General Premier League Thread 2018-19 Part 2

fyfe79

Drumpot wrote: »

It counts but you still weigh up a league cup v champions league. If you think it’s the same there’s not much point in debating it. Id rather win the treble like 99 then the domestic treble with loads of league points, I also think that’s a harder target when you factor in that no team Mickey mouses the CL like most top teams do the league and FA Cup till the later rounds.

*Insert Brendan gif here*

Real Madrid vs Liverpool 4/11/14.

A dark day.

Drumpot

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I would assume the league is a lot harder to win now than back in 99. So the likelihood of a treble with CL is going to be very rare.

Is the league really that tough? City walked it last season and only Liverpool spent world records on positions city would be walking it again this season. When you are so far ahead of everybody all but maybe a handful of teams are pretty much walkovers. This means city can easily rotate its already strong squad without losing much.

In 1999 in the Cl united :

- had to qualify out of a group with Barca and Bayern. Spanish and German league champions
- had to beat inter and Juventus on way to final. Serie A was probably the strongest league around that time. Juventus has zidane , David’s , deschamps
And Del piero, not too shabby!
- had to beat Bayern in the final. A Bayern team also chasing a treble and that subsequently , lost to eventual winners next year but won the CL two years later.

In the FA Cup united:

-played one non premier league team
- beat Liverpool , Chelsea, Arsenal , Newcastle and Middlesbrough.
- beating Arsenal in semi finals after playing them twice was like city beating Liverpool in fa cup semi final! After a replay that shouldn’t of happened after united had a legitimate goal disallowed!

United couldn’t rest anybody during the season because they had so many big games so regularly. This affects your ability to go on massive league runs and disrupts momentum.

City have gotten very handy draws that’s allowed them much more room to rest players and rotate squads. This is a massive benefit. If you can rest players and you get handier draws you can build up confidence with the entire squad (giving squad players a run in easier games) , build up momentum (take less knocks) and be fresher come the end of the season.

Laois_Man

The next best previous points total in the Premier League era (even when you include the early years when it was a 42 game season) were the Chelsea team of 2004/05 (95 points) and the Chelsea team of 2016/17 (93 points)

But they never seem to come up in these best PL team ever conversations.

Just an observation

Shanotheslayer

Drumpot wrote: »

Is the league really that tough? City walked it last season and only Liverpool spent world records on positions city would be walking it again this season. When you are so far ahead of everybody all but maybe a handful of teams are pretty much walkovers. This means city can easily rotate its already strong squad without losing much.

In 1999 in the Cl united :

- had to qualify out of a group with Barca and Bayern. Spanish and German league champions
- had to beat inter and Juventus on way to final. Serie A was probably the strongest league around that time. Juventus has zidane , David’s , deschamps
And Del piero, not too shabby!
- had to beat Bayern in the final. A Bayern team also chasing a treble and that subsequently , lost to eventual winners next year but won the CL two years later.

In the FA Cup united:

-played one non premier league team
- beat Liverpool , Chelsea, Arsenal , Newcastle and Middlesbrough.
- beating Arsenal in semi finals after playing them twice was like city beating Liverpool in fa cup semi final! After a replay that shouldn’t of happened after united had a legitimate goal disallowed!

United couldn’t rest anybody during the season because they had so many big games so regularly. This affects your ability to go on massive league runs and disrupts momentum.

City have gotten very handy draws that’s allowed them much more room to rest players and rotate squads. This is a massive benefit. If you can rest players and you get handier draws you can build up confidence with the entire squad (giving squad players a run in easier games) , build up momentum (take less knocks) and be fresher come the end of the season.

I'm not dismissing Uniteds achievement. Football has changed a lot since then. FA cup/League cup doesn't matter half as much anymore for the big teams until the Semi's.

The main point I will debate with you is

Is the league really that tough? City walked it last season and only Liverpool spent world records on positions city would be walking it again this season

What relevance is that? Rival team spends money and challenges for the title? United spent world records on positions also at times that doesn't necessary mean it leads to challenging for the title. It increases expectations but doesn't mean it's a certainty.

The money Liverpool spent is looking well worth it on football ability alone. That's not including the money they get elsewhere for jerseys etc

Drumpot

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I'm not dismissing Uniteds achievement. Football has changed a lot since then. FA cup/League cup doesn't matter half as much anymore for the big teams until the Semi's.

