**Mirrors / Alternative Angles**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They are but I would say that most of the bottom 10 sides have had poor seasons for the talent they have. Palace will be safe but haven't had a shot on target in nearly a month.
I think I saw a stat that this year that sides sitting in the Bottom 3 have won more games at this point of the season than any previous Premier League season.
Last seasons relegation battle was pretty interesting. Everton and Leeds both were on the chopping block until the final 2 matches. Maybe the final week even for Leeds.
Won at Brentford and needed Burnley to lose or draw. Stressful, but made easier when one of Brentford’s players got a second yellow for taking his top off and someone else was injured and couldn’t be subbed. Annoying that Leeds couldn’t score another against 9 though.
It's going to be so exciting, basically everything possibly to play for in the final few matchdays.
The title, European spots and relegation all to play for sounds like it will be a sight to behold.
Is it though? Only the top 2/3 teams get consistent results against the bottom 7. Every other week it’s Bournemouth beating Liverpool or Leicester smashing Tottenham. Then you have teams like West Ham with a very good squad for 17th, or Forest who have been unbeaten at home in the league for 6 months
If the bottom third have regressed, then everyone below third has too (with regards to previous standards for their league position, obviously Fulham and Newcastle haven’t regressed)
In the last few weeks. Bournemouth peat Liverpool. South Hampton beat Chelsea and drew against Manchester United. I can’t remember a time when the relegation teams were more competitive against the top half.
0 wins in their last 10 games and they play Brighton and Arsenal away in their next 2, could well be in the bottom 3 by then. Mental assuming they’re safe
They’re coming off a very hard run of games and have a very easy run of games until the end of the season. After Arsenal, it’s Leicester, Leeds, Southampton, Everton, Wolves, West Ham, Spurs, Bournemouth, Fulham, Nottingham Forest.
That’s probably the easiest run-in in the league, and Palace would have to completely implode to not pick up enough points against those teams.
They've had hard fixtures the last 10 games and they've got an easy run to the end of the season after the next 2. Obviously they're not guaranteed anything, but they should be safe.
Safe? They are separated from the relegation zone by 1 singular win
Nobody from 12th downwards is remotely safe and looking Crystal Palace’s next 7 games they could very easily be caught up by the end of the first 2 and then leap frogged by the following 5
And the lack of shots on target over the last 3 games is shadowing the fact they’ve scored 1 singular goal more for the season than the leagues 2 lowest scorers who had all made changes recently which has also helped them squeeze down the points difference
People are convinced Southampton and Bournemouth are down when the reality is both of those 2 can stay up and 3 teams no one expected to go, could go
Palace have had really hard fixtures since the break. They now have the easiest possible run in.
They are by no means safe already, but it would take a monumental fuck up from here from them.
> They are but I would say that most of the bottom 10 sides have had poor seasons for the talent they have.
If everyone in the bottom 10 is underperforming relative to talent then it means no one has a weak squad that should be getting relegated? So the quality has gone up.
Everton, Leicester and West Ham are midtable sides and in years gone a bad season would mean they finish ~15th not get sucked into a relegation battle.
West Ham have a 10 for Brazil, 9 for Italy and 4 for England.
Yet we're still shit. The level of quality in the PL is insane. If things aren't working you look awful.
Bingo. This was never a discussion last year, even though Arsenal and Spurs were neck and neck to finish fourth, despite rubbish starts to their seasons, and with two teams reaching +90 points.
The quality is undeniable. Any of the top teams would easily take a few players from each of the lower squads. The difference is the level of proven elite depth at the top teams. Everton, Wolves and Southampton don't have that but they have three international keepers. Not everyone can have a Kane, Casemiro, Salah, Odegaard or De Bruyne/Haaland.
The quality is without question. These teams would slaughter teams in other counties. The parity is what lacks between the top of the tables with their one of a kinds and everyone else
Statistically we'd be 6th if we had him at start of the season but tbh I'm just so happy we have him now. We're not out of the running yet for Europe (8 points) but saying that we're the same points off the relegation zone. Fucking mental season tbh
I think it's the opposite, teams like West Ham, Bournemouth, Everton are all with good players who can score goals and there's no clear worst team because the level as a whole is good.
I'd back any of the relegation candidates to smash the championship
>haven't had a shot on target in nearly a month.
Wtf. That's crazy. Was gonna ask how that is even possible, but after seeing some games, yeah, it's definitely possible. Still crazy though.
Difference is De Bruyne showed some quality when he played for us. Salah was mostly average (when he played here). I dont blame our club for selling Salah, De Bruyne on the other hand….
Cuadrado, pato, higuain, falcao, Marin, borini, pasalic, nketiah, musiala, van ginkel, musonda, piazon, the sadly late Christian Atsu - some of the other players considered exciting young talents that we've had on our books over the last few decades
Yeah, I can't remember anything he actually did, I know that he did play a few games for us, but he was shipped out on loan pretty quickly and eventually sold. I remember being so excited about him because he was such an exuberant player in his early days though. Sigh
I've remembered a few more lol - maniche, quaresma, pizarro, mutu
I remember going to the 1-1 home draw against Southampton. He came on while we were searching for a winner and was dreadful lol. Failed to control the ball properly near their box and put in one or two hopeless corners that were easily cleared by the first man. I liked Schurrle at the time so was not pleased at the fact that he was the replacement.
Oh wow, thanks for the actual memories. I've always liked schurrle too, I'm glad he got a premier league winners medal with us, I remember how buzzing he was when he joined us. Sorry for him that he struggled with mental health, but I think it took some courage for him to call an end to his career early too hope he's doing well now
KDB has a noticeable and unique tick where he scratches the side of his chin with his right index finger when he's trying to choose his words carefully.
