Is The Premier League Tougher Than It Used To Be?

[HattoriHanzo]

This. The league is getting much easier for the top teams. The gap in revenues and squad cost is producing record breaking numbers of points and goals for those at the top. But actually winning the league is another matter.

So, it is tougher to win the league now than before?

 

[Makingtrax]

So, it is tougher to win the league now than before?

I wouldn’t like to comment on that because there’s no data to back it up, one way or another. There’s fewer teams in the mini league at the top but they’ve all got expensive sides.

So is it easier to win a league that’s got 20 more even teams, or one where there’s 6/7 elite teams and the rest also-rans? You tell me.

 

[GoonerJay24]

Personally think Diaz is massively overrated, huge downgrade on Mane. Obviously no one was expecting him to be as good but the gulf is fairly large tbh, when you consider Mane and Salah were similar level over their times at Pool...Salah is far better than Diaz in this current side and its not even close.

Different players. Diaz prefers the ball to feet, more involved in general plays. Mane, had more forward instincts and usually created the depth with his runs in behind opponents. Probably Diaz would work better in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 over 4-3-3, he's not really a forward imo. I do think next season he'll be more impactful, after getting through this year with some experience.

 

[Jasard]

I feel like the ceiling and floor have closed in a bit. Even with City's dominance I dont think many of those players will be revered in 10-20 years like how we look back now. You also see fewer hatchet men and absolute donkeys. Sheffield United aside of course.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

Different players. Diaz prefers the ball to feet, more involved in general plays. Mane, had more forward instincts and usually created the depth with his runs in behind opponents. Probably Diaz would work better in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 over 4-3-3, he's not really a forward imo. I do think next season he'll be more impactful, after getting through this year with some experience.

Its his third season, will be his fourth next year - this is the guy they bought, he's 27 now and he's not going to massively improve let's be honest.

 

[Blankety Blank]

It's tricky to make definite statements but I think most teams are far better prepared & coached these days.
Individual flair has been limited & largely superceded by the team ethos & tactics.


Man U & Chelsea have spent fortunes but still not really near top 4 this season.
7 or so teams nowadays with absolutely massive spending power which never used to be the case.
Heck even the next tier of prem clubs can spend big money compared to the rest of Europe.

As we are now sitting relatively pretty perhaps it's more poignant to ask Man U or Chelsea fans if they think top 4 is harder right now.




Man City have significantly raised the level needed to win the league.

 

[WesleyNHohfeld]

The quality has certainly gone up across the board. Virtually every industry has gotten more competitive over the past 15-20 years, and football is no different. Think about the medical progress, the scouting networks, the basic changes in training, the transfer market, and better youth support and scholarships. The Leeds team which won the Premier League in 1992 would be relegation fodder today.

I also tend to think that the gap between clubs has diminished. People say that Wenger revolutionized English football by bringing European nutrition and training to the Premier League along with a sophisticated scouting regime. Even basic things like cutting out alcohol or intense running sessions without the ball was seen as pathbreaking. There's so much money in the game now that it's hard to think of comparable low-hanging fruit. Every club has a director of football along with multiple coaches and analysts whose sole job is to find every conceivable edge.

The points required to win the league suggests the opposite answer, but I think it might be because the top teams today are the best teams on the planet. If you play for City, Liverpool, or Arsenal, you are more likely good enough to play for any national team in the world and you have to be one of the 10 best players in your position in the world. I don't think United or Arsenal in the 1990s had that luxury but that's because talent was more dispersed across 6-9 leagues.

 

[GoonerJay24]

Its his third season, will be his fourth next year - this is the guy they bought, he's 27 now and he's not going to massively improve let's be honest.

It depends on who replaces Klopp.
But I expect Diaz to improve given his experience from this season. Players get better even in their 30s, so 27 is nothing. With Salah potentially moving on, you'd expect him to become their star player in attack. He has all the attributes.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

It depends on who replaces Klopp.
But I expect Diaz to improve given his experience from this season. Players get better even in their 30s, so 27 is nothing. With Salah potentially moving on, you'd expect him to become their star player in attack. He has all the attributes.

If he’s their star player and producing 1 in 4 numbers from the wing in their system they can kiss goodbye to top 4 let alone league titles

 

[Oxeki]

The quality has certainly gone up across the board. Virtually every industry has gotten more competitive over the past 15-20 years, and football is no different. Think about the medical progress, the scouting networks, the basic changes in training, the transfer market, and better youth support and scholarships. The Leeds team which won the Premier League in 1992 would be relegation fodder today.

I also tend to think that the gap between clubs has diminished. People say that Wenger revolutionized English football by bringing European nutrition and training to the Premier League along with a sophisticated scouting regime. Even basic things like cutting out alcohol or intense running sessions without the ball was seen as pathbreaking. There's so much money in the game now that it's hard to think of comparable low-hanging fruit. Every club has a director of football along with multiple coaches and analysts whose sole job is to find every conceivable edge.

The points required to win the league suggests the opposite answer, but I think it might be because the top teams today are the best teams on the planet. If you play for City, Liverpool, or Arsenal, you are more likely good enough to play for any national team in the world and you have to be one of the 10 best players in your position in the world. I don't think United or Arsenal in the 1990s had that luxury but that's because talent was more dispersed across 6-9 leagues.