The main point I will debate with you is



What relevance is that? Rival team spends money and challenges for the title? United spent world records on positions also at times that doesn't necessary mean it leads to challenging for the title. It increases expectations but doesn't mean it's a certainty.

The money Liverpool spent is looking well worth it on football ability alone. That's not including the money they get elsewhere for jerseys etc

I didn’t argue that Liverpool didn’t spend well or that it was unfair on any capacity. City walked the league last season and only Liverpool were able to dramatically bridge that gap with those world class signings that worked out, they would be walking the league again. To say “it’s harder now to win the league” doesn’t actually make any sense. Arsenal were United’s rivals for years, not just one season. City were once again head and shoulders above everybody this season, Liverpool are the only difference and the rest below are even worse!

Shanotheslayer

Drumpot wrote: »

I didn’t argue that Liverpool didn’t spend well or that it was unfair on any capacity. City walked the league last season and only Liverpool were able to dramatically bridge that gap with those world class signings that worked out, they would be walking the league again. To say “it’s harder now to win the league” doesn’t actually make any sense. Arsenal were United’s rivals for years, not just one season.

Well it does make sense based on the amount of winners compared to the early 90's and late 90's

United won it 8 of those years leading up to the treble winning year.
1 went to Blackburn and 1 went to Arsenal.

Since 2010 there's 4 winners

United x2
Chelsea x2
City x3
Leicester x1(Freak thing, and I don't like including them when basing an argument on stats)

Comparing that to:

United X8
Blackburn x1
Arsenal x1

It is clearly more difficult to maintain winning the league as the competition has increased so much more. Now, this is not taking anything away from United and the amazing team/manager they had to maintain that achievement is incredible.

Further point to this is look at the points total needed to win the league in those years:

Arsenal 98 - 78 Points
United 97 - 79 Points
United 96 - 82 Points
Blackburn 95 - 89 Points

City 18 - 100
Chelsea 17 - 93
Leicester 16 - 81
Chelsea 15 - 87

The points required to win the league now seems to be a lot higher which is why I think it's more difficult to win.

Bridge93

City are on course for a domestic treble and will have played in all but 3 of the champions league games too. Its not as if people have to compare Citys league cup win to uniteds champions league. They spent nearly as much energy in the champions league, short the semi finals

Drumpot

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Well it does make sense based on the amount of winners compared to the early 90's and late 90's

United won it 8 of those years leading up to the treble winning year.
1 went to Blackburn and 1 went to Arsenal.

Since 2010 there's 4 winners

United x2
Chelsea x2
City x3
Leicester x1(Freak thing, and I don't like including them when basing an argument on stats)

Comparing that to:

United X8
Blackburn x1
Arsenal x1

It is clearly more difficult to maintain winning the league as the competition has increased so much more. Now, this is not taking anything away from United and the amazing team/manager they had to maintain that achievement is incredible.

Further point to this is look at the points total needed to win the league in those years:

Arsenal 98 - 78 Points
United 97 - 79 Points
United 96 - 82 Points
Blackburn 95 - 89 Points

City 18 - 100
Chelsea 17 - 93
Leicester 16 - 81
Chelsea 15 - 87

The points required to win the league now seems to be a lot higher which is why I think it's more difficult to win.

You could argue that a lower points winning seasons suggested that more teams were a lot more matched those season. One team shooting ahead doesn’t mean the league is strong or tougher. When Chelsea won it 87 points was enough and last season and 83 points would of been enough to win the league.

If we factor in the season after most league winners since 2013 it suggests that league winners don’t have the drive to maintain the levels that won them the league. We get a rotation of league winners now because the game has changed not because it’s such a competitive league. Chelsea the perfect example, league winners to mid table, just like Leicester , that’s not because the league is so strong.

Drumpot

Bridge93 wrote: »

City are on course for a domestic treble and will have played in all but 3 of the champions league games too. Its not as if people have to compare Citys league cup win to uniteds champions league. They spent nearly as much energy in the champions league, short the semi finals

City have had a cakewalk and gotten very handy draws for the majority of their cup games, that makes a massive difference.