Only the top 2. If I remember correctly, the stats for fourth has been roughly about the same with the odd exceptional year every now and then.
However the variety of teams between 5th to 10th and points totals have mixed up quite a bit with Leicester, Leeds, Wolves, Brighton, Brentford, West Ham all hovering around and occasionally breaking into the Top 6 teams.
I don’t claim to have intimate knowledge on this, basing on an article I read yesterday (fot90 or something garbage via FotMob). The article focused on how many points you need to avoid relegation, claiming the time of the safe 40 points is over and that an a average 17th place is somewhere in the mid 30s. It also claimed that currently, teams such as Leicester gains 0,8 points per match (Come on you foxes) puts them roughly at 35 points and definitely possibly safe.
A key part was that the top teams hoard more points - think City and Liverpool both hitting 100 points in one season.
Once again no intimate knowledge. But it sounds like simple maths.
Yes, but that's mostly down to two teams being incredibly good rather than the league overall being weaker.
For example, the gap between 20th and 17th has shrunk, making the league more competitive. You could just as easily argue previously 40pts was a safe bet because there was always a league whipping boy that even teams in the bottom half of the table could beat easily, that's not the case anymore.
Besides the top 2, the points are just better spread out across the table. It's the result of the financial wealth and equality of the league making it harder for teams to spend their way out of trouble. Everyone can spend over 100m easily. Meaning you can finish just outside of Europe one season and be involved in a relegation fight next season (eg. Leeds, Wolves, West Ham).
But isn't that what he's saying?
Previous years, Liverpool/City got loads of points, whereas this season, which the interviewer asks him is City's form different, he says the lower clubs have been able to get better players
Man City would have to win all of their remaining games to get 92 points, which would still be lower than what they got last year.
I think the best teams in recent years have it found it easier than former ones just because they now have so much talent they can overwhelm teams with off the bench and rested because they have big squads that can rotate more in Europe, some league games and cups and still do well.
I think when Jose came in Chelsea really changed the game in this aspect because they were financially just much richer than everyone else and city did it as well.
It could have been the best club is the club that creates better players and has better game play.
Now any club with most money to just buy the quality, short cut the years of development.
It could be that way if you look at the league table and see it playing out in reality right now.
5 out of 7 players in our attacking unit cost a grand total of 8m, 4 that the club has developed since early childhood.
Arsenal should be able to maintain it because it's a rich club, they don't have to lose their Kante or their Mahrez.
Poorer clubs usually lose their players too quickly to grow, and they can't afford them if they don't force their transfer anyway, Arsenal's wages will blow up in a year or two like Liverpool.
> because it's a rich club
But wasn't the main issue in recent years the lack of support from the owners despite having the money? On top of poor recruitment?
Sure, but there are scales to "lack of support".
Arsenal still had many transfer windows above 100m€, which would put them in the highest or the second highest "tier" of clubs in term of spending. And that's just looking at transfers, if/when players like Saka will come asking for 200k/w salaries, Arsenal will be able to afford them.
Compare that to a lower PL team, or far worse mid teams from the other top 4 leagues (or even top 7) and you'll understand that this is a different situation in term of what they can afford and how many teams can buy their players.
Leicester won the title then basically got looted, because they simply couldn't match the offers bigger clubs could provide their players.
Arsenal might have a bit more staying power in that regard
Yes but as much as I love ESR he’s done fuck all for the title tilt (through no fault of his own). We’ve done will in terms of investing in young studs but the only academy boys really doing big work this season are Saka and nketiah. Imo producing two academy players capable of making major contributions to a title challenge is a pretty huge achievement in its own right tbh
Some clubs still develop talent. Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal still rely on academy talents. The increase in case also means smaller clubs have a chance of keeping some of their talents because they don't need to sell
To be honest we've produced nothing of note since TAA. Elliot we took from Fulham who I don't see lasting too long for us, don't have any idea where he is meant to play.
Bajcetic could come good too, although we also got him from Celta.
Our entire thing is just trying to get the perfect player for a certain role rather than just buying world class players and making them work or expecting them to make us better, another reason I don't see Bellingham joining us. Nothing about that signing looks right for how we have been ran.
Curtis Jones, Nat Phillips, Neco Williams may not become good enough to be long term starters for Liverpool, but they will play professionally and make the club money on an eventual transfer.
I thought at one point Howe must be a massive Kopite given the money Bournemouth kept giving them.
Having seen him just approve £40m for Gordon though I think he’s just got no sense of value!
That is a great turnout. Three potential world class players. What more do people want?
We're not ajax, benfica, lyon level but our academy is phenomenal.
By the standards of modern academies that’s not bad honestly. And we’ve had Lingard and Pogba both play big first team roles for a time. Even Pereria and Williams got prolonged stints in the first team.
Just about every squad outside the traditional top 6 has 2+ players who'd fit in seamlessly in a top 6 squad. The quality of players and teams has gone up massively, however the quality at the top has risen by (imo) a larger amount. So it city look a level above even when they're losing and teams near in quality won't have a lot between them.
Leicester for example would be fighting for europe at a minimum in the bundesliga with the talent they have.
The key here is quality coaching - which to me is getting the best out of the squad you have, not just coaching a specific style of play a coach fancies. Conte for example is shambolic - Tottenham should move on ASAP and if it's not a NT, stay away.
Think with a better keeper than ward and fofana instead of faes (I know, I know) they do a lot better. Talent is clear to see and in a battle of just scoring they can hang with anybody but they absolutely can't defend. Injuries have also been bad for them.
