Football 18/19

[ThomThomDrum]

Come on Utd!!! Don’t “slip” up!!! ?

[eastynh]

I don't know a single rag who wants City to win tonight.

[Wooderson]

21 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

Any evidence for this? The fact we still have 4 teams in Europe suggests this isn't the case. 

The premier league is the strongest it has ever been from top to bottom.

Man City (only knocked out Europe by another English team!) and Liverpool are two of the best teams in the world. 

Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal and Man U all got at least to the last 8 of a European competition. 

Even mid-table teams have much better squads than they did 20 years ago. Wolves have players like Patricio and Neves, Everton have Richarlison. These players could get challenge for places in any team in the world. 

Wolves a unique case, no? Traditionally Everton a big club. 

[Wooderson]

45 minutes ago, thetime said:

Reverse psychology. 

Seen the betting market? Utd to win is 11-2 with PatPower. ?

[CRW5252]

4 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Wolves a unique case, no? Traditionally Everton a big club. 

What's your point? We are talking about the quality of the squads in the Prem now compared to 20 years ago.

This was Everton's squad 20 years ago (they finished 13th): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999–2000_Everton_F.C._season. Full of fridge/uncapped English players and then some Scottish, Irish and Welsh international players.

Compare this to now, where they have a squad full of international players for top ranked countries. 

[jyoung]

24 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Traditionally Everton a big club. 

?

[Wooderson]

14 minutes ago, jyoung said:

?

Soz.?

[thetime]

55 minutes ago, jyoung said:

?

You will be saying Chelsea are next. ?

[thetime]

Traditional big 6 were united, Liverpool, Everton, spurs, Villa and Arsenal in no particular order. 

[kaosmark2]

14 minutes ago, thetime said:

Traditional big 6 were united, Liverpool, Everton, spurs, Villa and Arsenal in no particular order. 

Troll. 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, CRW5252 said:

What's your point? We are talking about the quality of the squads in the Prem now compared to 20 years ago.

This was Everton's squad 20 years ago (they finished 13th): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999–2000_Everton_F.C._season. Full of fridge/uncapped English players and then some Scottish, Irish and Welsh international players.

Compare this to now, where they have a squad full of international players for top ranked countries. 

I think overall the quality of the teams is better which is related the financial power of the teams, even towards the bottom of the league.

In terms of the quality of the league it depends on the criteria you use.  I think the gap between the top and the bottom has increased which in my view makes the league poorer as a neutral. Jonathan Wilson had an interesting stat on the football weekly podcast. I cant remember it exactly but something along the line of 15 years ago there was only an average of one game a season where a team hit 70% possession, that has now increased to 70ish which is a massive change.

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, CRW5252 said:

What's your point? We are talking about the quality of the squads in the Prem now compared to 20 years ago.

This was Everton's squad 20 years ago (they finished 13th): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999–2000_Everton_F.C._season. Full of fridge/uncapped English players and then some Scottish, Irish and Welsh international players.

Compare this to now, where they have a squad full of international players for top ranked countries. 

Becoming more international doesn't mean teams are better (or worse). 

I don't believe that defenses nowadays are worth shit compared to defenses of 15-20 years ago. Even with all the advances of tactics, nutrition, etc. I think defending has detiorated.

There's more nuances in attack but how much of that is improvement in quality, and how much is facing shit tier defenses I'm not sure. 

[thetime]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Troll. 

How am I wrong?

Edited April 24, 2019 by thetime

[CRW5252]

5 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think overall the quality of the teams is better which is related the financial power of the teams, even towards the bottom of the league.

In terms of the quality of the league it depends on the criteria you use.  I think the gap between the top and the bottom has increased which in my view makes the league poorer as a neutral. 

I agree with this. I can see why people would find the league less interesting as it is certainly more predicable nowadays. 

It does make Leicester's achievement a few seasons ago that much more impressive though!

8 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Jonathan Wilson had an interesting stat on the football weekly podcast. I cant remember it exactly but something along the line of 15 years ago there was only an average of one game a season where a team hit 70% possession, that has now increased to 70ish which is a massive change.

I think this has been caused by, as you say, the top teams-small team gap getting bigger but also because teams are noticing the importance of keeping possession of the ball much more these days, particularly in England where we have traditionally been direct. 

[kaosmark2]

7 minutes ago, thetime said:

How am I wrong?

