probably Leeds this season under Bielsa.

Anyways, for however much agenda-driven people like @Makingtrax tries to muddy the waters, it's an extremely clear trend--like I said, just looking at the extremely clear European trend in results would be enough--and I'm really surprised there's even an argument over it or a post like this should be necessary.

The fact is if you break down Wenger's competition for 5th in the years where he often BARELY got top 4, and compare it to what it was once he started dropping out of the top 4 or what it would be now, there's no comparison. We're talking about mediocre Villa or Everton squads with nothing like the squad cost or tactical level of the competition for 4th and 5th now...Redknapp, Sherwood, Jol managed Tottenham sides...I mean if Tottenham had had a competent manager just one of those years when they had a decent squad with Bale and Modric, it would've been trouble, thankfully Wenger was competing against the most incompetent of managers.

I have.

That second point is actually a point in favour of the league being harder. The league has improved all over. The importation of superior management and the major improvement of the tactical level (which was the #1 thing holding the English league back pre 16-17, where England lagged far behind the rest of the world, due to the deficiency in coaching and tactical training level) + the ever widening gap in economic power wrt to the rest of the world has resulted in this. (Again, it feels like a lie that I even have to argue what seem like such prosaic and obvious points to everyone minus the people on this forum...)

If that's not good enough for you, plus the other evidence I point to below, nothing is going to be. Results in Europe are the only way to objectively measure this. Quality of top 6-7 teams goes down: teams suffer more in European competition. Quality of top 6-7 teams goes up: teams dominate Europe, as England has now since 17/18. Last year the same. 3 English quarterfinalists in both CL and EL, 2 in both CL and EL, 2 finalists and a winner in CL, 1 in EL.

Anyone care to read and comment on these articles? People are quick to dismiss the idea that superior tactical / coaching level has changed what I think all reasonable people can agree (that the league has improved in the latter half of the last decade upon what it was in the first half), but I don't see anybody really willing to discuss tactical trends (importation of superior foreign managers either, and squeezing out of so many of the crap Redknapps, Hughtons, Hughes, Pulis--to think this was a manager that had his teams punching above their weight in the first half of the last decade, and who was successful...that enough should tell people something about how the league finally evolved in the second half of the decade--etc etc who always seemed to get jobs year after year) or the tactical systems and levels proposed and executed by current managers vs. previous ones in any real fashion. Same goes for Arteta, there is a lot of criticism of him tactically, but it is a bit of a paradox when people aren't willing to even discuss or sometimes even recognise the necessary frames of reference (his tactical competition; the tactical climate he works in).

Best to take the argument away from a discussion with a certain prominent poster in this thread, IMO, as it is not an actual argument meant for us to glean anything from each other and discuss intelligently but a desperate attempt to pursue agenda at all costs. (put him on ignore in this thread for this reason)


It's been a constant evolution. Em*ry came into the same climate more or less that Wenger left (the same in which he had been pushed out of the top 4 because of the improvement at the top with Guardiola, Klopp, and Poch). I think we've seen the mid and lower table clubs significantly raise their level in the years since, though. There's been improvements across the board (Leeds, Brighton, Villa, Everton, Leicester, Southampton, Brentford--modern, tactical manager--etc. etc.). I still think Wolves drop under Nuno from his first year in charge, where his side performed equally to Em*ry on xPTS, to lower positions in the following years despite the same level of investment occurring, makes for a good case study, when you combine it with the common sense observations (all the clubs I mentioned and surely one or two I've forgotten that have improved significantly their tactical level in concert with their talent level).
 

Camus

Active Member
Ha, classic Camus , fishing for likes,
I think this is the 3 time (maybe more) during discussion with me you've brought up your insecurities/obsessions about "likes". That's something you need to work on and move past, it'll be healthier for you when you do.

avoiding the actual question. So I'll ask again, I am quite confused, can you explain to me without muddying the waters,
I'm not avoiding the question nor mudding the waters. You've made a claim in the past about Emery's 1st season being easier than Arteta's. Now you're making a claim about PL team performances in Europe being a metric for the inherent quality of the PL in a given season. There's a clear contradiction here. Either you need to recant on your assertion that Emery's 1st season was easier the Arteta's, which I know/knew you weren't going to do, or you're going to have better articulate in a more nuanced manner how European performances are used as a barometer to gauge the quality of the PL. You initially presented the argument as simple uniform, one size fits all metric that "confused you" as to why anyone could pick holes in it. You've now rowed back on that because you're aware of the harm it does to certain opinions you hold. That's what the point I was trying to make.

can apply to results in Europe? How can the results in Europe across 5 year periods be used by the opposing party (league hasn't improved truthers) to refute it??
"Across 5 year periods"

🤔 Hmm, that's new. Where was this arbitrary scale in your initial post? It's nowhere to be found.