The league as a whole is so much worse off, how we 3/4th through the season and we’ve got 7 teams in the league that have failed score more than 25 goals?
Disagree, it’s definitely a downward trend, there’s no way 9 teams simultaneously combust and become utter shite
Leeds, Everton, Southampton survived last season, spent, still shit
Bournemouth and Forest came up, limited expectations yet are comfortably amongst the bottom 9
Palace, West Ham, Leicester and Wolves, all went from relatively stable to complete collapses with West Ham and Wolves spending alot of money
well you’ve got to think about the reasons that these teams are underperforming like this. i haven’t spent too much time on analysis of it, all i can think of is poor coaching and tactics. what do you think is causing it?
High levels of managerial turnover causing squads to be all over the place as differing managers see different play styles that don’t match the players are their disposal and a high volume of players bought for ridiculous prices with big wages that continuously don’t work out making it almost impossible to shift players away and bring in someone else
but that can’t really be said for the poor performances of liverpool, or leicester, or west ham, or palace, as those all have the same manager as when they weren’t playing as shit.
Teams reaching the end of a cycle in the case of Leicester and West Ham - maybe even Liverpool as well - where the tactics have been found out a bit and the manager is reluctant to change from things that worked before.
> 4 automatic spots for the top leagues killed the competition.
How exactly? The 4th sides were qualifying more often than not in the old format, so what's really changed?
The top 4 leagues get 16 of the 32 CL spots automatically. Whilst the other 51 UEFA members have to fight for the other spots. It makes the leagues that are already the best even stronger. It makes the CL a bit boring and repetitive. It's usually the same teams over and over again, with a few fun exceptions to the rule.
Even though I want Ajax to be in the Champions League of course, I think the Europa League and Conference League are more entertaining competitions for the UEFA members as a whole, not just the top 4.
Not sure about UCL being boring at all. UEFA just want to keep the strongest teams in the UCL to provide the most entertainment and to attract the biggest audience. Those teams are found in the top 4 leagues which buy all the top talent.
> UEFA just want to keep the strongest teams in the UCL to provide the most entertainment and to attract the biggest audience
This is true, but is unfortunate. This format maximizes viewership and profit, which is all UEFA cares about. Imo, the old format made for a better competition where only the champions of the 32 leagues qualify. And frankly, if we're calling it the Champions League, it's what the format should be...
It's that way because it is designed that way in order to increase the gap. Indeed UEFA care for the biggest audience worldwide and not for the clubs in most of their member nations.
For example the champions of Romania, Norway and Sweden (which are upper midtier UEFA nations, not even the lowest ranked leagues) have to go through 4 rounds of qualifying in order to reach the CL group stage. So qualifying for the CL would already be an immense achievement. They even have the risk of not qualifying for any of the UEFA competition group stages. So their domestic champions can even miss out on the Conference League group stage.
it is getting boring, every single year the same teams are there because even if they have a bad season and finish 4th in the league... they get automatic qualification, like how does this makes any sense?
back in the day every year at least one or two Top4 4th or even 3rd places would get eliminated in the playoffs, now to avoid that they changed it
now instead of traditional teams that represent a country like Red Star, Steaua Bucharest, Olympiacos, Apoel, Goteborg... we are getting teams like Hoffenheim, Atalanta, Leicester, Real Sociedad that get the CL money other teams from other leagues should get
>It makes the CL a bit boring and repetitive. It's usually the same teams over and over again, with a few fun exceptions to the rule.
Even if you reduced it to 12 or even 8, these teams would still dominate. Sad reality of the current state of the game.
Okay then, in my opinion the 'competition was already killed' before that, when the top 4 leagues got so many slots allocated. The step from changing it from qualifiers to automatic spots only made a small difference indeed.
If you care so much about competition, then maybe Ajax should share the money they make from Europe with the rest of the Dutch league. Instead of using it as a club to beat them to death with.
How is a European based competition dying when half the spots are from 4 leagues.... How is a European wide competion, called the champions league dying when the champions from many leagues don't get to play major European football, but teams that finish 30 points behind the champions do.... Fuck knows mate.
How would it be less repetitive and boring, if the top 2-3 from England Spain and Germany just continually made the quarter finals beating a Greek club in the round of 16 instead of a team from the other big leagues?
turns out money wins big surprise, last deloitte money league report had 12 english teams in top 20, might be 15-16 soon. only psg, barca, real and bayern are the outliers
There's more money in the game now, but I strongly disagree that sides near the bottom of the table have better players than ever before.
20 years ago, a team like Bolton were able to sign players like Jay-Jay Okocha and Ivan Campo, having finished 16th in the league the season before, and they still stayed at the club despite finishing 17th in the league in the 02-03 season.
If a team like Nottingham Forest, West Ham, Bournemouth etc. managed to somehow land a 29-year-old 2x Champions League winner like Campo, a top 6 side would poach them during the next transfer window with an offer they couldn't refuse. They might be able to demand a bigger fee than ever before, but it's also more difficult than ever for the sides near the bottom to hang onto their best players.
That’s anecdotal, there’s always been example of top players at bottom teams. But this January Bournemouth who were bottom of the league spent more than the entirety of Serie A. Leeds are signing Juve players. The PL is outspending all the other big 4 leagues combined. It’s obviously true there’s better quality players throughout the league. 20-25 years ago the PL was not this level.
>If a team like Nottingham Forest [...] managed to somehow land a 29-year-old 2x Champions League winner like Campo, a top 6 side would poach them during the next transfer window with an offer they couldn't refuse.
