League comparison by points
An interesting (if ultimately pointless) graph that shows the points tally of equivalent clubs from the Premiership, La Liga and Serie A (all of which play with a 20-team, 38-game season).
The most obvious point is the supreme points total of Spain’s top two, completely dwarfing the points tally of England and Italy’s champions. On a similar note, despite the criticism of the other 18 clubs in La Liga for failing to compete with Barcelona and Real Madrid, this shows that 3rd-placed Valencia’s points total was actually par for the course – similar to Arsenal’s in England, and Milan’s in Italy.
The graph also demonstrates the massive inequality in the Premiership in midtable. From the final European place (7th) to survival (17th) there is a huge 28 points difference in the Premiership, compared to just 17 points in La Liga, and 13 in Serie A.
Consequently, you need a relatively high number of points to qualify for Europe in the Premiership, but a relatively low number to escape relegation, which backs up the claims of some fans that the Premiership contains too many mundane sides happy to finish in an 10th-14th place each season – it’s hard for them to do anything else.
.
The two purple lines show the two ‘targets’ for clubs – Champions League qualification for 4th place, and escaping relegation for 17th place.
League comparison by points
“Consequently, you need a relatively high number of points to qualify for Europe in the Premiership, but a relatively low number to escape relegation, which backs up the claims of some fans that the Premiership contains too many mundane sides happy to finish in an 10th-14th place each season – it’s hard for them to do anything else.”
You could also say that the quality of the teams in positions 4-17 in other leagues is of a poorer standard than it is in England. It would be interesting to see how a side such as Stoke or Wigan got on against Genoa or Almeria. All of these teams finished comfortably in mid-table and had little to play for other than surviving another season in the top flight.
I can’t follow your conclusion: if the teams in position 4-17 in the other leagues are closer to the top 3 in points, the quality of the teams probably also is closer to the top 3 of the respective league. Now we have to compare the leagues with each other to draw a conclusion about the absolute quality of the teams not competing directly with each other in Europe league or CL…
Except the teams in position 4-17 in other leagues are not closer to the top 3 in points. At least, that’s not the case for both leagues being discussed (other than the Premier League).
In Italy, sure, the average points for teams in positions 4-17 is 51, the average for the top three is 77, whereas in the Premiership 4-17 also average 51 points but the top three average is 82. But in La Liga, the average for places 4-17 is just 48 points and the average for the top 3 is a whopping 89. Therefore the gaps are as follows: 26 in Serie A, 31 in the Premiership and 41 in La Liga. Make of that, in terms of quality, what you will.
To illustrate further, the gap between third and fourth in Serie A was just three points, the Premiership was five points, but La Liga was a massive 8 points. Again, not sure it means that much regarding quality.
I actually think the Europa League and CL give a great indication as to the standard of these leagues.
No English club in the last four of the CL suggests the best English clubs are no match for the best clubs abroad. However when you look at the Europa, and how Fulham beat the likes of Wolfsburg and Juventus, drew with Roma (with ten men) and narrowly (but fair to say, deservedly) lost to Atletico in the final, there’s a case for saying midtable English sides can hold their own.
Rocco I think your conclusion has touched upon an interesting point as it raises more questions than conclusions. It would be interesting to compare teams based on actual performaces but the problem with statistics is they rarely prove a point. Stats are extremely useful to counter argue generalisations (for example not qualifying for a major finals is unquestionably a sackable offence) but that is not the case here.
Perhaps the only useful statistic here is the number of points between the top and bottom (or 4th and 4th bottom etc). Does this suggest Serie A is more competetive or has a lower standard? Whichever way you look at it a useful conclusion can only be drawn up by considering other sources.
Why must a league be of a higher standard to be more competitive though? Surely the points gap statistic is the only one that can determine whether a league is “competitive” because it shows how close sides are to one another, which is the sole measure of “competitiveness”.
Whether the more competitive leagues are of a higher standard is a totally different point. One could make the case that this season the two are aligned, with Inter being Champions League finalists and the Serie A table being the most competitive. Whether that’s the case every season is a lot less clear, though.
The above post has hit the nail on the head. There are two different issues being discussed that are not necessarily related.
It is also worth pointing out that it is often pointless trying to use quantitive data (i.e. statistics) to prove a qualitive point (i.e. which league is of a ‘better’ standard).
Personally I think the PL is more competitive that LL, but think the quality of football is of a higher technical standard in LL than the PL (although I have no way to prove this, it is just my opinion).
Luckily I enjoy watching both leagues, and don’t feel the need to watch one instead of the other or get bogged down in arguments as to which league is superior – an ultimately fruitless exercise.
Another point to make is that the same set of stats can be used to demonstrate differing points, or even opposed arguements!
Exactly the point I was trying to make. I think the Premier League is more competitive than La Liga but I also think the quality of football in Spain is vastly superior. I’d rather watch Barcelona play than Chelsea, for example.
Luckily, like you, I have time to watch both (and even some Serie A and Bundesliga too) and don’t feel the argument over which league is “better” is worthwhile. Variety is the spice of life and there’s lots of it in European football. We should enjoy that.
@Anonymous,
The sentence you are referring to was phrased badly which has changed the point I was trying to make. I am not necessarily suggesting that Serie A has to be less competetive to attain a higher standard or vice versa. If I can rephrase the final sentence to read
“Does this suggest Serie A is more competetive, has a lower standard etc…? Whichever conclusion is attained can only be drawn up by considering other sources.”
My point was simply that it is impossible to draw any conclusion from a narrow spectrum of stats and they are only useful to disproving sweeping generalisations.
Competitiveness to me is simply whether teams within a league are evenly matched, and the only true measurement of that is the points gaps. I’m not sure how else one could analyse the competitiveness of a league objectively.
‘On a similar note, despite the criticism of the other 18 clubs in La Liga for failing to compete with Barcelona and Real Madrid, this shows that 3rd-placed Valencia’s points total was actually par for the course – similar to Arsenal’s in England, and Milan’s in Italy.’
Surely the 25 point gap between 2nd and 3rd, who then have 8 points more than the team in 4th, shows quite clearly that the other clubs have, indeed, failed to compete with Barcelona and Madrid? Regardless of what happened in England or Italy.
Surely Valencia couldn’t compete with Barcelona and Real, but that’s not the point of the chart. The point is that Valencia did just fine, they got a “normal” amount of points (about the same as Milan and Arsenal). It’s not Valencia’s fault that two first teams flied away.
Quite.
I love your website. Very interesting.
It could be interesting to compare with the German and the French leagues where financial controls have been implemented. I don’t know for the Bundesligua, but I believe the French league has a much flatter curve.
That would definitely be interesting to see. I’m a fan of financial restraint by football clubs so it’d be good to see if there’s a strong statistical case for it.