Even if we assume this arbitrary time scale is valid (there's literally no argument for or against using any other random number like 4, 3, 7, 6 etc..) Who gets to decide what seasons to fit into that 5 year moving scale? Select whatever arbitrary season as cut off point to conveniently suit your narrative? You talk about "macro vs micro" below but it's pretty clear you don't even comprehend what you're saying

As for your typically disingenuous point, I've literally said everything possible on this topic. I'll quote it all below. Though it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer your question: a) you're talking about a micro trend extremely prone to small sample size effects (much weaker Madrid, Bayern, etc. this season...Madrid eliminated by Ajax...) when we're talking about macro (5 year) trends

Going back 5 season takes into account 20/21, 19/20, 18/19, 17/18 and 16/17. So Emery's 1st season and Arteta's season are both is within the same 5 year "macro" trend like this. When analysing "macro" trends you judge them against other "macro" trends of equal scale, so data like this is only usefully as a direct comparisons against the proceeding 5 years from 15/16-11/12. Ok. So then how do we use the metric of European performances to judge individual season against one another within these "macro" trends? I mean you did allude to it being an impeachable objective metric. Using your initially rationale that you were "confused" about as to why I objected to it you'd also compare the European performances of those individual seasons. Ah, but what do we have here? You've just said that's not valid since they are "extremely prone to small sample size effects". So even in your own words here we can see why using European records can be used refute or rejected as an argument about the strength of the PL season vs one another. Not exactly rocket science was it. So what were you confused about?

Last season United were eliminated from the CL that contained newcomers Buyuksehir, a team that finished 2nd in the Bundesliga and a team that finished 2nd in Ligue 1. They then proceeded to lose the EL final to a team that finished 7th in La Liga coached by a man you deem a managerial invalid. A team like that finished 2nd in our PL. Is that not a argument using European football results to highlight the weakness of the league?

Last season Barcelona were a shambles under Koeman. Madrid were clearly a shadow of their Ronaldo days also finishing 2nd, being knocked out by a 10 man 3rd division team in the Copa del Rey and losing to Shakhtar Donetsk twice in the group stages. Juventus another joke team last year, only just getting 4th on the final day. PSG lost their famers league title to Lile, lol. And Bayern were not as imperious as they were the previous season.

How do these teams being bad/worse than they were in previous season have an direct impact on the PREMIER LEAGUE? If hypothetically the exact quality of Man City and Chelsea last season stayed they exact same but Barcelona were instead as good as they used to be in 2015, or Madrid 2016-18, or Juve in 2015-2017 etc.. how does that impact the quality of the PREMIER LEAGUE in and of itself in comparison to itself ? It doesn't. Here you have an external fluctuating factor here, it can easily be rejected when talking about an internal comparison. You literally did that yourself by hand waving away the 2018/19 season when 4 English sides occupied the all the final places by saying X, Y and Z teams were weak et... You can bet your mum life that if that was an Arteta season you'd be using that exact same point, about the unprecedented nature of 4 English sides being in both finals, as a irrefutable badge of honour as to why the PL was extremely high quality that season :lol: I love how you just walk into these massive blunders. That's LITERALLY exactly what I mean, people will twist and turn the same point to suit their pre-conceived narrative.

as I have written extensively about.
I'm not sure what all that drivel you posted had to do the the point about using European performances as a metric since literally over 90% of was you talking about using the PL itself as a metric. Of the 56 sentence you quoted, literally 2 talked about European football results.
 

AbouCuéllar

Wishes to get banned elsewhere
I think this is the 3 time (maybe more) during discussion with me you've brought up your insecurities/obsessions about "likes". That's something you need to work on and move past, it'll be healthier for you when you do.
It's not an obsession, lol, I clearly don't give a **** about likes or else I wouldn't be as faithful to my opinions as I consistently have been here. It's just I see through you and it's kinda funny your style of posting, and a bit sad as well.

I'm not avoiding the question nor mudding the waters. You've made a claim in the past about Emery's 1st season being easier than Arteta's. Now you're making a claim about PL team performances in Europe being a metric for the inherent quality of the PL in a given season. There's a clear contradiction here. Either you need to recant on your assertion that Emery's 1st season was easier the Arteta's, which I know/knew you weren't going to do, or you're going to have better articulate in a more nuanced manner how European performances are used as a barometer to gauge the quality of the PL. You initially presented the argument as simple uniform, one size fits all metric that "confused you" as to why anyone could pick holes in it. You've now rowed back on that because you're aware of the harm it does to certain opinions you hold. That's what the point I was trying to make.
See, this is the kind of disingenuous crap I'm talking about, lol. You made a statement: all the arguments for the league being better can be turned around and used both ways. I asked how can the objective results in Europe over significant sample sizes be used both ways. You're continuing to avoid that question, it seems.