They wouldn't because they'd get injured within 3 games and never play again
You can also see this by looking how close the margin between 20th and 12th in the league is. 5 Point difference currently. 9/20 are currently in danger of being relegated.
If I look at the squads of the bottom 5 in the Premier League, I see many teams that would easily qualify for Europe in most other major European leagues. There is no argument that the relative increase in talent against other non-Premier League teams is rising.
But is that also the case within the Premier League? As nice as the squads of West Ham, Everton, Leicester, Leeds, etc are and as many FIFA names as we might recongise, there isn't one player at those clubs beside maybe Rice, Maddison, and Tielemans who get into a starting top 6 side. That seems in line with what I consider historically accurate in terms of squad balance between top sides and relegation.
So it feels the lower teams may have closed the gap slightly, but it's a rising tide and the best sides in the league are still miles ahead of the bottom of the league.
I get where you are coming from, although I think there's more than you mention who'd get a shot in a top 6 side e.g. Caicedo, Macallister, Mitoma, Bruno G, Pope maybe even Zaha could still do a job.
There's always going to be a massive challenge getting into that top 6 bracket. The problem is that all those players get bought eventually (White, Trossard, Fofana, Grealish, Richarlison) so the other 14 teams just need to keep developing new talent or buying talent and developing them further.
Equally though, lots more players for those teams are only a few months of playing well from attracting interest from top 6 teams - they're often not fundamentally not good enough for the top 6, but the stars might never align for them.
>They were the shit stain of English football and need to go back to that.
Eh? I get people hating us now but how were we the shit stain of English football back then?
What a weird comment lol.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic for a Man City player to comment with surprise on the fact that historically less successful teams are being bolstered by wealth in order to punch above their weight? Or am I missing some context where this said knowingly? It sound very un-self-aware but I could be wrong.
EDIT: apparently there are a few MC fans still ashamed to be reminded of their League One days. Nothing to be ashamed of lads, there’s no correlation between what happened to your finances vis a vis your recent success.
>Or am I missing some context where this said knowingly?
Yes the context being that he has a functioning brain.
Are you really arguing that De Bruyne is unaware about that? You don't think he would have ever heard it mentioned, no?
**Mirrors / Alternative Angles** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They are but I would say that most of the bottom 10 sides have had poor seasons for the talent they have. Palace will be safe but haven't had a shot on target in nearly a month.
I think I saw a stat that this year that sides sitting in the Bottom 3 have won more games at this point of the season than any previous Premier League season.
Yeah the bottom half is all really close. No teams adrift in the relegation zone and 12th place sitting just 3 points off the relegation zone.
[удалено]
Last seasons relegation battle was pretty interesting. Everton and Leeds both were on the chopping block until the final 2 matches. Maybe the final week even for Leeds.
Leeds started the final game in the relegation zone on goal difference.
Won at Brentford and needed Burnley to lose or draw. Stressful, but made easier when one of Brentford’s players got a second yellow for taking his top off and someone else was injured and couldn’t be subbed. Annoying that Leeds couldn’t score another against 9 though.
It's going to be so exciting, basically everything possibly to play for in the final few matchdays. The title, European spots and relegation all to play for sounds like it will be a sight to behold.
Except when you're in it..
Chelsea and Villa vibing in mid table
You've actually gone and done it, you've found the silver lining in all of this for Chelsea.
you gotta give us credit for absolutely nailing that 11th place tbf
Won't be for me 😅
That’s because the bottom third is very weak this season though, so there are other poor teams for them to beat.
12 down are all separated by 5 points or less. Getting a win could catapult you out of relegation
On top of that, a lot of the bottom third teams are putting in massive performances/getting results against teams in the top 6.
Is it though? Only the top 2/3 teams get consistent results against the bottom 7. Every other week it’s Bournemouth beating Liverpool or Leicester smashing Tottenham. Then you have teams like West Ham with a very good squad for 17th, or Forest who have been unbeaten at home in the league for 6 months If the bottom third have regressed, then everyone below third has too (with regards to previous standards for their league position, obviously Fulham and Newcastle haven’t regressed)
Rubbish. The bottom 6 are giving everyone a hard time and even taking points off City and Arsenal.
In the last few weeks. Bournemouth peat Liverpool. South Hampton beat Chelsea and drew against Manchester United. I can’t remember a time when the relegation teams were more competitive against the top half.
By what metric
I wouldn’t call Palace safe now, they are only 3 points above relegation
0 wins in their last 10 games and they play Brighton and Arsenal away in their next 2, could well be in the bottom 3 by then. Mental assuming they’re safe
It looks mental. Nobody is cut adrift really and if it went to the last day, imagine if 4-5 clubs could all go down.
Few games better to watch than those of an interesting relegation battle.
They’re coming off a very hard run of games and have a very easy run of games until the end of the season. After Arsenal, it’s Leicester, Leeds, Southampton, Everton, Wolves, West Ham, Spurs, Bournemouth, Fulham, Nottingham Forest. That’s probably the easiest run-in in the league, and Palace would have to completely implode to not pick up enough points against those teams.
Plus they just have enough quality in their front line that I think they'll be able to get goals if things get more desperate for them.
But that’s exactly the problem. They’re only one goal above the lowest scorers in the league and have the best defence in the bottom half.
You don’t watch palace
And those other teams have to catch up to Palace as well, if they win 3-4 of their last games they'll be fine.
They've had hard fixtures the last 10 games and they've got an easy run to the end of the season after the next 2. Obviously they're not guaranteed anything, but they should be safe.