Barca and Real pulling away in La Liga shows the power of money in Spain (it’s hard to argue that both have the most expensive squads in the league) whilst Chelsea and City have shown the power of spending in England. Spurs are second only in net spend to Man City too. And that’s before you even look at the financial mess at Portsmouth.
In fact many put Man Utd’s weakness this season, and the overall weakness of English clubs in Europe, down to a lack of spending. This is somewhat made to look silly by the success of clubs like Lyon and Bordeaux, and even, to a lesser extend, Bayern, who’ve hardly spent like some of the English sides (they’ve been fairly prudent).
bayern spent more than united and chelsea and arsenal, dont forget they needed new coach also in the middle of the season, inter spend heavily, and bordeaux and lyon – just didnt met bigger opposition, except real madrid.a nd by contrast english didnt spent at all (peanuts if you compare), except city.
It’s somewhat irrelevant what Valencia got. What is “normal” is relative. In a league where 1st and 2nd got 99 and 96 points respectively, it’s pretty much a non-contest. The difference between 3rd/4th and 1st/2nd in Spain is about the distance between 3rd/4th and the relegated sides.
Maybe, however, it’s an indication of the weakness of the other sides in the league. The points have to come from somewhere. Are Real and Barca that good or the lower sides that weak?
Like Ikki said, comparing Valencia to Arsenal and Milan misses the point. Neither of those sides played the lower sides in Spain; Valencia did, and failed to capitalise as well as Real and Barca did. Don’t get me wrong, I think Barca in particular have been stunning this season, but is La Liga challenging them enough?
Inter Milan showed they’re far from unbeatable yet they got 99 points.
The question ‘Are Real and Barca that good or the lower sides that weak?’ is itself pointless. Obviously, lower sides of La Liga are too weak for Real and Barca. I thus assume you are asking about “being weak” in comparison to other leagues. If yes, the next four paragraphs are for you. However, if you are simply trying to say that La Liga is not competitve – you may stop reading right here, because I agree.
On one hand you are questioning the sense of making comparisons at all (“because this is different league”), but at the same time you are drawing a conclusion that because Barcelona and Real Madrid collected so many points it means that La Liga is weak (while for instance EPL’s lower teams are not that weak because they didnt let top teams gather so many points). Again – this only proves that La Liga is not competitive. Nothing else. It does not render that La Liga *is weaker* (than EPL).
I think such a point of view comes from presumming that top teams in the given leagues are of about the same level; they are the “strong fundaments” and now we can simply check out how far behind them are the other teams in the league. If the distance in La Liga is bigger than in EPL this means EPL is tougher (See the relativity challenge?) While I would rather say that FCB+RM flied away into space in terms of points because they both had an astonishing season.
Now, some people say ‘True, they had, but…’ and I say ‘NO! You don’t listen. They had an astonishing season.’ Regarding Ikki’s latter sentence (because I’ve never argued about the former) I respond ‘So what? It does not matter.’
If I were to search for the reasons why La Liga is worse than EPL (because there is no need to prove it is less competitive) I would just look somewhere else rather than into statistics. Or you can simply draw an equation mark between competitiveness and “being better”.
I hope I sound at least a bit logical^^
PS. I don’t get the last sentence (the one about Internationale)
.
Pardon for two replies, but I decided to rephrase the 3rd paragraph (“I think”):
“I think such a point of view comes from presumming that top teams in the given leagues are of about the same level. One would say they are the “strong, absolute fundaments” and now we can simply check out how far behind them are the other teams in their leagues. If the distance in La Liga is bigger than in EPL this means EPL is better (while it only proves the uncompetitiveness of La Liga). Going further, one would even state that if, for instance, Chelsea replaced Barca, they would also get about 99 points. While I would rather say they would not.”
Regards
Let me reply to both your comments in one
My point was purely that La Liga is less competitive. That Real and Barca aren’t as challenged by their domestic rivals as the sides in other leagues. My point was that the gap can’t simply be explained by Real and Barca being brilliant (which they were) but also by the other sides being worse, relatively, when compared to Barca and Real.
And again, I didn’t suggest that La Liga was “weaker” than the Premier League. Barcelona’s masterclass against Man Utd in last season’s Champions League final, followed by their brutal destruction of Arsenal in this year’s competition and even Atletico beating Fulham shows there’s some excellent football in Spain.
And the same conclusion can be drawn from Spain’s national team doing so well, considering that few of the players from that side actually play outside of Spain.
I completely agree with your point about the Premier League being “tougher”. My question was how much of Barcelona and Real’s brilliance is down to the lack of genuine challengers. And my answer would be “it’s a little of both”.
As for La Liga being worse than the Premier League I think that’s rubbish. Personally I love watching La Liga, and I think from the perspective of the viewer it’s better.
The last sentence about Inter was simply that they showed that Barca are capable of being beaten, yet they scored 99 points and lost just one game. This shows that Barca weren’t as challenged by other Spanish clubs as Inter or Chelsea were within their respective leagues. It’s just a little perspective on a great season for Barca.
In response to your second comment, I don’t think the Premier League is better. I believe it’s more competitive, or rather, to use your phrasing, that La Liga is uncompetitive. I also don’t believe that Chelsea would have got 99 points in La Liga, I suspect they’d have got over 90, though, rather than the 86 they got in the Premier League. Of course that’s mere speculation on my part but I think that Real’s failure in the Champions League whilst they scored 96 points suggests there’s some merit to it.
Along with points it would be interesting to see a comparison of best and worst defences in these 3 leagues, opta tweeted a stat today:
“24 – Barcelona conceded just 24 goals this term in la Liga, their best defensive performance since 1973/74. Barricade.”
As well as: -
“56 – Juventus have conceded 56 goals in Serie A this term, 3 more than relegated side Atalanta, their most ever in the top-flight. Collapse”
Real Madrid scored 102 but conceded 35, in the few Spanish games I saw there seemed to be an almost pre-war attitude of lets just score more than we concede to win the league.
Real Madrid for much of the season had a better goal difference than Barcelona did. At the end, the goal difference was close as well. You mentioned it yourself, 102 goals scored with 35 conceded. This is not a “i don’t care how many we concede, we will score more than you” attitude like you claim. It seems to me that you are merely regurgitating what the commentators on TV typically said about Madrid, even though it wasn’t close to being true. A 35 goal tally conceded is pretty good, especially when you praise Barca so highly for only conceding 24.
How is conceding 11 goals more “pretty good”? Let’s call a spade a spade. 35 goals conceded in a 38 game season means you’re practically giving up a goal every game. How can that be anything but “we’ll score more than you”? Rest assured that if Jose takes over they won’t play like that.
Of course Chelsea did something very similar this season, scoring 103 and conceding 32. Which goes to show just how tiny the margins are at that level; Chelsea are only seven goals “better” than Real over the 38 game season but they win the league and Real don’t. Jose could make the difference there. Just seven goals…
“Practically a goal a game” – on average yes, but in reality no.