Again, there's no contradiction. You struggle to engage in honest discussion and can't read my points with anything resembling an open mind, and are instead looking for contradictions as desperately as MakingTrax looks to confirm his Wenger cultism biases, and here we are.

🤔 Hmm, that's new. Where was this arbitrary scale in your initial post? It's nowhere to be found.
It's not new at all. I compiled English European results over 5 year scales, something that was useful because my argument was that the importation of managers like Pep, Klopp, Poch, and Conte into the PL, raising the tactical level at the top, starting a trend that continues to this day in a trickle down manner, started in 16-17 (that was Pep's first season). The league has continually improved since then and continues to do so. 17-18 is first year I would say we really noticed this in terms of the quality at the top of the league, as Pep's and Klopp's styles were fully implemented, and it was reflected in Europe. Since then we've seen the improvement especially in the trickle down effects, especially in the quality of the league and the highering of the tactical level from 4-10 all the way down to mid-lower table and lower table.
England's performance the last 5 years in CL is largely unprecedented. I've posted the data above and I can't be arsed to get further into it for people who willingly want to pull the wool over their eyes, but compare the last 5 year period to other 5 year periods you discuss and there is no comparison, minus 2006-2011 when the league was at a high technical level wrt to the rest of Europe and still had managers who were more or less high level wrt to the level of the sport in the top clubs (Ferguson, Wenger, Benítez, Ancelotti; tbf, in this period, if I did the breakdown all the way down I am pretty sure it will not compare to this recent 5 year period; it only equals these last 5 years in terms of finalists and winners thanks to fluke Chelsea in 2011-12, and English teams were not as constantly present in QFs and SFs as the last 5 years we can recall, except in 07-08; the fact is England's domination of Europe is at unprecedented levels in the last 5 years).

We can look, for example, comparing Wenger's Highbury reign in two parts to the last 5 years:

Last 5 years: 5 finalists, 2 winners (these trends follow down the line to SFs, QFs, R16, Europa League, but like I said, I've already documented them)
5 years before: 1 finalist, 1 winner

1996-2000: 1 finalist, 1 winner
2000-2005: 1 finalist, 1 winner

The league is harder, every manager has said so recently. Stop discussing useless debates, for sure Klopp knows better than you and your feelings.
It's not just every manager, it's everyone in football, everyone with some level of understanding of the game, everyone with some level ability to analyse tactical trends, everyone with, in short, no massive bias and some strange necessity to pull the wool over their eyes.

Honestly not sure why I bother with people like @Camus who clearly have little interest in actually talking about football and real things but rather want to get into a twitter like semantics game style argument.

It's telling that the articles I posted by spielverlagerung analysing tactical trends in the Premier League were commented on by not one single person.

Anyways, Camus, I've just read your final 4 paragraphs or so, it's typically filled with a bunch of crap focusing on perceived contradictions that you are desperate to find with your posting style, trying to make everything into an Em*ry / Arteta argument because that's your fetish, and missing the forest from the trees, and failing to have much grasp or knowledge of football. Everything that you bring up relating to football has been addressed. You conveniently ignore 95% of the content I quoted, which I do so to save myself the agony of repeating myself over and over in a totally futile argument. Let me know if you are ever want to address that and engage in an actual discussion in football instead of your boring and childish style of, oooohhh, look, I think I found a (superficial) contradiction, let's ignore 99% of the relevant context and the spirit of what you're actually saying and all honest argument to pursue me talking about this (superficial) contradiction and make it sound real!!!
 

Camus

Active Member
It's not an obsession, lol, I clearly don't give a **** about likes or else I wouldn't be as faithful to my opinions as I consistently have been here.
It's not an obsession or an insecurity for you and yet you're literally the only one talking about likes and have already brought it up multiple times in past discussions as well.... yeah makes perfect sense that champ....

It's just I see through you and it's kinda funny your style of posting, and a bit sad as well.
And here we have another example of your raging insecurities, by making meta-commentary about my posting style/the forum in general. This is something you've also brought up numerous times in past discussion. If you truly don't care about likes, if you don't care about this forum and your relationship with users on here etc.. then why do you keep talking about it? You're so personally invested it's extremely unhealthy.

Next time you feel like crying about childish popularity contests PM me instead of polluting forum discussions with this petty nonsense, because I'm not going to engage you with it anymore since it's just cringe inducing and off-topic deflection.


See, this is the kind of disingenuous crap I'm talking about, lol. You made a statement: all the arguments for the league being better can be turned around and used both ways. I asked how can the objective results in Europe over significant sample sizes be used both ways. You're continuing to avoid that question, it seems.
:lol:

Are you going to keep wilfully ignoring that you literally didn't say this in your initially "confused" remark, the one I replied to to your dissatisfaction, and that I even called you out on it in the last post. Maybe you missed the link you I'll post I picture so we can all see it clearly

Abou.JPG

Mind pointing where in this post you mentioned "5 years" or "significant sample size"? Nowhere. Only once I pointed out the clear contradiction in the apparent rationale of this statement with your stance on Emery's 1st season did you then decide to move the goalposts. What's so difficulty about admitting that you articulated your point poorly in the 1st instance?