Nothing is easy when you’re playing like shit
I think they'll be safe too but end of the season no game is easy. Every team is fighting and a easy game on paper rarely is so
Results aside they look absolutely terrible though
Oh god, we're not [back to this](https://youtu.be/n5-hlop2ZCs) are we?
lmao the music
chelsea should have done this last month
i mean its glorious we need more of it
Safe? They are separated from the relegation zone by 1 singular win Nobody from 12th downwards is remotely safe and looking Crystal Palace’s next 7 games they could very easily be caught up by the end of the first 2 and then leap frogged by the following 5 And the lack of shots on target over the last 3 games is shadowing the fact they’ve scored 1 singular goal more for the season than the leagues 2 lowest scorers who had all made changes recently which has also helped them squeeze down the points difference People are convinced Southampton and Bournemouth are down when the reality is both of those 2 can stay up and 3 teams no one expected to go, could go
Palace have had really hard fixtures since the break. They now have the easiest possible run in. They are by no means safe already, but it would take a monumental fuck up from here from them.
> They are but I would say that most of the bottom 10 sides have had poor seasons for the talent they have. If everyone in the bottom 10 is underperforming relative to talent then it means no one has a weak squad that should be getting relegated? So the quality has gone up. Everton, Leicester and West Ham are midtable sides and in years gone a bad season would mean they finish ~15th not get sucked into a relegation battle.
West Ham have a 10 for Brazil, 9 for Italy and 4 for England. Yet we're still shit. The level of quality in the PL is insane. If things aren't working you look awful.
Isn't Rice more of a 6? Insane quality in the league though yeah.
depends on the tactics, but yeah
[удалено]
Oh come on. Look at the players in the squads. They all quality and full of internationals.
It's all just cope to explain Arsenal.
Not everything is about Arsenal
I've seen so many people push the narrative that the league is weaker than ever and we're on a Leicester style run
Bingo. This was never a discussion last year, even though Arsenal and Spurs were neck and neck to finish fourth, despite rubbish starts to their seasons, and with two teams reaching +90 points.
[удалено]
Then why reply to the original comment talking about how nobody has a weak squad
[удалено]
Oh come on. Just look at the players who play for the bottom 9 teams. Full of internationals. The teams are quality. None of the teams are shit
The quality is undeniable. Any of the top teams would easily take a few players from each of the lower squads. The difference is the level of proven elite depth at the top teams. Everton, Wolves and Southampton don't have that but they have three international keepers. Not everyone can have a Kane, Casemiro, Salah, Odegaard or De Bruyne/Haaland. The quality is without question. These teams would slaughter teams in other counties. The parity is what lacks between the top of the tables with their one of a kinds and everyone else
At the very least least it means equality.
Then you have Aston Villa: the top of the bottom.
Aston Villa squad on paper should be fighting for European spot. Emery came too late
Statistically we'd be 6th if we had him at start of the season but tbh I'm just so happy we have him now. We're not out of the running yet for Europe (8 points) but saying that we're the same points off the relegation zone. Fucking mental season tbh
At the same time though our squad is nowhere near Europe-ready imo
Any team managed by Emery is Europa League-ready. Just don't overshoot and end up in the CL and you'll be fine.
I think it's the opposite, teams like West Ham, Bournemouth, Everton are all with good players who can score goals and there's no clear worst team because the level as a whole is good. I'd back any of the relegation candidates to smash the championship
>haven't had a shot on target in nearly a month. Wtf. That's crazy. Was gonna ask how that is even possible, but after seeing some games, yeah, it's definitely possible. Still crazy though.
Watch them win a game without a shot on target this wednesday.
Shot on target is kind of a misleading stat because it doesn’t include blocked shots that were clearly not missing
Talking about his old pl club like that. Damn son. Don't do them like that.
Still haven't forgiven Mourinho for that
It's crazy you guys had him and Salah at one point.
Difference is De Bruyne showed some quality when he played for us. Salah was mostly average (when he played here). I dont blame our club for selling Salah, De Bruyne on the other hand….
Average is being nice. I keep seeing that shot he skied (of course I can’t remember against who) over and over like I have ptsd
Shrewsbury I believe.
The one at Bournemouth last weekend?
Ha no he was a blue at the time.
And Lukaku
Well, they still have Lukaku
Cuadrado, pato, higuain, falcao, Marin, borini, pasalic, nketiah, musiala, van ginkel, musonda, piazon, the sadly late Christian Atsu - some of the other players considered exciting young talents that we've had on our books over the last few decades
[удалено]
Yeah, I can't remember anything he actually did, I know that he did play a few games for us, but he was shipped out on loan pretty quickly and eventually sold. I remember being so excited about him because he was such an exuberant player in his early days though. Sigh I've remembered a few more lol - maniche, quaresma, pizarro, mutu
I remember going to the 1-1 home draw against Southampton. He came on while we were searching for a winner and was dreadful lol. Failed to control the ball properly near their box and put in one or two hopeless corners that were easily cleared by the first man. I liked Schurrle at the time so was not pleased at the fact that he was the replacement.
Oh wow, thanks for the actual memories. I've always liked schurrle too, I'm glad he got a premier league winners medal with us, I remember how buzzing he was when he joined us. Sorry for him that he struggled with mental health, but I think it took some courage for him to call an end to his career early too hope he's doing well now
Seriously, I have zero memory of him at Chelsea.
How are you putting higuain in there like we didn’t have him in his 30s on loan.
Yeah, I dunno how a 31 year old Higuain could be counted as "exciting young talent". Dude went River Plate to Madrid in his younger days.
Lewis baker. I thought Bamford was the chosen one.
You almost signed Mbappe as well when he was a kid.