Shanotheslayer

Drumpot wrote: »

You could argue that a lower points winning seasons suggested that more teams were a lot more matched those season. One team shooting ahead doesn’t mean the league is strong or tougher. When Chelsea won it 87 points was enough and last season and 83 points would of been enough to win the league.

If we factor in the season after most league winners since 2013 it suggests that league winners don’t have the drive to maintain the levels that won them the league. We get a rotation of league winners now because the game has changed not because it’s such a competitive league. Chelsea the perfect example, league winners to mid table, just like Leicester , that’s not because the league is so strong.

We'll agree to disagree

Drumpot

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

We'll agree to disagree

Then We have an accord ....

Bridge93

Drumpot wrote: »

You could argue that a lower points winning seasons suggested that more teams were a lot more matched those season. One team shooting ahead doesn’t mean the league is strong or tougher. When Chelsea won it 87 points was enough and last season and 83 points would of been enough to win the league.

If the league was more evenly matched could that not play into the narrative that there has never been a team in the Premier League like the current City side? If the winners previously had more equals than one could say they werent as strong unless there's an argument that the league is significantly weaker now? The whole debate started on whether this City side are the leagues greatest. Hard to quantify, as is the relative strength of the league. No way to really know. Unless this City side hit 100 again and win the CL on top of it or something there will always be thosefor and against both sides.

Drumpot

Bridge93 wrote: »

If the league was more evenly matched could that not play into the narrative that there has never been a team in the Premier League like the current City side? If the winners previously had more equals than one could say they werent as strong unless there's an argument that the league is significantly weaker now? The whole debate started on whether this City side are the leagues greatest. Hard to quantify, as is the relative strength of the league. No way to really know. Unless this City side hit 100 again and win the CL on top of it or something there will always be thosefor and against both sides.

It is hard to quantify and it will only end up being a subjective discussion as there is no right or wrong answer. It will boil down fo the weight people apply to different variables.

5starpool

I don't think that anyone will argue that a couple of the ferguson teams are still the most sustained success of any team in the PL era. If city win the league this season and next then they will challenge that too on the domestic front.

In terms of the best PL teams though, this current side have to be right up there.

MaceFace

One big difference between teams, particularly City and the great teams of 20 years ago is the ability for every player to be extremely comfortable on the ball.

There are very few players at City who aren't incredible with the ball at their feet.
Even the likes of Huddersfield try to play pretty football.

"Back in the day", the more abundant long ball and much more physical football probably led to more goals against the run of play and thus "freak" results that may not be as common now.

5starpool

Also, I think the main difference now from 15+ years ago is not that the lower teams are worse, but that the better teams are just much better.

Comparing teams from different eras is a difficult exercise at best though. The utd teams of the 90's or 00's or the Liverpool teams of the 70's or 80's were demonstrably better than any other teams of those eras. That's all that can be reliably measured.

GavRedKing

There was a table went up in a group I'm in from April 25th 2011.

Utd were top with 73 pts which would put them 3rd this year and everyone from outside the top 7, Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, City, Spurs, Pool, Everton had been relegated at least once.

The top 4 we're separated by 14 points, its 22 at the moment.

City we're 4th with 59 pts which is good enough for 7th this year and some 5pts off 6th this year.

The gulf in class between now and only 8 years ago is even insane.

The way in which the top 2 this year have amassed points week on week is near faultless.

Harry Palmr

Next season the only challenge to City will be Liverpool again short of a miracle of recruitment among the
CL qualification race quartet.

ShamoBuc

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Next season the only challenge to City will be Liverpool again short of a miracle of recruitment among the
CL qualification race quartet.

Spurs will challenge next year. They challenged for most of this year, despite not signing anyone, playing at Wembley and eventually moving back to WHL.

But then they will no doubt do a Spurs and fall away.

Bridge93

There has across the major leagues been a progressive squeezing of the best talent into less and less teams. The best are getting better as the talent increasingly congregates at these clubs than before. The rest, despite spending more, are increasingly fighting for scraps or hidden gems before these too inevitably get snatched up.

The bottom half of the league may have far more cash than before but they've never been further away from the big guns

GavRedKing

The only way 3rd-6th will challenge is if both Pool and City fall away to the tune of 15 points and the rest improve by half a dozen points.