Again, there's no contradiction. You struggle to engage in honest discussion and can't read my points with anything resembling an open mind, and are instead looking for contradictions as desperately as MakingTrax looks to confirm his Wenger cultism biases, and here we are.

Really? Is that why in my last discussion to you about Conte I said the following:

I agree that he's had pretty bad performances in European football. I agree that he's a volatile manager when things don't go exactly his way (but I actually think we need that right now) and I also agree that if you're a sycophant of a certain style of football that you're not going to get that from him. (And one which you haven't surprisingly mentioned is I still think he has at least a little question mark over his head in terms of whether he can make consistently good big deal transfers). These either aren't issue for me personally or if they are I don't see them as particular major but I can fully appreciate if you or anyone else has these concerns, totally valid.

So that's me overtly and unambiguously saying I agree with a number (if not all, since I don't think you highlighted anymore than those ) of the issues you have with Conte and that you're opinions/concerns are TOTALLY VALID. Can you show me a single instance during any one of the numerous discussions we've had of you doing the same to me to the same extent? No? So it would appear that this is an issue you suffer with more prominently, not me. So stop projecting.


It's not new at all.
Yes it is. In the post that you made to my comment nowhere was a time frame or sample size mentioned or even remotely alluded to. As the picture clearly highlights.


I compiled English European results over 5 year scales, something that was useful because my argument was that the importation of managers like Pep, Klopp, Poch, and Conte into the PL, raising the tactical level at the top, starting a trend that continues to this day in a trickle down manner, started in 16-17 (that was Pep's first season).
I don't care what sample size you personally choose to use to make your argument. I'm just pointing out that it's factually arbitrary, no one is beholden to it, no one needs to engage you on it. There's literally no objective reason to use Pep's 1st season as a "starting" point when you also mention the "importation" of the likes of Klopp and Poch who both managed in the PL 1 and 3 ( 2 with Sp**s) before. If you see them as being part of that "importation trend" then it's equally (actually probably more) rationale to say the trend started with at the earliest point.

The league has continually improved since then and continues to do so.
As a GENERAL (which is key here) point, I'm not disputing or affirming that. As I said in my initial post in this thread that you took exception to on this GENERAL point I see arguments for both sides and I don't see any definitive objective metrics to decide this. I clearly said that. Why this might confuse you is that in the past I've argued against a point you've made about increase in "foreign importation" and now this European point. But I'm just arguing against those specific points, and why I don't think they can be used as arguments to make your case because they're either outright false or have very clear contradictions.

I thought my initial post in this thread, the one you replied to, made my position clear since I stated it as much. But can I understand why you might think/have thought that my general opinion is that I think the PL is definitely weaker now since the default assumption why someone engages someone else in a debate is that they oppose their view. But I've cleared that up now so we shouldn't have a problem. Have no problems admitting that was a partial communication error on my part.

With that in mind, and this will be another instance of my refuting a specific point, I fail to see how you can use European football performances make the point you're trying to make. You've already said you're looking at "macro trends" over a 5 year period. And you've already conceded that analysing the European performances of individual seasons against one another is faulty because "micro trends" are "extremely prone to small sample size effects" (although it's pretty obvious what the real reason is) , so then how can you use European football results as argument for the continually improvement of 2018/19 vs 2020/21 for example? You're literally saying you can't. So even by your own logic and arbitrary metrics here European football performances can only be used to judge say 2016-2021 vs 2015-2010 etc... So in a discussion about whether last season was a better quality PL season than 2018/19 European performances wouldn't factor in according to your rationale so why would they even be brought up? I don't need to say whether they could be used for or against since THEY LITERALLY DON'T FACTOR INTO THE DISCUSSION ACCORDING TO YOURSELF.


England's performance the last 5 years in CL is largely unprecedented. I've posted the data above and I can't be arsed to get further into it for people who willingly want to pull the wool over their eyes, but compare the last 5 year period to other 5 year periods you discuss and there is no comparison, minus 2006-2011 when the league was at a high technical level wrt to the rest of Europe and still had managers who were more or less high level wrt to the level of the sport in the top clubs (Ferguson, Wenger, Benítez, Ancelotti; tbf, in this period, if I did the breakdown all the way down I am pretty sure it will not compare to this recent 5 year period; it only equals these last 5 years in terms of finalists and winners thanks to fluke Chelsea in 2011-12, and English teams were not as constantly present in QFs and SFs as the last 5 years we can recall, except in 07-08; the fact is England's domination of Europe is at unprecedented levels in the last 5 years).