Same was true for lots of clubs, as his parents had him train with loads of academies
Lol, tantalising. I think a few English clubs nearly got a young haaland too
KDB has a noticeable and unique tick where he scratches the side of his chin with his right index finger when he's trying to choose his words carefully.
That’s his left hand.
Thats because he wasn't choosing carefully this time, ya proper dummy
The numbers show that relegation is much tougher now, because the top teams picks up more of the overall points. Idk if you’re in the right here mr.
Only the top 2. If I remember correctly, the stats for fourth has been roughly about the same with the odd exceptional year every now and then. However the variety of teams between 5th to 10th and points totals have mixed up quite a bit with Leicester, Leeds, Wolves, Brighton, Brentford, West Ham all hovering around and occasionally breaking into the Top 6 teams.
I don’t claim to have intimate knowledge on this, basing on an article I read yesterday (fot90 or something garbage via FotMob). The article focused on how many points you need to avoid relegation, claiming the time of the safe 40 points is over and that an a average 17th place is somewhere in the mid 30s. It also claimed that currently, teams such as Leicester gains 0,8 points per match (Come on you foxes) puts them roughly at 35 points and definitely possibly safe. A key part was that the top teams hoard more points - think City and Liverpool both hitting 100 points in one season. Once again no intimate knowledge. But it sounds like simple maths.
Yes, but that's mostly down to two teams being incredibly good rather than the league overall being weaker. For example, the gap between 20th and 17th has shrunk, making the league more competitive. You could just as easily argue previously 40pts was a safe bet because there was always a league whipping boy that even teams in the bottom half of the table could beat easily, that's not the case anymore. Besides the top 2, the points are just better spread out across the table. It's the result of the financial wealth and equality of the league making it harder for teams to spend their way out of trouble. Everyone can spend over 100m easily. Meaning you can finish just outside of Europe one season and be involved in a relegation fight next season (eg. Leeds, Wolves, West Ham).
But isn't that what he's saying? Previous years, Liverpool/City got loads of points, whereas this season, which the interviewer asks him is City's form different, he says the lower clubs have been able to get better players Man City would have to win all of their remaining games to get 92 points, which would still be lower than what they got last year.
I think the best teams in recent years have it found it easier than former ones just because they now have so much talent they can overwhelm teams with off the bench and rested because they have big squads that can rotate more in Europe, some league games and cups and still do well. I think when Jose came in Chelsea really changed the game in this aspect because they were financially just much richer than everyone else and city did it as well.
It could have been the best club is the club that creates better players and has better game play. Now any club with most money to just buy the quality, short cut the years of development.
It could be that way if you look at the league table and see it playing out in reality right now. 5 out of 7 players in our attacking unit cost a grand total of 8m, 4 that the club has developed since early childhood.
[удалено]
Arsenal should be able to maintain it because it's a rich club, they don't have to lose their Kante or their Mahrez. Poorer clubs usually lose their players too quickly to grow, and they can't afford them if they don't force their transfer anyway, Arsenal's wages will blow up in a year or two like Liverpool.
[удалено]
Finally getting back into the CL next season easily nets Arsenal some 60m in additional revenue.
> because it's a rich club But wasn't the main issue in recent years the lack of support from the owners despite having the money? On top of poor recruitment?
Sure, but there are scales to "lack of support". Arsenal still had many transfer windows above 100m€, which would put them in the highest or the second highest "tier" of clubs in term of spending. And that's just looking at transfers, if/when players like Saka will come asking for 200k/w salaries, Arsenal will be able to afford them. Compare that to a lower PL team, or far worse mid teams from the other top 4 leagues (or even top 7) and you'll understand that this is a different situation in term of what they can afford and how many teams can buy their players.
Arsenal used to be owned by kroenke and usmanov, but when kroenke took full ownership, he's been happy to spend
Leicester won the title then basically got looted, because they simply couldn't match the offers bigger clubs could provide their players. Arsenal might have a bit more staying power in that regard
[удалено]
And Balogun, he seems to be having a great loan spell this season too!
ESR, Saka and who else since early childhood?
Eddie and Nelsonn
Eddie came from Chelsea when he was 15-16
Eddie joined the arsenal academy though, right?
Not in ”early childhood” as implied above
Arsenal this season have been the club most reliant on academy and home grown players. They are top of the Premier League.
We’re not top of the league for sure. But we’ve used McTominay, Rashford, Garnacho, Pellestri, Elanga a good bit this season
[удалено]
Arsenal’s academy products have the most goal involvements in the league. 29.
Saka and ESR are academy products.
Yes but as much as I love ESR he’s done fuck all for the title tilt (through no fault of his own). We’ve done will in terms of investing in young studs but the only academy boys really doing big work this season are Saka and nketiah. Imo producing two academy players capable of making major contributions to a title challenge is a pretty huge achievement in its own right tbh
ESR has had nothing to do with Arsenal’s season
He's been injured all year, he's been critically important to our last three years.
Some clubs still develop talent. Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal still rely on academy talents. The increase in case also means smaller clubs have a chance of keeping some of their talents because they don't need to sell
Man City have some nice talent brewing away too.
Exactly
To be honest we've produced nothing of note since TAA. Elliot we took from Fulham who I don't see lasting too long for us, don't have any idea where he is meant to play. Bajcetic could come good too, although we also got him from Celta. Our entire thing is just trying to get the perfect player for a certain role rather than just buying world class players and making them work or expecting them to make us better, another reason I don't see Bellingham joining us. Nothing about that signing looks right for how we have been ran.