We wont get a scenario where all 6 will be battling it out for the PL but if the gap is closed, it has be closed from the chasing pack and the front runners have to fall back to meet them.

As it stands, even Spurs, who look right now the best equipped side to put a challenge next year, are only 3pts clear of 4th and 4pts clear of 5th.

GavRedKing

Bridge93 wrote: »

There has across the major leagues been a progressive squeezing of the best talent into less and less teams. The best are getting better as the talent increasingly congregates at these clubs than before. The rest, despite spending more, are increasingly fighting for scraps or hidden gems before these too inevitably get snatched up.

The bottom half of the league may have far more cash than before but they've never been further away from the big guns

Sure haven't Fulham spent nearly 100m trying to stay up, in essence, they've blown their TV money this year, gambling on staying up and its back fired spectacularly.

They've out spent a host of sides across Europe but will finish 19th and once they go down, they'll get relegation payments form the PL for the next 3 years to offset against FFP and the massive amounts they've spent.

Shanotheslayer

Bridge93 wrote: »

The bottom half of the league may have far more cash than before but they've never been further away from the big guns

Read that in David Attenborough's voice.

Sounds like the start of a documentary :pac:

8-10

GavRedKing wrote: »

The only way 3rd-6th will challenge is if both Pool and City fall away to the tune of 15 points and the rest improve by half a dozen points.

We wont get a scenario where all 6 will be battling it out for the PL but if the gap is closed, it has be closed from the chasing pack and the front runners have to fall back to meet them.

I don't think City can improve by much more. Close to 100pts next year is likely but don't see them going beyond that. More likely to get closer to 90 than 100 I'd say. Liverpool have to improve just to keep up, but in terms of the gap behind Liverpool finished 25pts behind City last season and have run them pretty close up to now. So making up 15pts is definitely doable.

Big question for me is whether Chelsea will be allowed to sign players. If Sarri is allowed to build a team I think they'd compete. Arsenal are still too leaky at the back and United have a huge wage problem with players who aren't good enough. I think if anyone closes the gap it's Spurs who could actually sign a player this year.

TitianGerm

GavRedKing wrote: »

The only way 3rd-6th will challenge is if both Pool and City fall away to the tune of 15 points and the rest improve by half a dozen points.

We wont get a scenario where all 6 will be battling it out for the PL but if the gap is closed, it has be closed from the chasing pack and the front runners have to fall back to meet them.

As it stands, even Spurs, who look right now the best equipped side to put a challenge next year, are only 3pts clear of 4th and 4pts clear of 5th.

For Spurs get Erikson and Toby to stay and Kane recovers from his injury to his previous levels (was it two on the same ankle this year?) and with some smart recruitment they'd be in great shape.

Imagine Levy loosened the purse strings and they bought AWB, Chillwell and a good quality CM. They'd be right up there.

ozzy jr

When an English team equals what Manchester United did in 99, you can open the debate as to which one was the greatest.

Harry Palmr

What did Manchester United do in 1999? remind me someone. :pac:

TitianGerm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What did Manchester United do in 1999? remind me someone. :pac:

Living in the past they are :pac:

Loafing Oaf

AOC reportedly in Liverpool squad tonight.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

AOC reportedly in Liverpool squad tonight.

Andy O Carroll?

ozzy jr

I'm not a United fan, but it's the greatest achievement in English football. No one's really got close since. City this season had a decent go.

People need to take the blinkers off.

Mr.H

ozzy jr wrote:

I'm not a United fan, but it's the greatest achievement in English football. No one's really got close since. City this season had a decent go.

Really? A team that was dominating for almost a decade at that stage dominated. Thats the biggest achievement?

Not downplaying but ffs I think you need to look at history books.

Leicester city, the invincibles, city breaking 100 points just a couple of bigger achievements for example.

ozzy jr

Mr.H wrote: »

Leicester city, the invincibles, city breaking 100 points just a couple of bigger achievements for example.

You think Leicester, Arsenal and city winning a solitary title, is a greater achievement then a team that won the league, FA Cup and European Cup in the same season?

Ok

I'm a LOI supporter so I have no allegiance to any English side.

Winning the treble though? Come on, it's by far the greatest achievement by an English side.

jpboard1

ozzy jr wrote: »

When an English team equals what Manchester United did in 99, you can open the debate as to which one was the greatest.