Your argument doesn’t take into account high scoring games.
Real Madrid could have kept many clean sheets and also have been in a few high scoring wins.
High scoring games are all about “we’ll score more than you”. Scoring 5 or 6 but conceding two rather than scoring 3 or 4 and keeping a clean sheet suggests a certain mentality.
pshaw.
1. Conceding less than a goal per game is a good defensive record.
2. While as an amateur player I focus intently on defense, as a fan I hate watching teams that focus more on defending than attacking. I want to watch a fun game, not a series of bone-crunching tackles.
3. If helsea scored 103 and conceded 32 that’s a differential of plus 71; if Madrid scored 102 and conceded 32 that’s a differential of plus 67. The difference between these two figures is not 7 goals. If you can’t count, why should we rely on the rest of your analysis?
1) I’m sorry, I disagree. To me a goal a game from a top class side in a major league is no better than average. Inter, Chelsea, Man Utd and Barca all did better this season. Even Arsenal’s awful defence conceded just 41.
When Chelsea conceded just 15 goals in 2004-05, that was an excellent record (and I’m not a Chelsea fan, for the record), Barca’s 24 goals this season is a very good record, United’s 28 this season is a good record whereas Real’s 35 is a decent record. It’s average, for a top side, no better than that.
2) I agree with you. Nowhere did I say I prefer to watch defensive games. There’s nothing wrong with a “we’ll score more than you” attitude; it makes for exciting football, which Real have delivered this year.
3) The issue wasn’t maths, the issue was using the wrong numbers. You’ll notice in my comment I did mention both Real and Chelsea’s goal’s conceded but I never mentioned Real’s goals scored. When my mine came to do the maths I used Barca’s 98 goals scored and Real’s 35 goals conceded. I accept the error, but it has nothing to do with being unable to count. There’s no need to be rude.
With the transfer of Ronaldo and Kaka to Real Madrid and Barcelona already having Messi, arguable, the top three players, al play in the La Liga. This probably explains the gap in the La Liga top two and the remaining ones. Also, apart from the best, these top players, there are host of others in these two teams that would directly walk into any English or Italian club.
With teams like Man City powering them this season, the Premier league has become more competetive with the balance evening between teams(Tevez and Adebayor moving to Man City etc). It’s more like a reshuffle in the premier league. It didnt happen in Spain or even in Italy.
The good thing is that now the Premier league is more fun to watch because of this rather then be a two horse race like La Liga
“The good thing is that now the Premier league is more fun to watch because of this rather then be a two horse race like La Liga”
I’m sorry, but since when has the EPL not been a two horse race? It is Chelsea and Man U, every single year. I’m not sure what you mean, but this year was no different –a two horse race in the EPL.
Chelsea finished in 3rd place last year…
Barcelona finished third in a few ago too. Your point?
The Premier League is as much a two-horse as La Liga. It is always Man United vs another club.
@Alex
Dude ur missing the point. The eventual champions in the last six years in the premier league have been either Chelsea or ManU, but they still had tough challenge from Liverpool and Arsenal. In the La Liga, the winners always seems to be either Real or Barca. Third placed Valencia in the La Liga does not push the top two like Liverpool(except this season) or Arsenal do in the premier league which makes the premier league far more competitive.
@Don
Spot on thanks mate
It’s not just about the two at the top. It’s about how close everyone below them is. Real and Barca just wipe the floor with every other side in La Liga.
Barca lost just one game this season, Real just four, and between them that’s still less than Chelsea. When you consider that Real were knocked out of the CL in the round of 16, whereas Chelsea got to the quarters (and were only knocked out by the same side that knocked out Barca in the semis) it can’t be down to Chelsea being a much poorer team.
It is strange how some EPL fans seem to miss this point, year after year. In the last 10 years, more teams have won La Liga than the EPL 4 (Barcelona, RM, Valencia, Deportivo)-3 Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal).
Strange, then, how the 12th best side in England can stand toe to toe with the 9th best in Spain. Incidentally, how is it that a side that’s won La Liga in the last 18 years only just beat a side that’s never won a domestic cup, let alone a domestic title.
These are totally spurious comparisons that do not actually rebut sic’s point.
1. In games between teams in the 12th and 9th spots in England, the game is not a foregone conclusion for the higher side.
2. Fulham did not beat atletico in any event, the spanish team won, no matter how many “only just”s you put in there. In reality this is not dispositive either.
3. The real crux is that Spanish sides have won the Uefa cup numerous times in recent years and competed against other spanish clubs for the final. The middle section of the spanish league is way better than the english league.
Better or more suited to European competition? The two are not the same thing. There’s lots of reasons for the poor performance of English sides in Europe, from the lack of technical ability (which is key for winning European competitions but not so important in English competitions) to the fact several clubs have placed the Uefa cup (or Europa League) as a lower priority for their season than domestic cups. Whether they should do this or not is a different argument.
As for rebutting Sic’s point, my point was that one of the sides to have won La Liga since the formation of the Premier League barely beat a side that’s never won the Premier League. So just because more sides have won La Liga doesn’t necessarily make it harder to do; one could argue it makes it easier to do. Which I’m not.
Since it’s inception 4 teams have won the EPL (Chelsea, Arsenal, Blackburn and United). It’s basically on par with La Liga. Anyway, it’s fairly more obvious which league is more competitive and merely naming the winners just serves to muddy the waters. Even withstanding Chelsea and United’s reign at the top, Arsenal and Liverpool have both had a lot of continental success just illustrating how good they are with respect to the rest of Europe.
Exactly!!!
The other day, tiring a little of the rather lazy “Auld Firm” dismissals of Barcelona and Real Madrid’s dominance of the Liga, I did a comparison between the two leagues, in terms of what has happened when English and Spanish teams have met head to head over the past two seasons in the Champions and UEFA/Europa Leagues.
There have been nineteen matches in all, in which six English clubs (the “Big Four” plus Manchester City and Fulham) came up against five Spanish clubs (the “Big Two” plus Atlético Madrid, Villarreal and Racing Santander). Here’s how they panned out:
Spanish: W6 D10 L3
English W3 D10 L6
Hmm. Someone will quickly suggest that the difference can be accounted for by Barcelona’s form alone, what with their wins in last year’s CL final and this year’s drubbing of Arsenal. But, careful, because those results are cancelled out by Liverpool’s double defeat of Real Madrid. Still, let’s remove Barcelona and Real Madrid from the calculations completely, just in case, and see what we’re left with.
Spanish: W4 D5 L2
English: W2 D5 L4
Oh.
“Ah, yes,” people will say, “but it’s all about depth. There are a dozen mid-table clubs in the Premier League that would thrash their equivalents in La Liga.” Would they? Would they really?