So musicians are better than they used to be? SMH

Teams are spending more money, yes. But also that money is not having impact on the player quality that they're able buy. The players they used to buy 10-15 years ago is largely the same level of players they're still buying now. The only thing that changed is these players now cost more.

The only teams reaping the benefits are the absolute elite teams at the top who the very best players want to come to.

The West Hams and the Crystal Palace are still as good as they were 10 years ago.

Sp**s had guys like modric, bale, Kyle Walker, Rose, Van der Vert etc. Now they have mediocre players who run around all they and get plaudits from the media.

 

[jones]

Don't know about "every industry" but quality of posting on AM has definitely gone down.

 

[GoonerJay24]

The quality has certainly gone up across the board. Virtually every industry has gotten more competitive over the past 15-20 years, and football is no different. Think about the medical progress, the scouting networks, the basic changes in training, the transfer market, and better youth support and scholarships. The Leeds team which won the Premier League in 1992 would be relegation fodder today.

I also tend to think that the gap between clubs has diminished. People say that Wenger revolutionized English football by bringing European nutrition and training to the Premier League along with a sophisticated scouting regime. Even basic things like cutting out alcohol or intense running sessions without the ball was seen as pathbreaking. There's so much money in the game now that it's hard to think of comparable low-hanging fruit. Every club has a director of football along with multiple coaches and analysts whose sole job is to find every conceivable edge.

The points required to win the league suggests the opposite answer, but I think it might be because the top teams today are the best teams on the planet. If you play for City, Liverpool, or Arsenal, you are more likely good enough to play for any national team in the world and you have to be one of the 10 best players in your position in the world. I don't think United or Arsenal in the 1990s had that luxury but that's because talent was more dispersed across 6-9 leagues.

If you compare the strikers now to 2002 season, the quality has slumped. Back then I could genuinely name 20 elite forwards. From today's premier league, I'd only put Haaland and possibly Watkins in this category.

 

[Oxeki]

Watkins

Lmao.

 

[drippin]

Teams are spending more money, yes. But also that money is not having impact on the player quality that they're able buy. The players they used to buy 10-15 years ago is largely the same level of players they're still buying now. The only thing that changed is these players now cost more.

The clubs earn a lot more money also, so paying more is natural.

No one has ever here argued how the level of players doesn't go up, if the number of players practicing football in the world goes up.

It's weird. I only see claims that it isn't true, but no reasoning at all.

Let's say if the number of players who practice football in the world has doubled in 20 years. For example 1 million vs. 2 million.

You guys are saying that there won't be more top players available? Or that the competition to rise to the top isn’t harder? Which means you have to be better than before.

 

[Makingtrax]

The quality has certainly gone up across the board. Virtually every industry has gotten more competitive over the past 15-20 years, and football is no different. Think about the medical progress, the scouting networks, the basic changes in training, the transfer market, and better youth support and scholarships. The Leeds team which won the Premier League in 1992 would be relegation fodder today.

I also tend to think that the gap between clubs has diminished. People say that Wenger revolutionized English football by bringing European nutrition and training to the Premier League along with a sophisticated scouting regime. Even basic things like cutting out alcohol or intense running sessions without the ball was seen as pathbreaking. There's so much money in the game now that it's hard to think of comparable low-hanging fruit. Every club has a director of football along with multiple coaches and analysts whose sole job is to find every conceivable edge.

The points required to win the league suggests the opposite answer, but I think it might be because the top teams today are the best teams on the planet. If you play for City, Liverpool, or Arsenal, you are more likely good enough to play for any national team in the world and you have to be one of the 10 best players in your position in the world. I don't think United or Arsenal in the 1990s had that luxury but that's because talent was more dispersed across 6-9 leagues.

The gap between clubs has definitely not diminished. You need to go back a few pages and read the charts posted bro. There has never been a wider gap between the elite teams at the top and the prem also rans. The evidence is overwhelming, revenues, squad costs, points accrued, goals scored all show a widening gap, year on year. The prem has evolved into two leagues in one with just a few grey area teams.

 

[Sanchez11]

Fitness has improved, not the quality.

 

[Rex Stone]

There are a higher number of “world class” players in the PL than ever before but they’re concentrated across 6 clubs.

The days of Batistuta spending his prime at Fiorentina are long gone. If he played today he’d be rotating with Haaland up top for City ffs.

Better for the game to have talent diluted and spread out more.

 

[Riou]

Better for the game to have talent diluted and spread out more.

One of the worst things of modern football for me, look at the Inter team that's smashing the Italian league now.

Would any of their players genuinely get in the 2003 Juve team, or the 2004 Milan team...or 2010 Inter team?

Think that's my main issue with the Prem these days, think the money in it has kinda ruined European football overall.

 

[Rex Stone]

One of the worst things of modern football for me, look at the Inter team that's smashing the Italian league now.

Would any of their players genuinely get in the 2003 Juve team, or the 2004 Milan team...or 2010 Inter team?

Think that's my main issue with the Prem these days, think the money in it has kinda ruined European football overall.

There were some real nasty teams back in the day like Deportivo, Monaco, Valencia and of course Porto.

These teams had multiple years to build a side. Now PL teams will happily pay 50M for a 19 year old it’s nuts.

 

[Sanchez11]

Like i have said previously i genuinely believe the epl money along with oil clubs has ruined european football as a whole.