“City have made the PL uncompetitive”. Myth & reality

[Delboy352]

They blamed Mick iirc.

Of course they did...what I’m trying to point out though is that no teams a lately have done this against us...

 

[aguero93:20]

Of course they did...what I’m trying to point out though is that no teams a lately have done this against us...

Even if they did, it's no longer an offence as the PL eventually realised that only the manager can judge the strongest team on the day.

 

[Gary James]

I hear pundits and other fans constantly saying that the PL is becoming boring and uncompetitive due to our success so I checked the figures to see if it was. Very interesting results.

This season, after 13 games, the top 4 clubs are separated by 7 points. Here are the same figures for other seasons:
2017/18. 12 points
2016/17. 3 points
2015/16. 2 points
2014/15. 11 points
2013/14. 7 points
2012/13. 5 points
2011/12. 9 points
2010/11. 6 points
2009/10. 8 points
2008/09. 9 points
2007/08. 8 points
2006/07. 11 points
2005/06. 8 points
2004/05. 10 points
2003/04. 11 points
2003/03. 7 points
2001/02. 6 points
2000/01. 7 points

So there have only been 5 seasons this century (out of 19) where the gap between the top 4 has been less than it is currently after the equivalent number of games. And there have been double that number where it’s been higher. Out of those 10 that have seen a bigger gap, we’ve won the title twice and one of those was on goal difference. The average gap is about 7.8 points so this season isn’t even above average.

Nice to see someone else challenge this angle that we are being bombarded with. For me the Premier League is more of a competition now than it's ever been. There are genuinely 4 clubs at least that could win it and another 3 or so who think they could. In the late 90s and 2000s there were basically two Utd and Arsenal with an occasional plucky attempt by Newcastle or Liverpool but they were never going to win it. Then Chelsea came along which opened it up a bit more and then City. All the top clubs take points off each other that matter, whereas when it was just two clubs defeats were not so significant as they are now, which then allows other teams in.

 

[Tom_mcfc]

Long before City were "making the league uncompetitive" we were watching a financially advantaged Utd playing hoofball, winning league title year after year, showing how to win it with aggression and hard work.

Because England tend to pick our national players from the leading teams we ended up with a hoofball international game, which meant English football was way behind the rest of the world, we won nothing and got nowhere.

Nowadays though the leading teams are playing quality football, our England players are being picked from the leading teams who play quality football, and England are better for it.

We've actually turned football around in this country. Whilst our national press try to take us back to what it was.

Whilst our football is utter quality and the best I think this country has seen, to suggest United won league title after title playing hoofball is pretty stupid isn't it. Don't get the link to England either, the only thing I would agree with is our English players are being coached that well then it is only a bonus for the national team. There are still more players from other teams than us though so I wouldn't try and claim much credit from it.

The top and bottom of it is anyone who complains it isn't competitive simply supports a team with little chance of winning it. Simple as that.

 

[Gary James]

If Chelsea, City and Leicester hadn’t successfully invested, the league would be one of the most boring ones in the world and the broadcasting rights would be worth an awful lot less. That’s without mentioning the aesthetic value that City have provided, probably playing the most beautiful football the league has ever seen with probably the league’s greatest ever team.

And sadly, the authorities have tried to stop two of those clubs investing - both City (with UEFA) and Leicester (domestically) have had to reach settlements for FFP. People overlook LCFC's issues but they had to face FFP meaning that opportunity for any team to achieve what they have is much less likely now than ever before. Think back to the 1970s, Forest were promoted and then challenged for the League. They won the League and then challenged for the European Cup winning it twice. They achieved this by borrowing money to invest significantly in players such as the first £1m footballer - this wouldn't be allowed now. Can you imagine if LCFC had gone out and broken the British record fee to sign a player of genuine world class quality? They would never have been allowed to spend the money even if their owner was prepared to spend anything to sign the best (remember Forest had to borrow it but were allowed to and their investment paid off) due to FFP!

 

[Henkeman]

And sadly, the authorities have tried to stop two of those clubs investing - both City (with UEFA) and Leicester (domestically) have had to reach settlements for FFP. People overlook LCFC's issues but they had to face FFP meaning that opportunity for any team to achieve what they have is much less likely now than ever before. Think back to the 1970s, Forest were promoted and then challenged for the League. They won the League and then challenged for the European Cup winning it twice. They achieved this by borrowing money to invest significantly in players such as the first £1m footballer - this wouldn't be allowed now. Can you imagine if LCFC had gone out and broken the British record fee to sign a player of genuine world class quality? They would never have been allowed to spend the money even if their owner was prepared to spend anything to sign the best (remember Forest had to borrow it but were allowed to and their investment paid off) due to FFP!

Can you explain the chronology of that Gary? I always thought they won titles before investing so heavily in players. Am I wrong?