The Europa League final was a good litmus test. The team that finished twelfth in the EPL was facing the team that finished ninth in the Liga, both having accrued a very similar number of points (Fulham ending the season with 46 points, Atlético with 47). In other words, the two teams were, in their respective leagues, much of a nowt-to-write-home-about mid-table muchness.
And we saw what happened. Atleti didn’t walk it, true (they never do; that’s why they’re Atleti), but they were hardly humbled and embarrassed by their allegedly so-much-stronger English counterparts, were they?
Do scorelines like nine-one or eight-nil occur in leagues with true “depth”? The worst loss suffered by Almería – cited above, pretty accurately, as Wigan’s rough equivalents – was only half an eight-goal margin (4-1 against Athletic Bilbao), and they even managed to hold Barcelona to a draw. Even the worst loss this season of the Liga’s direst team, Xerez, was only 5-1.
The Premier League is a great competition, no arguments there. But, it’s time to acknowledge that the Liga is too. The thoroughly astonishing gap between Barcelona and Real Madrid this season didn’t happen because the rest of the Liga are a bunch of Mickey Mouse no-hopers; it happened simply because Barcelona and Real Madrid both had thoroughly astonishing seasons.
This was the point I wanted to make but without any data to back it up.
So… what he said!
Great post, this. Thanks for that.
Before the final, you would have been hard pushed to find someone who claimed Fulham are a better team than Atletico. Certainly not “so-much-stronger”. Fulham were the underdogs in almost every game of their entire run!
I can’t be bothered to check your stats properly, but why, if you remove Real Madrid’s double defeat to Liverpool – does the Spanish loss count drop from 3 to only 2?
Er, because something went horribly, horribly wrong?
Yes, the figures should indeed be W5-D10-L4 for the Spanish teams’ performance when Barcelona and Real Madrid’s matches are included, and W3-D8-L2 when we leave them out.
Even so, if anything, the point the stats were meant to illustrate – that the two leagues are very closely balanced -still stands.
Incidentally, a note for the sake of completeness: I was dealing with individual matches as discrete results in a hypothetical mini-league, whereas in the real world some of them may have determined the winners and losers of two-leg ties – as happened with the Barcelona-Chelsea ones last year. The tie may have ended as a Barcelona win, but I calculated it as two simple draws to stop my head from exploding. Nor did – or could, really – I take into account that some matches might have occurred in late group stages when there was little or nothing left to play for. The numbers just are what they are.
Thanks for pointing out the balls-up, anyway, Nim.
On the “underdog” question, yes, you’re right. But they were underdogs because they were having a fantastic season after many years of grimness. But much the same could be said of Racing Santander, except in reverse: from beating Manchester City (including Robinho) 3-1 Europe to barely escaping relegation to the Spanish second division – all in under 18 months.
Again, my point that in terms of the points they earned in their respective leagues they were closely comparable this season still stands, doesn’t it? It’s about how they did against their national rivals; not who is or was playing above or below their usual game.
The athletico comparison you should have made was the 2-leg tie 1 round earlier, with Athletico beating out “EPL giant” Liverpool. Liverpool is supposedly an EPL giant, and they lost to a la liga team just like Fulham in the final round.
Here are results in European play this year with English teams:
Inter destroys Chelsea
Barca demolishes Arsenal
Bayern outplays Man U
Athletic beats out Liverpool
Athletic outclasses Fulham
Am i missing one? The truth of the matter is that the EPL has very good marketing men, spreading around the world how good the EPL is. The truth is that this simply is not the case. The EPL is no better than La Liga, and only slightly better than the Italian or German leagues. The only places that the EPL really beats out La Liga is right behind the top. I would say that places 3-5, the EPL is better than La Liga. But at the top, places 1-2, La Liga is much better, and in the mid table and especially the end of the table, La Liga is again better or at worse even. A relegation team like Tenerife can still play incredible football. Compare them to a Hull or a Wigan and you see the difference in class. Hull/Wigan can kind of “compete” with better teams by hacking them to death, while Tenerife actually attempts to play football against the likes of Madrid or Barca.
Not supporting any league here but while you are showing how English teams fared. Did you look at how Spanish teams fared in this years European competitions ?
Sevilla lost to CSKA in 1st knockout round
Real Madrid were outplayed by Lyon in 1st knockout
Barca were outplayed by Inter (they also didn’t win any away game in KO stages apparently)
Atheltico Madrid didn’t win any single game in group stages of champions league. apparently they didn’t win many games in europa league too but won it in the end with a good performance.
and yes Bayern never outplayed ManUtd, they were better in 1st half, ManUtd were utterly dominant in 2nd until the red card. so don’t say they outplayed. it was more balanced tie as the scoreline suggests.
Also has any Spanish team apart from Barca has done anything good in past 4-5 years in Champions league?
IMO La Liga teams/players are much better technically, while EPL teams are more organised, have more physical strength and stamina.
The relegation contenders try to play football against the top teams, and then get hammered and that’s how Barca and RM end up with 99 and 96 points and massive goal differences. Whereas teams at the bottom of the premiership are so worried about relegation and massive financial problems that they try to turn the games into a physical fight so that they stand any chance of getting points.
The more technical nature of La Liga could also be used to explain the results between spanish and english sides in Europe this season. The european style refereeing in the Champs Lge and Europa Lge suit the more technical teams and penalises the more physical nature of english teams. The exception that proves the rule being Mourinho’s Inter kicking seven bells out of Barca and getting away with it.
Kaveh, I’ve got to ask, have you actually watched Wigan play this season or have you just heard about it second hand? Or are you just using stereotypes because they, like Hull, are more of a Rugby town?
Because I hate to break it to you but it’s been a while since I saw Wigan hacking anyone.
Even under Bruce they played football, but under Martinez they play a possession-based game. In fact they’ve even been known to play an attack-minded 4-3-3!
As for your assertion that the only place La Liga loses out to the Premier League is 3-5, I’d actually say the only place where La Liga is better than the Premier League is the top two. Tenerife attempt to play football, and do so very well, but make no mistake; if they played a Hull they’d get kicked off the park and lose. Not because they’re technically less able, far from it, but because football isn’t merely a technical game.
Looking at head-to-head results of evenly matched teams is not a great gauge for determining how strong the entire leagues are. Liverpool have won 3/4 of their matches against United in the last 2 years, yet United won the league and finished comfortably above Liverpool this year. There is no sane person who’d say they’re close.
Numpties like Kaveh point out how EPL did this year, forgetting all the while the dominance they’ve had in the last several years in the UCL. That’s why England is the #1 ranked league in Europe.