There wasn't a traditional big 6 in the way there is now. There have always been smaller and bigger teams, but the flow of biggest has generally varied. While those 6 have spent the most time in the top flight, there are other teams that have challenged more for trophies at various times, with large fan bases, having substantial periods of being "bigger" than some of those. 

[thetime]

9 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

There wasn't a traditional big 6 in the way there is now. There have always been smaller and bigger teams, but the flow of biggest has generally varied. While those 6 have spent the most time in the top flight, there are other teams that have challenged more for trophies at various times, with large fan bases, having substantial periods of being "bigger" than some of those. 

Don’t agree.

there was the traditional 6,  it had nothing to do with trophies being won or league positions of that time. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by thetime

[CRW5252]

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Becoming more international doesn't mean teams are better (or worse). 

You've missed my point. It is not that the players are international that makes the teams better. 

Everton's squad nowadays is full of players who have played at a higher level internationally. A player like Richarlison, a Brazil international at 20, would never have played for Everton 20 years ago. They wouldn't have been able to afford him. Even a player like Pickford never would have stayed at a club like Everton after his World Cup.

24 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't believe that defenses nowadays are worth shit compared to defenses of 15-20 years ago. Even with all the advances of tactics, nutrition, etc. I think defending has detiorated.

There's more nuances in attack but how much of that is improvement in quality, and how much is facing shit tier defenses I'm not sure. 

The defenders take much more risks these days and some people perceive that as them being worse. Goalkeepers and defenders are much better all round football players nowadays. The whole team is responsible for both attacking and defending, back in the day this wasn't the case.

[thetime]

2 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

The defenders take much more risks these days and some people perceive that as them being worse. Goalkeepers and defenders are much better all round football players nowadays. The whole team is responsible for both attacking and defending, back in the day this wasn't the case.

Plus defenders can’t even tackle nowadays, even fair challenges are getting outlawed. When was the last blood and thunder 50/50 you saw? It’s getting to be a non contact sport, certainly wasn’t the case 20 years ago. 

[CRW5252]

17 minutes ago, thetime said:

Plus defenders can’t even tackle nowadays, even fair challenges are getting outlawed. When was the last blood and thunder 50/50 you saw? It’s getting to be a non contact sport, certainly wasn’t the case 20 years ago. 

Yeah, that is definitely a factor as well. 

[ThomThomDrum]

2 hours ago, eastynh said:

I don't know a single rag who wants City to win tonight.

Everyone "loves" an underdog

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

Don’t agree.

there was the traditional 6,  it had nothing to do with trophies being won or league positions of that time. 

Why are those teams the traditional 6?

[zahidf]

I think the league is fun overall and more competitive than other ones like the French league, la liga, German league etc.

[Hugh Jass]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

apparently 80% of Man Utd fans want Utd to lose tonight.  

Why would they? It’s not as if they’re mid-table and defeat would have little consequence, United need the points. They need to be back in the CL if they have any ambition of getting back to the top.

[lost]

47 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Why are those teams the traditional 6?

Trophies won probably has something to do with it, the list is here. Chelsea the only ones to break into the top 6. I believe they had 1 league title and 1 FA cup before the premier league started, so 20 + of those trophies coming in the recent period. Probably a combination of trophies, attendances and staying in the top flight.

Manchester United 66
Liverpool 61
Arsenal 46
Chelsea    30
Tottenham Hotspur 26
Aston Villa 25
Everton 24
Manchester City    22
Newcastle United 14
Nottingham Forest 13

Edited April 24, 2019 by lost

[eastynh]

Traditional big club is a misnomer. Football has been going professionally for 120 years ish. Out of that Liverpool have been a big club since the 70? All paid for by outside investment as well funnily enough. Liverpool had accelerated success just like Ciry are having now. Liverpools crowds were not as big as Citys either.

City were also the bigger club in Manchester for many years and actually helped prevent United going bankrupt twice.

This big club stuff is a load of shite. How far are we going back to fulfill the 'traditional criteria'?  

An interesting way to judge succesful clubs is looking at head to head results over their history. An example is City v Spurs. I think it is 63 wins to City, 61 to Spurs. Both teams have won a similar amout and both clubs have broke attendance records. Through history City and Spurs have been equally matched. Also Citys record through history is one if the best against United.

Now your top 6 biggest clubs is different now than it was 20 years ago, just as it was 40 years ago and just as it was 100 years ago. This traditional big club thing is a load on nonesense.