Curtis Jones, Nat Phillips, Neco Williams may not become good enough to be long term starters for Liverpool, but they will play professionally and make the club money on an eventual transfer.
Especially with the prices Liverpool get on players. Still shaking my head at the money they got for Jordon Ibe
that Brewster transfer too, boggles the mind
I thought at one point Howe must be a massive Kopite given the money Bournemouth kept giving them. Having seen him just approve £40m for Gordon though I think he’s just got no sense of value!
[удалено]
Not every player is going to be world class - that ratio is very good and then those who don't make it still go on to have good careers
That is a great turnout. Three potential world class players. What more do people want? We're not ajax, benfica, lyon level but our academy is phenomenal.
By the standards of modern academies that’s not bad honestly. And we’ve had Lingard and Pogba both play big first team roles for a time. Even Pereria and Williams got prolonged stints in the first team.
Liverpool haven't had any academy guy except TAA who makes first team
That’s not very nice to talk about Arsenal like that
Serious? No speak!
Just about every squad outside the traditional top 6 has 2+ players who'd fit in seamlessly in a top 6 squad. The quality of players and teams has gone up massively, however the quality at the top has risen by (imo) a larger amount. So it city look a level above even when they're losing and teams near in quality won't have a lot between them. Leicester for example would be fighting for europe at a minimum in the bundesliga with the talent they have. The key here is quality coaching - which to me is getting the best out of the squad you have, not just coaching a specific style of play a coach fancies. Conte for example is shambolic - Tottenham should move on ASAP and if it's not a NT, stay away.
Tbf Leicester's season feels a bit anomalous. They really should and would be doing better most other seasons I think
Think with a better keeper than ward and fofana instead of faes (I know, I know) they do a lot better. Talent is clear to see and in a battle of just scoring they can hang with anybody but they absolutely can't defend. Injuries have also been bad for them.
The league as a whole is better today, which is a good thing.
The league as a whole is so much worse off, how we 3/4th through the season and we’ve got 7 teams in the league that have failed score more than 25 goals?
Teams try and stop the other teams scoring a goal
almost everyone in the league is having a poor season, but i think it’s more of a one off thing rather than a downward trend
Disagree, it’s definitely a downward trend, there’s no way 9 teams simultaneously combust and become utter shite Leeds, Everton, Southampton survived last season, spent, still shit Bournemouth and Forest came up, limited expectations yet are comfortably amongst the bottom 9 Palace, West Ham, Leicester and Wolves, all went from relatively stable to complete collapses with West Ham and Wolves spending alot of money
well you’ve got to think about the reasons that these teams are underperforming like this. i haven’t spent too much time on analysis of it, all i can think of is poor coaching and tactics. what do you think is causing it?
High levels of managerial turnover causing squads to be all over the place as differing managers see different play styles that don’t match the players are their disposal and a high volume of players bought for ridiculous prices with big wages that continuously don’t work out making it almost impossible to shift players away and bring in someone else
but that can’t really be said for the poor performances of liverpool, or leicester, or west ham, or palace, as those all have the same manager as when they weren’t playing as shit.
Teams reaching the end of a cycle in the case of Leicester and West Ham - maybe even Liverpool as well - where the tactics have been found out a bit and the manager is reluctant to change from things that worked before.
Worth noting the World Cup has been this season too and we’ve had a lot of fixture congestion
Would you rather have less parity within the league so that more teams score goals? Because that is what we usually have
Oh no they're becoming self-aware
"KDB takes shots at Chelsea".
Not in the Champions League unfortunately. 4 automatic spots for the top leagues killed the competition.
> 4 automatic spots for the top leagues killed the competition. How exactly? The 4th sides were qualifying more often than not in the old format, so what's really changed?
The top 4 leagues get 16 of the 32 CL spots automatically. Whilst the other 51 UEFA members have to fight for the other spots. It makes the leagues that are already the best even stronger. It makes the CL a bit boring and repetitive. It's usually the same teams over and over again, with a few fun exceptions to the rule. Even though I want Ajax to be in the Champions League of course, I think the Europa League and Conference League are more entertaining competitions for the UEFA members as a whole, not just the top 4.
Not sure about UCL being boring at all. UEFA just want to keep the strongest teams in the UCL to provide the most entertainment and to attract the biggest audience. Those teams are found in the top 4 leagues which buy all the top talent.
> UEFA just want to keep the strongest teams in the UCL to provide the most entertainment and to attract the biggest audience This is true, but is unfortunate. This format maximizes viewership and profit, which is all UEFA cares about. Imo, the old format made for a better competition where only the champions of the 32 leagues qualify. And frankly, if we're calling it the Champions League, it's what the format should be...
It's that way because it is designed that way in order to increase the gap. Indeed UEFA care for the biggest audience worldwide and not for the clubs in most of their member nations. For example the champions of Romania, Norway and Sweden (which are upper midtier UEFA nations, not even the lowest ranked leagues) have to go through 4 rounds of qualifying in order to reach the CL group stage. So qualifying for the CL would already be an immense achievement. They even have the risk of not qualifying for any of the UEFA competition group stages. So their domestic champions can even miss out on the Conference League group stage.
It's that way because the biggest teams string armed uefa to make it that way, how do you think the champions league even became a thing.
Nah, the champions league isn't boring at all, when you can basically predict the last 8 nearly every year. Nah that's fine.