 

[taleofbluehalves]

I hear pundits and other fans constantly saying that the PL is becoming boring and uncompetitive due to our success so I checked the figures to see if it was. Very interesting results.

This season, after 13 games, the top 4 clubs are separated by 7 points. Here are the same figures for other seasons:
2017/18. 12 points
2016/17. 3 points
2015/16. 2 points
2014/15. 11 points
2013/14. 7 points
2012/13. 5 points
2011/12. 9 points
2010/11. 6 points
2009/10. 8 points
2008/09. 9 points
2007/08. 8 points
2006/07. 11 points
2005/06. 8 points
2004/05. 10 points
2003/04. 11 points
2003/03. 7 points
2001/02. 6 points
2000/01. 7 points

So there have only been 5 seasons this century (out of 19) where the gap between the top 4 has been less than it is currently after the equivalent number of games. And there have been double that number where it’s been higher. Out of those 10 that have seen a bigger gap, we’ve won the title twice and one of those was on goal difference. The average gap is about 7.8 points so this season isn’t even above average.

Don’t let facts get in the way of lies mate!

 

[dennishasdoneit]

Can you explain the chronology of that Gary? I always thought they won titles before investing so heavily in players. Am I wrong?

Forest managed promotion without any significantly big signings.

Once up,and after the 1st div season had begun,they signed Peter Shilton,then,the most expensive goal keeper in the world.

Any other signings before the title was won were unspectacular additions from other clubs such as Larry loyd,Kenny Burns from brum ..ex striker turned into a centre half by Clough and Taylor,winning player of the year the title was won.The rejuvenation of John Robertsons career was as much a factor in the Forests sucess as any other,this supremely talented winger was over weight,going nowhere when Clough and Taylor arrived..he stepped ip ftom forests reserves and inconsistent displays to become a world class winger..didn't cost Forest a penny...Mcgovern was signed for peanuts,a steady head in the forest central midfield,captain,following Cloughs instructions to the letter..

It was,as you suggest,after the only title Clough won at Forest,that the really big buys began to arrive.Trevor Francis arrived the next season,in time to score the winner in the first European cup final v Malmo,from John Robertsons brilliant cross....

The next season another European cup final success..Over kevin keegans Hamburg....Pre match concerns about the oppenents attacking,over lapping full back Manny Kaltz,widely regarded as the best full back in the world...were dismissed by Clough,who warned that Kaltz would be too pre occupied with Robertson....and so it proved,the winger,who played wide left,but was actuslly right footed(took pens with his right foot,to deadly effect) decided to wrong foot Kaltz,by cutting in and shooting from distance ,rightfooted to win a 2nd european cup..

It was after this thatt Clough started to really splash the cash...Ian Wallace,Justi Fashanu and Peter Ward all turning up at the City ground...all failing to achieve anything really..

Shilton was the first of the big signings,the rest were fairly modest until Francis rocked up.

 

[Gary James]

Can you explain the chronology of that Gary? I always thought they won titles before investing so heavily in players. Am I wrong?

They won promotion (and this was a major achievement thanks to the brilliance of Clough and Taylor) before what you would call a major record breaking transfer but then spent significantly for the title winning season and again with the purchase of Francis - before winning the European Cup. That's the point I'm making about FFP - a team growing at the rate they did in 1977-1980 wouldn't be possible now because of FFP.

After promotion they invested approximately £700,000 in new players, the most expensive was Peter Shilton (£325k approx - a world record for a keeper). Then after the League they bought Francis for £1m (sometimes reported as £1.18m) which was double the record which had been set only the previous month! Players like Souness, Dalglish and others had gone between other clubs for club record amounts like £330k, £440k only a short while earlier as a comparison.

In 1979 Forest persuaded the City Council to act as guarantor when it borrowed £1.5m. They were also doing ground investments which aimed to bring in money (similar to MCFC in recent years of course) but when they signed Trevor Francis for £1m reports claimed they would need to increase season tickets to the ridiculously high level of £100 (how times change!) and it'd still take them over two years to get justify the spend never mind his wages. Everton were extremely critical of Forest at the time questioning how the club could afford the deal.

Of course in today's terms the purchases of Shilton and Francis don't look big but, and this is the point I'm making, had Leicester been totally free of FFP as Forest were back then then it is possible the club could've bought a couple of British Record signings to help establish a European challenge as Forest did. Of course the competition structure and so much else has changed, but the simple point I'm trying to make is that no club could do what Forest did now. Leicester's achievement was remarkable - and fell foul of FFP. The same would happen to the next remarkable development in the current climate.

 

[blueste41]

Hard hat on. I don't think you can use 13 games of data for a league that will ultimately see each team play 38, to many variables. I think the criticism comes on the back of the final standings for last season-19 points ahead of 2nd and 25 points ahead of 4th. If those kind of margins continue the criticism may become valid, but I doubt we will be repeating last years stats on a regular basis to test the theory.