A valuable analysis.. But, don’t conclude too much from Fulham-Atletico. Fulham is is by no means “allegedly so-much-stronger” They lack the quality of players like Forlan and Aguero. Also, I really don’t think a drubbing is necessarily indicative of a gulf in class. When the better team scores, the opposition is forced to attack, allowing the
other side to counter, and occasionally pile up goals. (This happens to Wigan often)
I wasn’t arguing against anything said here – it was more a general response to the sort of comments Sid Lowe’s pieces often get on the Guardian site: “A tidy hat-trick, yes, but let’s see that Messi lad strut his fancy continental stuff against the likes of Stoke and Bolton week in week out” etc., etc.
Your point about four-nils easily becoming six- or seven-nils as the losing side is forced to leave itself open is a good one. Even so, it does raise the question that if Barcelona and Real Madrid are so much stronger than the rest of their league, as is often alleged, why did neither of them manage more than a five-goal difference in any of their matches this year? Surely it’s those poor-old-Wigan scorelines that are the stuff that Auld Firms are made of.
Nature of the styles of play, probably brought on by climate. English football is more “direct”, hence why the national team is appallingly bad at keeping possession. Spanish football, in particular, clearly has a possession-based streak running through it.
I’ve watched a lot of both Barca and Real this season, and often once they’ve killed a game off they just sit and pass the ball about, confident in their ability to keep the ball. This way they can conserve energy in the sapping heat. By contrast in the freezing cold in blighty the likes of Spurs and Chelsea can kick and run all day and run up scores. I’ve no doubt Barca and Real could have done the same to some of the sides they’ve soundly thrashed this season.
Besides, Barca scoring 98 and Real 102 suggests that they clearly didn’t struggle to score goals. If you’re a player for either side you know you’ll get plenty of goals in the season, why be greedy?
A similar look at the number of teams that have won La Liga and the EPL over the last dozen years or so shows that more teams have won in Spain (4) than in England (3). But perhaps more interesting, while the EPL boasts of the same big 4 year after year (although this year could see Liverpool drop out…finally) in Spain, mid table teams rise and fall into the top four spots regularly and have decent runs in Europe. Teams like Villareal, Real Sociedad, Mallorca, Atletico de Madrid, Deportivo. So there is more diversity in success.
This season, despite the two man show up top, the competition was fierce for everything else. Telling, that on the last day of the season there was only one match that had nothing riding on it. The last CL spot was up for grabs (Mallorca, Sevilla), the last UEFA spot as well (Getafe, Villareal) and 5 teams were fighting regulation (Xerex, Tenerife, Valldolid, Málaga and Racing), with not a single team relegated going into that last match.
A stunning finish to a great league.
An argument could be made that it’s that “diversity in success” (where success is defined as a top four spot, rather than the league title) is what makes the actual championship less competitive.
If the same top four clubs are regularly playing in the Champions League, they’ve all got, more or less, the same opportunities to sign players (they can all, in theory, offer good money and the prospect of Champions League football). This means the champions are guaranteed to have at least two clubs competing with them.
Whilst Arsenal may have finished a long way behind Man Utd, they were in the title race until April, whilst last season Liverpool were the “third” club (although they actually finished second). Last season’s top three were separated in England by just 7 points; in La Liga this was 17 points. Even this season the top three are separated by 11 points in England but a massive 28 in Spain. How can that be “competitive”?
Don’t get me wrong; I actually prefer watching La Liga to the Premier League, because I love technical football. But there’s no getting away from the argument that the Premier League throws up more “shock” results and therefore has more of a “competitive” nature. Facts are facts.
Kudos for the last paragraph, Archie. I simply couldn’t dress that up in words prettier. That’s also the point ZM was trying to support by mentioning Valencia in the post. I simply fail to understand why so many people speak about La Liga being weak and try to back this statement up with the fact that FCB + RM outclass the rest of the league. There is no link!
On a sidenote, I believe it would be so much more informative if we could use such charts from several seasons at once.
Regards
And yet Wigan actually beat Chelsea this season whereas Almeria didn’t beat Barca. And therein lies the “competitiveness” argument. An eight goal margin makes a match uncompetitive; it does not make the league so. What makes a league competitive is whether the best teams can be humbled by the weakest.
Barca and Real losing, between them, less than Chelsea, means the league is less competitive.
Again, you seem to be making the false comparison that “competitive” equals better, or that scorelines are what dictate whether the league has depth. The truth is I’d argue La Liga is better, simply because of the technical skill on show, but there’s little doubt that if you want unpredictable results, the Premiership has thrown up a lot more than La Liga has this season. That’s all that the words “depth” and “competitiveness” relate to. Let’s not beat up on strawmen here.
Also Zaragoza, who finished just one point behind Almeria (and therefore also offer a decent equivalent for Wigan) were spanked 6-0 by Real. Real’s “aggregate” score over Zaragoza was 8-1 whilst Chelsea’s over Wigan was 9-4. Which is more one-sided? Looking over the course of 38 games is better than isolating matches.
Incidentally, Wigan were punished this season for playing attacking technical football, something La Liga fans always accuse the lower English sides of being unable to do, compared to the similarly placed teams in La Liga. In fact a more traditionally “English” side like West Ham only conceded 4 twice (compared to Almeria conceding 4 three times) and scored three or more goals four times (compared to Almeria managing this just once).
As a neutral fan of the game, I am of the opinion that it is not right to compare between different leagues. What matters is how good a particular match is. The argument of EPL fans that there is a huge gap after the first two in LLiga is right, but you dont see that gap in the individual matches often. Most matches are still closely contested, even if Barca or Real manages to pull them through. They are not able to do any 8-0’s like in EPL. Still Barca and RM can maintain that sort of a lead in most leagues, in their current form.
Lets just enjoy the game please. Having said that, if there is an EPL/LLiga match at the same time, I would definitely prefer the latter though. As Football is more important, not the physique.
Completely agree with what you say Archie_V .
And just to copy my text from above-
With the transfer of Ronaldo and Kaka to Real Madrid and Barcelona already having Messi, arguable, the top three players, al play in the La Liga. This probably explains the gap in the La Liga top two and the remaining ones. Also, apart from the best, these top players, there are host of others in these two teams that would directly walk into any English or Italian club.
With teams like Man City powering them this season, the Premier league has become more competetive with the balance evening between teams(Tevez and Adebayor moving to Man City etc). It’s more like a reshuffle in the premier league. It didnt happen in Spain or even in Italy.
The good thing is that now the Premier league is more fun to watch because of this rather then be a two horse race like La Liga
Not to nitpick, but no way is Kaka one of the top three players in the world, not after the season he just put in.
Yes. This year he has been disappointing. But still, he would be cosidered in the top three. One bad season cant take away his talent, though with the likes of Rooney stepping up, he has to be back at his best and fast.
I would put Rooney in the top three after his monster season. Face it, he *was* Manchester United this year. I would also hesitate not to put Xavi in the top 3. His worth to Barça was evident more than ever.
I guess my top 3 would be Messi, Rooney and Xavi.