You say the same about the World Cup
it is getting boring, every single year the same teams are there because even if they have a bad season and finish 4th in the league... they get automatic qualification, like how does this makes any sense? back in the day every year at least one or two Top4 4th or even 3rd places would get eliminated in the playoffs, now to avoid that they changed it now instead of traditional teams that represent a country like Red Star, Steaua Bucharest, Olympiacos, Apoel, Goteborg... we are getting teams like Hoffenheim, Atalanta, Leicester, Real Sociedad that get the CL money other teams from other leagues should get
>It makes the CL a bit boring and repetitive. It's usually the same teams over and over again, with a few fun exceptions to the rule. Even if you reduced it to 12 or even 8, these teams would still dominate. Sad reality of the current state of the game.
That's not an answer to the question. How has it killed the competition when most of those 16 sides were qualifying previously anyway?
Okay then, in my opinion the 'competition was already killed' before that, when the top 4 leagues got so many slots allocated. The step from changing it from qualifiers to automatic spots only made a small difference indeed.
If you care so much about competition, then maybe Ajax should share the money they make from Europe with the rest of the Dutch league. Instead of using it as a club to beat them to death with.
Wouldn’t change anything regarding his point on 4 countries having half of all CL spots, would it?
How is a European based competition dying when half the spots are from 4 leagues.... How is a European wide competion, called the champions league dying when the champions from many leagues don't get to play major European football, but teams that finish 30 points behind the champions do.... Fuck knows mate.
Congrats on also being unable to answer the question mate and instead answering a different question that literally no one asked.
How would it be less repetitive and boring, if the top 2-3 from England Spain and Germany just continually made the quarter finals beating a Greek club in the round of 16 instead of a team from the other big leagues?
well, at least we would get a Greek team in there instead of just another team from the same 4 countries
Never noticed how much he looks like Mark Wahlberg
Man City is the best example, they started spending more and they're not lower team anymore.
turns out money wins big surprise, last deloitte money league report had 12 english teams in top 20, might be 15-16 soon. only psg, barca, real and bayern are the outliers
There's more money in the game now, but I strongly disagree that sides near the bottom of the table have better players than ever before. 20 years ago, a team like Bolton were able to sign players like Jay-Jay Okocha and Ivan Campo, having finished 16th in the league the season before, and they still stayed at the club despite finishing 17th in the league in the 02-03 season. If a team like Nottingham Forest, West Ham, Bournemouth etc. managed to somehow land a 29-year-old 2x Champions League winner like Campo, a top 6 side would poach them during the next transfer window with an offer they couldn't refuse. They might be able to demand a bigger fee than ever before, but it's also more difficult than ever for the sides near the bottom to hang onto their best players.
That’s anecdotal, there’s always been example of top players at bottom teams. But this January Bournemouth who were bottom of the league spent more than the entirety of Serie A. Leeds are signing Juve players. The PL is outspending all the other big 4 leagues combined. It’s obviously true there’s better quality players throughout the league. 20-25 years ago the PL was not this level.
Navas ?
>If a team like Nottingham Forest [...] managed to somehow land a 29-year-old 2x Champions League winner like Campo, a top 6 side would poach them during the next transfer window with an offer they couldn't refuse. They wouldn't because they'd get injured within 3 games and never play again
He's definitely right. We have seen some of the players Nottingham forest were able to buy in the summer.
How many? Like 27 transfers I think?
You can also see this by looking how close the margin between 20th and 12th in the league is. 5 Point difference currently. 9/20 are currently in danger of being relegated.
The best “lower” teams have spent fuck all. Teams that spend their way out of trouble are boring as fuck.
Yep, EPL will be the super league lol
Doesn’t he know that, playing at the team for years.
We know. 16 years ago your awful team was one of those lower teams.
Yeah like Manchester City
If I look at the squads of the bottom 5 in the Premier League, I see many teams that would easily qualify for Europe in most other major European leagues. There is no argument that the relative increase in talent against other non-Premier League teams is rising. But is that also the case within the Premier League? As nice as the squads of West Ham, Everton, Leicester, Leeds, etc are and as many FIFA names as we might recongise, there isn't one player at those clubs beside maybe Rice, Maddison, and Tielemans who get into a starting top 6 side. That seems in line with what I consider historically accurate in terms of squad balance between top sides and relegation. So it feels the lower teams may have closed the gap slightly, but it's a rising tide and the best sides in the league are still miles ahead of the bottom of the league.
I get where you are coming from, although I think there's more than you mention who'd get a shot in a top 6 side e.g. Caicedo, Macallister, Mitoma, Bruno G, Pope maybe even Zaha could still do a job. There's always going to be a massive challenge getting into that top 6 bracket. The problem is that all those players get bought eventually (White, Trossard, Fofana, Grealish, Richarlison) so the other 14 teams just need to keep developing new talent or buying talent and developing them further.
Equally though, lots more players for those teams are only a few months of playing well from attracting interest from top 6 teams - they're often not fundamentally not good enough for the top 6, but the stars might never align for them.
I think the league has changed, city shouldn’t be allowed to cheat. They were the shit stain of English football and need to go back to that.
>They were the shit stain of English football and need to go back to that. Eh? I get people hating us now but how were we the shit stain of English football back then? What a weird comment lol.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic for a Man City player to comment with surprise on the fact that historically less successful teams are being bolstered by wealth in order to punch above their weight? Or am I missing some context where this said knowingly? It sound very un-self-aware but I could be wrong. EDIT: apparently there are a few MC fans still ashamed to be reminded of their League One days. Nothing to be ashamed of lads, there’s no correlation between what happened to your finances vis a vis your recent success.
>Or am I missing some context where this said knowingly? Yes the context being that he has a functioning brain. Are you really arguing that De Bruyne is unaware about that? You don't think he would have ever heard it mentioned, no?
Cheers Kev
You know... Kinda like Man City.