We can look, for example, comparing Wenger's Highbury reign in two parts to the last 5 years:

Last 5 years: 5 finalists, 2 winners (these trends follow down the line to SFs, QFs, R16, Europa League, but like I said, I've already documented them)
5 years before: 1 finalist, 1 winner

1996-2000: 1 finalist, 1 winner
2000-2005: 1 finalist, 1 winner

Taking this rational to it's only logical conclusion would mean that you believe that English top flight football from 1976/77-1981/82 was the all time peak of absolute quality in this country due to 6 consecutive European Cup winners. You clearly don't believe that, at least I hope not.

You're removing nuance like the importance English clubs placed on European competitions, the quality of other European clubs during that respective season, the anomalous nature of knock-out football etc.. A variety of different factors. You're taking a very surface level and cursory look at data and drawing definitive conclusion. And the only time you do decide to delve a little deeper and provide nuance and context is when a certain piece of date goes against your narrative like calling Chelsea's 2011-12 win a "fluke", saying 2018/19 was weak season for European football etc...

Furthermore, if we choose an equally valid arbitrary value like 9 years we can do this:

2003/04-2011/12 the PL had 3 CL winners and 8 finalists. They also had at least 1 CL finalists in 7 of those 9 years and had at least 1 CL finalists for 5 consecutive seasons.

2012/13-2020/21 the PL had 2 CL winners and 5 finalists. They only had finalists in 3 of those 9 years and their longest run of consecutive CL finalists was 2 seasons.

Now what?

So like you we can say that's England's performances from 2003/04-2011/12 were completely unprecedented and point to 2003/04-2011/12 being far superior in quality to any other period of PL football. So here I've used "macro trends" of European football to make the argument the other way, that they PL was stronger in quality in 2003/04-2011/12 than now. Which is exactly the point I making, people can twist date and points to suit the arguments they want to make.

Honestly not sure why I bother with people like @Camus who clearly have little interest in actually talking about football and real things but rather want to get into a twitter like semantics game style argument.
Yeah I'm the one that doesn't want to talk about football, not the insecure toddler that constantly cry's on about "likes" on posts...

It's telling that the articles I posted by spielverlagerung analysing tactical trends in the Premier League were commented on by not one single person.
Well done? I'll remember to organise a open-top bus parade in the future the next time you link spielverlagerung, Zonal Marking (although it's offline now) or quote from Jonathan Wilson. Or do you think Wilson a fraud because spielverlagerung told you to think that about him?

What a really strange comment to make.


Anyways, Camus, I've just read your final 4 paragraphs or so, it's typically filled with a bunch of crap focusing on perceived contradictions that you are desperate to find with your posting style, trying to make everything into an Em*ry / Arteta argument because that's your fetish, and missing the forest from the trees, and failing to have much grasp or knowledge of football. Everything that you bring up relating to football has been addressed. You conveniently ignore 95% of the content I quoted, which I do so to save myself the agony of repeating myself over and over in a totally futile argument. Let me know if you are ever want to address that and engage in an actual discussion in football instead of your boring and childish style of, oooohhh, look, I think I found a (superficial) contradiction, let's ignore 99% of the relevant context and the spirit of what you're actually saying and all honest argument to pursue me talking about this (superficial) contradiction and make it sound real!!!
I think I've told you this in the past, but next time you don't have a rebuttal to points made then just say nothing. It's usually not a problem. Don't post pathetic meta-commentary like this. It doesn't save face, it just makes you pathetically desperate and massive hypocrite. I honestly can't comprehend much lacking on self-awarness someone needs to be to in the same breathe say to the opposing party in the discussion doesn't want to discuss football, ignore 95% posts etc.. and then proceed to fail to respond over half the post and instead go off on some bizarre personal attack rant that has zero to do with football...

Like I said, stop taking things so personally when there's literally no need, take a breathe and discuss the topic instead of trying (falling) to engage in some weird personal "one man upship" against me.
 
Last edited:

AbouCuéllar

Wishes to get banned elsewhere
I think I've told you this in the past, but next time you don't have a rebuttal to points made then just say nothing. It's usually not a problem. Don't post pathetic meta-commentary like this. It doesn't save face, it just makes you pathetically desperate and massive hypocrite. I honestly can't comprehend much lacking on self-awarness someone needs to be to in the same breathe say to the opposing party in the discussion doesn't want to discuss football, ignore 95% posts etc.. and then proceed to fail to respond over half the post and instead go off on some bizarre personal attack rant that has zero to do with football...
It's all there, pal, I quoted a number of my posts in a topic I've discussed at length, making points about football, and you responded to practically none of them (just as you never responded, for example, in our discussion about Em*ry and Arteta, to the question of where the clubs were picked up in regard to their competition by each manager, for example...).