Where does that leave Ronaldo? Rooney has had a fantastic season and i agree he was ManU but how does that take away anything from Ronaldo?
How can you on the one hand (rightly) praise Rooney for a season where he’s got 26 league goals and 3 assists in 32 league games whilst not praising Ronaldo for a season where he’s got 26 league goals and 7 assists in 29 games?
Xavi’s probably the fourth best player in the world. And has been since almost forever, but nobody ever gets that far down on their lists. Tragically under-appreciated.
It’s called the Premier League; has been since 2007! Sorry. (Those branding guys really are wasting their time)
We know, Charlie. But in some of our dubbin-daubed hearts it’ll forever be the “First Division”.
It’s “assistant referee” and not “linesman” too, but ZM won’t be saying that either.
“Those branding guys really are wasting their time”
apparently not, since you’ll show up in the comments to correct people about it.
we shouldn’t it the big 4 anymore (in prem league.) it’s more like a big 2+6, because even if arsenal came very close to the top at times they still got humiliated when facing the top 2.
last year Arsenal’s record against top 4 teams:
Man Utd: 1 win, 1 draw
Chelsea: 1 win, 1 loss
don’t forget that United also lost their 2 matches against Liverpool… yeah, this season Arsenal was particularly bad against the top 2, but that’s an anomaly compared to previous years. in 2006-07 they did the double against United (who still ended up winning the league despite losing 5 matches)
The “six pointers” are overrated. There are only a handful of those a season; there are a lot more matches against weaker sides. It’s no coincidence for me that Arsenal were closer to winning the title this season than last despite a worse performance in the six pointers against Chelsea and Utd.
Last season the record against the top two sides was excellent (whilst their record against lower sides was poor) and this season it’s the other way around. Last year they were out of the title race before the turn of the year; this time they were in it until April. Beating the 15 “lower” sides is vastly more important.
I dont understand this EPL is more fun to watch business..
2 horse race only in La Liga? Arsenal was a much farther 3rd
that what you see on paper.
All the other leagues also had tight battles for the CL spots
and relegation…
I agree that La Liga was more exciting, as anyone who saw Sevilla/Almeria would, but Arsenal were challenging for the title until halfway through April. If anything the table doesn’t tell the full story, if it wasn’t for a spectacular collapse they would have at least got above 80 points
I understand the point, that because of
some of the talent shift, there is more
potential for upsets against
the “big X” in the EPL, than in La Liga
for instance.
However, we all knew that Arsenal was going
to collapse, (they always do with the current
Wenger system), so in reality,
the EPL is still a “big 2″ right now..
The Liverpool collapse is sort of a surprise,
but so was Juventus, and maybe Atletico…
I’d hesitate to say they ‘always do’.
What would the evidence be? The only example before this season was 07-08. Last season they were considerably stronger in the second half of the season, and the very end in particular.
I can understand thinking that they were never going to actually win the league but could anyone really predict them having ten first team squad players out at the same time? With six or seven games to go nobody would have predicted that they wouldn’t even get to 80 points.
“However, we all knew that Arsenal was going to collapse”
Just like how you knew they’d collapse after the defeats to Chelsea and ManU? You are either very insightful or naive. And judging by “The Liverpool collapse is sort of a surprise”, I doubt the former.
Ill make this my last post on this matter, for the sake of not going off topic much…
Am I an EPL expert? No, I mostly watch Seria A
But if we’re going to talk about how EPL is “exciting” and
surprising, at least in terms of recent history,
Liverpool not in the CL is “sort of a surprise”.
Not much different from Juventus’horrible finish
being a surprise to someone not following Serie A closely.
As far as Arsenal, they’ve been finishing in the top 4 for the last
4-5 seasons,but not winning. And although Im not that “insightful”, I did’nt see anything this year that made it seem it was going to be any different. They still seem to be that “work in progress”. Hopefully next year will be different for them..
@Joe – I couldn’t reply to your post. I guess that each one’s perspective is different
For me, Arsenal’s tenacity was a surprise and it was exciting to see a close top-three in the late season. And based on Liverpool’s form this year, it was no surprise that they didn’t play in the CL. Agree with your last line!
@LW,
I guess Im kind of a pessimist that way.
Another example: Im a Roma fan, and they
just lost the scudetto by 2 pts, seems like
it was exciting and close, but if you follow Serie A
closely, you “just knew” that Inter was gonna win it,
even during Inter’s huge slump….
Arsenal collapsed because of important injuries. Not because of “The Wenger System”. In fact, towards the last leg of the season people were tipping the Gunners because they had the easiest run left.
And the fact that the “easiest run in” didn’t actually turn out to be at all easy speaks volumes about the competitiveness of the league.
Could anyone else see a game like the Wigan v Arsenal game in another league? A top three club at a bottom half one, two goals up with ten minutes to go and they lose?
“we all knew that Arsenal was going to collapse, (they always do with the current Wenger system)”
past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Actually Arsenal were a much closer third than what you see on paper. Before Van Persie’s injury they were scoring over 3 goals a game, and even prior to the Barcelona humiliation they were competitive with the top two, despite losing to both. It was the Barca match and the injury to Fabregas that caused the large gap.
This is the Internet. Pointlessness isn’t a worry here.
so true
Illustrates perfectly how the Barca/RM issue was purely those teams having incredible seasons.
It’ll be interesting how their players go at the WC, pushing each other like that must be exhausting.
That rare medical condition known in sports-medicine circles as “complete and utter knackerage” started to be noted in both teams back in February.
Some of the WC players – most shamelessly Thierry Henry and Kaká – have been saving themselves for the summer, while others – most obviously Messi, Xavi (currently out of order, wearing a “normal service will be resumed shortly, do not adjust your midfield” placard around his neck) and Puyol for Barça, and Van der Vaart and Ramos for Real Madrid, but also, to his great credit, Cristiano Ronaldo – have been playing at full whack every week even after Champions League glory ceased to be an option. Astonishingly, given the times we live in, they really did seem to be prepared to give whatever it took to win the domestic league.
Will just three weeks off be enough for them to make it to South Africa in the finest of possible fettles? I think it will. There’s more excitement in Spain about this World Cup than I can remember in the 20-odd years I’ve lived here – and not just because the national team is currently riding high in all the sweepstakes; people, in general, seem convinced it’s going to be a classic, whoever ends up winning it.
How can it be purely those two teams having incredible seasons when neither team was able to translate this into European success? Good seasons? Yes, very good even, but “incredible”?
Inter, who scored 82 points in Serie A, deservedly (and ZM’s own analysis said this too) beat Barca, who scored 99 points in La Liga. Thus it’s not too hard to say 99 points in La Liga is “worth” less than 82 points in Serie A, which then leads one to the conclusion that coming by points is harder in Serie A. Which makes it more competitive.