20 years ago. That nearly as bad as some Liverpool fans...

ozzy jr

jpboard1 wrote: »

20 years ago. That nearly as bad as some Liverpool fans...

Strange reply.

Football has been around for quite a while now.

ricero

Looks like the league could go down to the last day of the season

Mr.Nice Guy

Fancy Burnley to get something against City. I saw their 2-1 win against Tottenham a few months back and it was deserved. They also got a 1-1 draw against City in this very fixture last season. Fernandinho looks like he could miss out and he'd be a huge loss in a physical game like this. And there's no pressure on Burnley any more either after their point against Chelsea so it's almost like a free shot for them.

5starpool

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Fancy Burnley to get something against City. I saw their 2-1 win against Tottenham a few months back and it was deserved. They also got a 1-1 draw against City in this very fixture last season. Fernandinho looks like he could miss out and he'd be a huge loss in a physical game like this. And there's no pressure on Burnley any more either after their point against Chelsea so it's almost like a free shot for them.

I hope you're right one of these days. You're due one!

votecounts

Mr.H wrote: »

Really? A team that was dominating for almost a decade at that stage dominated. Thats the biggest achievement?

Not downplaying but ffs I think you need to look at history books.

Leicester city, the invincibles, city breaking 100 points just a couple of bigger achievements for example.

Lay off the sauce, The treble is the biggest single achievement in the history of British Football, likely never to be repeated.

.G.

Yeah Liverpools treble in 84 was something special alright, had to play 13 games in the league cup and still won it and the League and European cup on top.

*awaits sh!tetalk about real trebles*

citytillidie

.G. wrote: »

Yeah Liverpools treble in 84 was something special alright, had to play 13 games in the league cup and still won it and the League and European cup on top.

*awaits sh!tetalk about real trebles*

Shhhhhhhsssssss it only counts if united did it

Mr.Nice Guy

5starpool wrote: »

I hope you're right one of these days. You're due one!

Sure these lads are clamouring for me to be their mod.

Utopia Parkway

20 assists in PL for Liverpool’s full backs now. Only two full backs in the top 20. Some season from both of them.

TitianGerm

votecounts wrote: »

Lay off the sauce, The treble is the biggest single achievement in the history of British Football, likely never to be repeated.

I'd say 66 was

Shanotheslayer

The end of this season is like a weekly game of tennis

*Advantage Liverpool* after they win

Deuce

*Advantage City* after they win

Deuce

*Advantage Liverpool* at the minute, great end to season

Loafing Oaf

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

The end of this season is like a weekly game of tennis

*Advantage Liverpool* after they win

Deuce

*Advantage City* after they win

Deuce

*Advantage Liverpool* at the minute, great end to season

But City have first serve in the tie break. Or something...

Mr.H

ozzy jr wrote:

You think Leicester, Arsenal and city winning a solitary title, is a greater achievement then a team that won the league, FA Cup and European Cup in the same season?

Arsenal unbeaten in an entire season

Leicester winning a league out of nowhere with no relative investment

Yes i see these as bigger achievements. United won the treble when they were the strongest aide in Europe for some time. It would be like Real winning a treble right now. Of course its an achievement but hardly the greatest shock in English history. Hardly against all odds. In fact i doubt you would have gotten huge odds for them doing the treble in relative terms.

ozzy jr

Mr.H wrote: »

Arsenal unbeaten in an entire season

Leicester winning a league out of nowhere with no relative investment

Yes i see these as bigger achievements. United won the treble when they were the strongest aide in Europe for some time. It would be like Real winning a treble right now. Of course its an achievement but hardly the greatest shock in English history. Hardly against all odds. In fact i doubt you would have gotten huge odds for them doing the treble in relative terms.

I think you're mixing up shock with achievement.

Leicester winning the league was undoubtedly the biggest shock in English football, but not the greatest achievement.

Baggly

Given there is literally no objective metric to break the tie, maybe ye can agree to disagree?

ArielAtom

I think that QPR losing on the last day of the season to allow
City win the league when they needed a win to guarantee survival, and they stayed up!!!!!was the single greatest achievement, and all enabled by that villain Joey Barton. It was one of those great days.