With that in mind, and this will be another instance of my refuting a specific point, I fail to see how you can use European football performances make the point you're trying to make. You've already said you're looking at "macro trends" over a 5 year period. And you've already conceded that analysing the European performances of individual seasons against one another is faulty because "micro trends" are "extremely prone to small sample size effects" (although it's pretty obvious what the real reason is) , so then how can you use European football results as argument for the continually improvement of 2018/19 vs 2020/21 for example? You're literally saying you can't. So even by your own logic and arbitrary metrics here European football performances can only be used to judge say 2016-2021 vs 2015-2010 etc... So in a discussion about whether last season was a better quality PL season than 2018/19 European performances wouldn't factor in according to your rationale so why would they even be brought up? I don't need to say whether they could be used for or against since THEY LITERALLY DON'T FACTOR INTO THE DISCUSSION ACCORDING TO YOURSELF.
This is really rather simple. I never said the results in that one season don't count. I said that as it is one season it is prone to small sample size effects. When it is included in a sample of 5 seasons I believe we are talking about a big enough sample where those effects are no longer there. UEFA, to calculate its coefficient, for example, uses four year cycles. We can do that, if you please, and if that feels more legitimate to you, rather than 5. 🙃

To respond to the bolded, I can't. I use European results to defend what is extremely obvious: the PL has gone up a significant level since the early half of the last decade (it has surpassed the Spanish League for the best league in the world when La Liga was certainly that for most of that first half of the decade and the first year into the second half--15-16), and especially since the importation of a great deal of top level managers, finally addressing the tactical level that was holding the league back despite its great financial advantages. I discuss other more anecdotal trends, ie, basically comparing the strength of teams and their tactical coherence, to make that argument--those arguments you have entirely ignored, as well as pointing out the trickle down effect that top managers like Klopp, Guardiola, Poch, Conte, etc. coming into the league has had on the rest of the league, as the low level of managerial quality has consistently and gradually been pushed farther and farther down the table and out of the league, while the level of investment remains at a striking rate which surpasses astronomically that of the rest of the world.

As for the rest, it would seem you are projecting a great deal--I say these things to basically say, I see you, I can see through your more petty rhetorical strategies, and please, do away with the disingenuous crap, and argue honestly with me--but it's good that you are trying to stick more to the topic and argue honestly in this last post.
 

Oxeki

New Threads, Old Tweets
The league is harder, every manager has said so recently. Stop discussing useless debates, for sure Klopp knows better than you and your feelings.
:lol: classic case of argumentum ad verecundiam. It must be true because Klopp said so 🤣
 

Camus

Active Member
It's all there, pal, I quoted a number of my posts in a topic I've discussed at length, making points about football, and you responded to practically none of them (just as you never responded, for example, in our discussion about Em*ry and Arteta, to the question of where the clubs were picked up in regard to their competition by each manager, for example...).
The discussion you and are personally having right now, that you yourself instigated (not me by the way), its about the use of results in European competition results are a barometer to judge the quality of the league. So as I pointed out, why would I respond to 56 of the sentences you posted from past quotes of yours when 54 of them literally don't even remotely address the topic. They're of no relevance to this discussion, I have no issue or interest them. Furthermore of the 5 quotes 4 of them aren't even addressed to me in any shape or form (and the one that is a retread of point I already addressed in post proceeding to it and which I've explained my position on further now).

How is that at all similar to ignore massive parts of my posts DIRECTLY addressed to you on a completely RELEVANT on-topic discussion we are having? It's not.

What do you want me to say about these irrelevant off-topic points of yours? I have no issues with them, they're fine, I don't particularly disagree with them, I see some resemblance validity in them (as I clearly mentioned I see validity in both sides of this argument). Is that what you want me to say? Are you happy now that you've got my overt approval that you seem to desperately crave? You can sleep easy tonight I guess.

You seem to think I disagree with each and every single opinion you hold. Obviously I don't, if I've read a post of yours and I haven't interjected to disagreed then that probably means I don't disagree.

This is what I mean about this bizarre obsessive unhealthy personal one-man-up ship mentality you have. I've got no personal issues with you at all, it doesn't eat away at me and cause me to have mental breakdown every time you make a post I this is good. My mentality is not "I must prove AbouCuellar wrong at every instance for the sake of it". You honestly and sincerely just happen to coincidentally to make a fair few posts/points I vehemently disagree/think are objectively wrong.


This is really rather simple. I never said the results in that one season don't count. I said that as it is one season it is prone to small sample size effects.
I'm not talking about just that 1 season, I'm talking about you saying that any singular season can't count because of this "small sample size effect". It means using European results as a way to judge seasons against other another as impossible since according to the metric of your rationale it can only be down about large periods, not individual season or more specifically individual season within the same sample size. So it's a element we need to consider when discussing the past 5 season according to your arbitrary rules, ergo it's not part of my "The thing is when discussing if the league is hard nor or before the same points people use to justify their positions can equally be used by the opposing party to refute it. " comment when discussing short term comparisons. And as for long term comparisons, I already highlighted using examples how "macro trends" about European results can be used to make the claim about past seasons being better quality than the current seasons. Which you've conveniently ignored...That's unlike you 🤔 Must have slipped your mind to respond to it.....