Equally Real Madrid, knocked out a round before Chelsea, scored 96 points to Chelsea’s 86. Granted, there’s an element of luck in winning the Champions League, but Real didn’t even make the quarter finals, let alone semis.
If they were that much better than the rest of Europe both should’ve made the semi finals, and one of them should probably be contesting the final. Yet they’re not. What does that say about La Liga?
English clubs failure in Europe this season has many commentators rightly saying the Premier League is weaker this season, but equally, can Real and Barca’s relative failures in Europe say similar things about the rest of La Liga?
You’re making quite a few leaps of faith rather than logic here. To say that because Madrid went out of the CL in the round of 16, the league they play in can’t be as good as the leagues of teams who progressed further is quite a conclusion to draw. Does that make Serie A and the Bundesliga are stronger than the EPL or Spanish Liga, simply because that’s where this year’s finalists come from.
I thought we’d all agreed, though, that judging entire leagues on how good their winners happen to be is a very risky business. Again, I’d turn to the Europa League for an indication of league strength. And we’ve seen that both the EPL and La Liga had two teams in the quarter-finals, one in the semis (although the Liga couldn’t have had both progressing, since they were drawn against each other) and one in the final.
In other words, between the EPL and Liga it was much of a muchness. But “what does that say about”, to use your phrase, Serie A and the Bundesliga, whose teams were the first to fall by the wayside?
My key point surely stands: Because of Barcelona and Real Madrid’s dominance, the Spanish Liga is frequently accused of being a Scotland-type operation. It’s not. The teams in its upper-middle reaches are just as strong as their English, Italian and German equivalents, as ZM’s points graph and head-to-head results over the last couple of seasons have shown.
Again, I didn’t say “as good”, I said competitive. And yes, I’d agree that Serie A and the Bundesliga have both been more competitive this season than the Premier League or La Liga. The quality is a completely different argument, and much more subjective.
I feel as though too many people are equating “competitive” with “better”. That’s not the case at all. Serie A and the Bundesliga are more competitive because the top four were separated by 11 and 15 points respectively. The Premiership top four were separated by 16 points whilst in La Liga this gap was a huge 36 points. Competitive is defined by how close sides are.
And I’d actually use your Europa example, and that of the Champions League, to “prove” my point (of course there is no conclusive proof; this is all debate and opinion). The two most competitive leagues are contesting the biggest contest in Europe, whilst the “consolation” tournament was fought out between the two less competitive leagues.
The side finishing 9th in La Liga narrowly defeated the team finishing 12th in the Premier League. Comparing Atletico’s points tally with Fulham misses the point; the points tally for a ninth placed side in La Liga is fractionally higher than the tally for the 12th placed side in the Premiership precisely because the top sides in Spain have been more dominant domestically than the top sides in England have been in the Premiership.
Atletico are an “upper-middle” side in La Liga; Fulham are a “lower-middle” side in the Premiership (and in fact even that is a relatively new phenomenon; they’ve often been in relegation dogfights). Atletico have won La Liga but Fulham have never even come close to winning the Premiership (and didn’t even win the old First Division either). That would be like considering Liverpool the equivalent side to a Osasuna and suggesting they’re equivalents when they’re clearly not.
Hi guys. I’ve got two questions. (might be digressing a little here)
How was the French League this year compared to last year? Would like to know the main reason why Bordeaux is in a position so different from last year. (Be glad if anyone could help me out with this).
2ndly, (a lil off-topic)
Is goal.com/en a reliable/credible website?
Especially all of the transfer reports/news/ rumours that they post?
Would appreciate it if anyone could help me out.
Great article (though short) by ZM as always
Thanks 
Goal.com…be wary of it. The main aim seems to be simply to get as much content up as possible, from whatever sources and whatever writers they can find. Some of the stuff on there is decent, but I think it’s best to trust it with the bare minimum, and be sceptical about it.
Goal.com: super disappointment. Do not believe anything Sal Landolina writes re: Italy. In fact, it’s best if you trust them about as much as Fox News in general.
This is my new favorite football website other than the http://www.theoffside.com. This is an interesting article and the statistics could be interpreted both ways. And to the poster above me, NO, Goal.com is perhaps one of the most unreliable websites.
Graph is useful, but trend analysis was misleading. The 28 point difference between 7th and 17th in EPL was because the top 7-8 teams outpointed their counterparts. The 10th-14th place teams are close to the same
Yep. The gap between 8th and 9th in the Premier League was 11 points. And the gap between 13th and 14th was 5. Essentially there were three subgroups between the 4th and 17th lines on the graph.
From 5th to 8th was separated by only 6 points, compared to the 8 points in La Liga and 13 points in Serie A (illustrating your point about the top 8 sides). From 9th to 13th was only 6 points, compared to 5 in La Liga and 6 in Serie A (again illustrating your point about the 10th to 14th range being similar in all the leagues) and from 14th to 17th was 4 points in both the Premier League and La Liga and just 2 in Serie A. Basically the top 8 Premier League sides are closer to one another than the top eight sides of either of the other leagues. Hence establishing a more competitive title race.
I would say that the middle teams for each of the leagues are very similar by any accounts. That’s why the Europa League is so unpredictable.
On a side note, here in Brazil we also have a 20-teams, 38-games national league, and last year the winning side scored only 67 points, while the first relegated side had 45 points, which would net you a nice mid-table position in any of the leagues shown. This balance makes the brazilian league very unpredictable and exciting, but one can question the overall quality of football played.
The Brazilian national league is incredibly competitive. And again, it illustrates the argument that competitiveness is not the same as quality. Less competitive is by no means less quality.
It is interesting to see the extent to which there is a pronounced gap in the EPL between the top eight, all big established clubs, and the rest.
Is the EPL now the most rigidly two tiered league out of the three? I would not bet against the top eight being the same teams again next season.
I can’t comment on other leagues, but in La Liga there is a lot of movement up and down the table after the top 2. Teams like Real Sociedad who were in contention to win La Liga up until the final match a few seasons ago (they basically gifted the league to RM)ended up relegated and is now on it’s way back to Primera next season. Teams like Deportivo had an extended run in CL positions with one Liga, Valencia has become a permanent force and won 2 Ligas under Benitez just before he went to Liverpool. Mallorca, Sevilla, Villareal, Atlético de Madrid and Athletic de Bilbao have all spent time near the top of the table. This year the surprise team is Getafe who snagged the last UEFA spot on the final matchday. All in all, over the past 10 seasons there has been some pretty good competition, with Barcelona and RM winning the majority obviously, but check out the teams coming in 2nd and 3rd:
1999–2000 Deportivo : FC Barcelona : Valencia CF
2000–01 Real Madrid : Deportivo : Real Mallorca
2001–02 Valencia CF: Deportivo : Real Madrid
2002–03 Real Madrid : Real Sociedad : Deportivo
2003–04 Valencia CF : FC Barcelona : Deportivo
2004–05 FC Barcelona : Real Madrid : Villarreal CF
2005–06 FC Barcelona : Real Madrid : Valencia CF
2006–07 Real Madrid : FC Barcelona : Sevilla FC
2007–08 Real Madrid : Villarreal CF : FC Barcelona
2008–09 FC Barcelona : Real Madrid : Sevilla FC
2009–10 FC Barcelona : Real Madrid : Valencia CF
hi guys
i think epl is the the best marketed legue in the world but quality wise la liga and seria A are much much better and it is clear even from the sucess of their respective countries have had over the years.
all the top players play either for la lige or for seria A
all the over rated players are from epl like roonie, bekham, owen, and the list just goes on
All the top players? Really? Rooney may be overrated (and he is; the English media were far too quick to say he was better than Messi when that’s plainly laughable) but he’d still walk into either the Barcelona or Real starting XI. Which is why the rumours of both being keen to sign him make perfect sense.
Likewise Cesc Fabregas, Frank Lampard (if Jose ends up at Real will he be taking Frank with him?), Steven Gerrard and Carlos Tevez would certainly compete for places at either club, although I doubt any of them would get a starting place.
Let’s not forget players like Torres and Anelka who both played in La Liga, or that Real’s Xabi Alonso and Cristiano Ronaldo both played in the Premier League too. If the Premier League was so bad, why were Thierry Henry and Arjen Robben both big signings for Barcelona and Real respectively? Both were recruited directly from the Premier League.
One thing that bothers me is that the England, France, Germany and Italy, the league winners also won their main domestic cup competition. Spain will be the exception this year.
Is this an anomaly, or is cup football basically over as a genuinely unpredictable competition on a domestic basis?
you are ignoring that Chelsea’s opponent in the FA Cup was Portsmouth, who were relegated…
u guys can argue till tmr,but it comes down to one thing,there is no such thing as d best league(epl fans note). the three leagues hv there strenght and weeknesses d fact d three countries hv all won d champs league similar number of times(go to wiki) shows dat,if u feel seria is inferior then go watch inter matches against d best frm both leagues and milan did take four points off d great madrid
I cant understand how people here compare between the leagues just through these graphs :s … You cant. The data is completely irrelevant once you compare between the different data sets. However, you can just get general trends of the leagues themselves.
For the people that say that the epl has got more competition in the league, then I must add that this conclusion is stupid.
Very interesting point. Not sure if it highlights any concrete evidence though.
Personally, I think the EPL is getting poorer and poorer every year. La Liga, for me, is much stronger. England will need to be careful, as I think the bubble is beginning to burst in English Football and it seems the Bundesliga is coming on leaps and bounds.
Mr. Anonymous
players like torres, ronaldo, and tevaz are not english what i was saying is that the english players and club are the most over rated not the pleyers who are in epl and not english are the over rated.
if you combine the amount of sucess epl sides have had in europe is not even equal to the amount of sucess RM has had alone
alex furgason has only won two champions league title dispite being at so called one of the best club in the world for twenty plus years its a poor result niether RM, Milan, bayern or barcolona would take that
You need to do more research. Liverpool have 5 European Cups, United 3, Forest (now in the second tier of English football) have 2, Villa have 1. Arsenal, Chelsea and Leeds have all been losing finalists.
That would mean English sides have had 11 European cups and 3 runners up, compared to Real’s 9 cups and 3 runners up. How is that “not even equal”? And when you consider that English sides were (rightly) banned from European competition for five years there’s a case for saying that there might have been even more European trophies.
Even if you take into considering the “rebranding” of the Premier League (which is ridiculous; English football existed before 1992) there have been three winners (Man United twice and Liverpool once) since 1992 and four runners up in that time; Real have, in the same period, won it three times and been runners up no times.
When Ferguson took over Manchester United were a side in decline, and by no means “one of the best clubs in the world”. They didn’t even finish in the top five in 1987-88 or 1989-90. Even so they were denied European football on four occasions during the Heysel ban. Who knows how many more European trophies he’d have had without the ban? Especially when you look at his success in Europe with Aberdeen (where he even managed to beat Real Madrid in the final in 1983). Under his leadership they become only the third Scottish club to ever win a European trophy.
Incidentally, if English players are so overrated why is it that Frank Lampard is constantly being touted as being Jose’s first signing at Real Madrid, should he take the job there? Whilst I too hate the xenophobic attitude of some English fans who refuse to acknowledge the quality of foreign leagues and of players like Messi, it’s no better when that attitude is aimed at English football with absolutely zero factual basis. English football is no “better” than Spanish but it’s also not suffering an inferiority complex either.
i tried to compare it with the Bundesliga.
of course you can’t compare the pure numbers, so i made a points per game graph.
when you take alook at the first three (Bayern 2,06 ppg; Schalke 1,91; and Bremen 1,79) they all have fewer ppg than the other league leaders (#1 to #3) in europe (e.g. Arsenal 1,97; Valencia 1,87; AC Milan 1,84).
It is difficult to compare and to explaine. point A could be the absence of two teams (four easy wins per season). the other point B is that the BL is a harder competition in terms of the midtable teams (5th to 12th).
the Bundesliga teams from #4 (Leverkusen 1,74) to #13 (Cologne 1,12) have more ppg then the Spanish teams (Sevilla FC 1,66 to Almeria 1,11). compared with Italy the Bundesliga is better from #6 (Stuttart 1,62; Napoli 1,55) to #10 (Frankfurt 1,35; Bari 1,32). The Premier League is leading in every position, except #9, #10 and #14.
i know it’s not fair to compare a 18-team league with a 20-team league. but i think we can see, that the absence of two teams (four easy games per season?) is a bigger problem for teams tha usually win this games.
Guys, this season was not a regular season in Spain.
Just look at the number of losses from Real/Barca in previous seasons and compare them to the EPL.
In 1999-2000 United scored 97 goals to secure the title with 91 points. In 2004-04 Arsenal won the title unbeaten scoring 90 points. In 2004-05 Chelsea won the title suffering just one defeat, conceding just 15 goals on the way to 95 points. In 2005-06 Chelsea retained it, conceding only 22 and gaining 91 points.
In other words, the Premier League has, in previous seasons, had seasons like La Liga has had this season. Let’s not take away from Barca’s records; 99 points out of a possible 114, 98 goals scored and just 24 conceded. That’s amazing. And this Barca side is an amazing team. But rather than talk about which league is better, why not simply say that this season, and in particular this Barca side (and to an extent this Real side too, who pushed them all the way) were great, just like Arsenal’s Invincibles, Jose’s Chelsea and United in the late 90s.
you are ignoring that Chelsea’s opponent in the FA Cup was Portsmouth, who were relegated…