So I've fully justified my point multiple times on various levels. Your "confusion" about my point was completely misplaced, lets see if you've got the courage of your convictions to admit as much. You've instigated a petty, needless multiple post, multiparagraph discussion over a EXTREMELY innocuous point that was objectively true and proven as such. And all for the sake of "it".


When it is included in a sample of 5 seasons I believe we are talking about a big enough sample where those effects are no longer there. UEFA, to calculate its coefficient, for example, uses four year cycles. We can do that, if you please, and if that feels more legitimate to you, rather than 5. 🙃
UEFA uses 5 years, not 4.


And it's rolling window, not fixed blocks like you're doing. So don't feign legitimacy through UEFA when they're not even remotely using the same methodology as you.

To respond to the bolded, I can't.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh? You don't need to respond to the bolded part. It was rhetorical question, I literally already posted your response direct after the rhetorical question. How did you miss that? You said as much 3 times, I quoted you saying as much 3 times. The point I was making was that as you've said European results by your rationale aren't used for a season vs season comparison so they don't factor into such a discussion so I don't need to justify how opposing parties my twist and change such stats in a discussion since according to you the wouldn't be used/aren't valid in the 1st place. So you pressing me to justify it and make an entire argument out of it was beyond moronic.


I use European results to defend what is extremely obvious: the PL has gone up a significant level since the early half of the last decade (it has surpassed the Spanish League for the best league in the world when La Liga was certainly that for most of that first half of the decade and the first year into the second half--15-16), and especially since the importation of a great deal of top level managers, finally addressing the tactical level that was holding the league back despite its great financial advantages. I discuss other more anecdotal trends, ie, basically comparing the strength of teams and their tactical coherence, to make that argument--those arguments you have entirely ignored, as well as pointing out the trickle down effect that top managers like Klopp, Guardiola, Poch, Conte, etc. coming into the league has had on the rest of the league, as the low level of managerial quality has consistently and gradually been pushed farther and farther down the table and out of the league, while the level of investment remains at a striking rate which surpasses astronomically that of the rest of the world.
I haven't ignored anything since that was never ever a discussion/debate I engaged in at all. You seem so, so, so desperate for me to say "you're right" about these "points" when it's not even something I've GENERALLY disagreed with you on nor care about. As I said, I see validity in your general view and in others that share them and also in people that oppose it.

After you realised the complete pointlessness of the initial argument you instigated you're now effectively trying to shift complete focus and want to pick an argument with me about something I don't care about, didn't instigate, don't generally engage in, don't inherently disagree with you about and then have me say you're right so you can get some petty little "win". Why are you so weird like this? Like I said I don't disagree or agree with you on this general point, I think there's some merit and validity to it. Is that enough of a "win" for you? Do you want to put me down as a reference on your CV? I give you permission.


As for the rest, it would seem you are projecting a great deal
Glad I taught you a new concept today. Next time please be more original beyond "I know you are but am I!!!"


--I say these things to basically say, I see you, and please, do away with the disingenuous crap, and argue honestly with me--but it's good that you are trying to stick more to the topic and argue honestly in this last post.
It's honestly beyond freakish how desperately you try to save face at every opportunity. Just relax a little ffs, it's beyond pathetic at this point.
 

Xillin

Xhaka 🔛, Telly 🔨
:lol: classic case of argumentum ad verecundiam. It must be true because Klopp said so 🤣
Klopp in my eyes is like a god of managers. There are other managers too who've said it but i don't list them cause they aren't on Klopp's level.

And yes, when Klopp says it it's true. The guy has more knowledge in his left small toe than both you and me combined.
 

AbouCuéllar

Wishes to get banned elsewhere
The discussion you and are personally having right now, that you yourself instigated (not me by the way), its about the use of results in European competition results are a barometer to judge the quality of the league. So as I pointed out, why would I respond to 56 of the sentences you posted from past quotes of yours when 54 of them literally don't even remotely address the topic. They're of no relevance to this discussion, I have no issue or interest them. Furthermore of the 5 quotes 4 of them aren't even addressed to me in any shape or form (and the one that is a retread of point I already addressed in post proceeding to it and which I've explained my position on further now).
Hah, shades of when you told me that other things I had said about Arteta not to you didn't matter in our debate :lol:. Sorry to say mate but conversation on this forum does not revolve around Camus. And of course those quotes have relevant to the discussion we were having. You were trying to use a single season in Europe and turn my argument against me with regards to European football results being the best objective evidence available of the league's improvement in recent years for those who can't see the obvious right in front of their eyes, and those quotes talk precisely about the evolution of the league in a more nuanced fashion (ie, the evolution that has occurred not just in European places, which don't factor into European results).

I'm not talking about just that 1 season, I'm talking about you saying that any singular season can't count because of this "small sample size effect".
You're twisting my words. No way did I say it didn't count. I pointed out SSS effects as an important nuance to the discussion. I never said that any one particular season didn't count. It's just that while, say, a sample of ten games in terms of a player's chances created stats can be misleading, a full season's stats tells a much more compelling and interesting story.

And as for long term comparisons, I already highlighted using examples how "macro trends" about European results can be used to make the claim about past seasons being better quality than the current seasons. Which you've conveniently ignored...That's unlike you 🤔 Must have slipped your mind to respond to it.....
I've ignored it because it's absolutely nonsense, lol. You're manipulating data to point out that...manipulating data can be manipulative. But I am choosing periods and giving reasons for choosing those periods, both tactical and phenomenological. It's a bit weird how you can't understand that. I've explained at length the reason why I break them into these periods, because the whole force of my argument is that the increasing of tactical level in England is responsible for its rise in competition level, which is reflected in its European results which coincide with this rise of tactical level.

So I've fully justified my point multiple times on various levels.
You really haven't. You still cannot explain how the remarkably clear trend in European results from the first half of the last decade to the second half of the last decade can somehow be used for the other side of the argument. When you can do that I will be interested.

UEFA uses 5 years, not 4.

Coefficient calculation

The coefficient is calculated by working out an average score: dividing the number of points obtained, by the total number of clubs representing an association in that season's club competitions. The resulting figure is then tallied with the results of the previous four seasons to calculate the coefficient. Where two associations have the same coefficient, the association with the higher coefficient in the most recent season is placed first.


And it's rolling window, not fixed blocks like you're doing.
Erm...think about this again. We're not talking about the last 4 years up to the current moment in time. The argument is about comparing the PL pre the time I am marking as a before and after for the tactical level in England, and post. You're point here is, well, pointless.

Glad I taught you a new concept today.
Hah, the pomp! I would love to send you a copy of my diploma, we could have a good laugh. :)


Anyways, mate, like last time, I think we can agree to disagree and both agree that this is very tiring. We will go away with both our opinions, because I don't find your argumentation style at all convincing, and nor do you mine. I am happy and pretty confident about who has been correct on both of our arguments though (evolution of premier league, Arteta vs. Em*ry), and time, as with everything, has the final say. :) Later, the rest can decide who seems more interested in talking about actual football and who in distorting things and spending a long time talking about personal crap. I feel confident where I stand there, too, and know where my interests lie, hence why I find myself again desisting in argument with you, seeing how things tend to devolve with your style of argumentation.

edit: I see you're right on UEFA Coefficients, it is indeed 5 years (I misunderstood as it says 4 years explicitly, but it is saying 4 plus the most recent season). Anyways, that is the same periods I am using, and probably why I chose 5 year spans, because I brought up how England overtook Spain in the UEFA coefficient for the first time in a while just last season (or the one before, I forget) when this discussion initially took off with the Wenger cultist / Premier League hasn't improved truther.
 
Last edited:

dka91

Well-Known Member
Camus vs Abou

20140314160108532327c4ee0ec18054ca9b743691b16cd79ab6ac64e85.jpg


Yes this is from GOT/ASOIAF.
 

GoonerJay24

Well-Known Member
Its not changed much. There's always been numerous teams fighting for European places.

I'd say the league has been weaker in the past two seasons though. For instance the team that finished 2nd last campaign only reached 74 points and the 3rd place team in 2020 amassed 65 points; thats poor. Although he ultimately flopped, I credit Emery for having us consistently challenging for top four in 18/19 when the league was so competitive.
 

MikelHadADream

Well-Known Member
The league has certainly gotten harder, you can directly correlate that to the increasing financial gap the PL has with the rest if world football. Teams like West Ham now have purchasing power equal to or greater than the likes of AC Milan...

This doesn't absolve Arsenal though. The league has gotten more competitive, and we've gotten worse.
 

AbouCuéllar

Wishes to get banned elsewhere
Its not changed much. There's always been numerous teams fighting for European places.

I'd say the league has been weaker in the past two seasons though. For instance the team that finished 2nd last campaign only reached 74 points and the 3rd place team in 2020 amassed 65 points; thats poor. Although he ultimately flopped, I credit Emery for having us consistently challenging for top four in 18/19 when the league was so competitive.
Compare the league now team by team from 18/19 to now. There is absolutely no way any reasonable mind comes out with any other conclusion than that it has improved. This is a kind of funny post. And lower point totals by teams at the top doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean.
 
Top