Guardiola's Opinions on the Premier League

[SirBalon]

33 minutes ago, Azeem98 said:

 

There will be always five six title contenders for the PL because they are 'Big clubs on paper' because of their money,fan base,marketing. Just like Argentina,Germany,France etc will always be big teams and there will always be a 'maybe they can win the WC'.    

Those are not reasons for competitiveness mate. 

[Beelzebub]

24 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Those are not reasons for competitiveness mate. 

I was reffering to your post 'give me six teams that are title contenders'. There will be always be more title contenders in PL then any other league at least on paper. Thats why Premier League is considered tougher in public and thats why English fans prefer winning the PL then the Champion league.

[SirBalon]

51 minutes ago, Azeem98 said:

I was reffering to your post 'give me six teams that are title contenders'. There will be always be more title contenders in PL then any other league at least on paper. Thats why Premier League is considered tougher in public and thats why English fans prefer winning the PL then the Champion league.

Thats not correct at all. There have been many periods in other European countries' leagues where there has been major competition throughout history. Football didn't start in 1992!

English football is an anomally compared to other leagues on the continent because even when there has been major competition in other eras, the European Cup (Champions League) has ALWAYS been the trophy to win.

Football isn't because it is... Football (the sport) isn't governed by English thought on priority or reason for club status.

On the continent Liverpool are a historical club because of their European Cups, that's it. Manchester United are something else entirely which I won't go into here.

Arsenal for example are nobody on the manner in which a football club is thought of in Europe. You come from a country that has a product sold to its football enthusiasts as do other countries outside the rich tradition of football history. This is why you are of that absurd opinion. 

[Beelzebub]

40 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Thats not correct at all. There have been many periods in other European countries' leagues where there has been major competition throughout history. Football didn't start in 1992!

English football is an anomally compared to other leagues on the continent because even when there has been major competition in other eras, the European Cup (Champions League) has ALWAYS been the trophy to win.

Football isn't because it is... Football (the sport) isn't governed by English thought on priority or reason for club status.

On the continent Liverpool are a historical club because of their European Cups, that's it. Manchester United are something else entirely which I won't go into here.

Arsenal for example are nobody on the manner in which a football club is thought of in Europe. You come from a country that has a product sold to its football enthusiasts as do other countries outside the rich tradition of football history. This is why you are of that absurd opinion. 

Fair enough ! But i still say ask any PL fan on this forum they would like to see their team win the PL then CL. There was a poll on the other forum on this and majority voted for PL victory

[SirBalon]

1 minute ago, Azeem98 said:

Fair enough ! But i still say ask any PL fan on this forum they would like to see their team win the PL then CL. There was a poll on the other forum and majority voted for PL victory

Like I said... What a Premier League fan wants is only important within the Premier League. It isn't a marker for a universal reality. 

I want Arsenal to win the Champions League above all else. Ive witnessed winning the league many times before. 

[6666]

Pep fans are hurting from this thread. What a sight.

[Honey Honey]

Winning the Champions League is more prestigious as it creates a greater memory in history but it has been downgraded since Chelsea won by accident

[Beelzebub]

6 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Like I said... What a Premier League fan wants is only important within the Premier League. It isn't a marker for a universal reality. 

I want Arsenal to win the Champions League above all else. Ive witnessed winning the league many times before. 

The last line of your statement was i trying to say.For top teams like Real,Barca,Bayren etc their fans witnesse their team winning the domestic league everynow and then. But for top teams in PL their fans can't be sure when will be they able to witness their team win the league again so that is why it tought as a tougher league (which doesn't mean it is).

[El Profesor]

6 minutes ago, Azeem98 said:

The last line of your statement was i trying to say.For top teams like Real,Barca,Bayren etc their fans witnesse their team winning the domestic league everynow and then. But for top teams in PL their fans can't be sure when will be they able to witness their team win the league again so that is why it tought as a tougher league (which doesn't mean it is).

I have the same feeling. I´m not sure most english fans prefer a league title than an european title, but they definitely value the domestic title more than fans of other major european leagues. In that sense I envy the english fans, because I think they give proper value to the domestic title. Being consistent and better than other teams through 38 matches is no easy feat, it must be celebrated.

In Brazil, for example, I feel teams are too obsessed about Copa Libertadores and sometimes they neglect our league. It´s a shame.

 

[Danny]

7 hours ago, 6666 said:

You don't seem to know the difference between competitiveness in a league and a high standard in a league.

If people were arguing that there's more quality in the Premier League than any other league, you could argue that they're wrong and use European performances as an example. You can't do that when talking about competitiveness within a league, even if all the teams are shit, the fact that they're all on the same level means it's competitive. How they do in Europe is irrelevant.

The original argument was about whether it was tougher or not and the competitiveness was used as an example as to why it's tougher.

[Danny]

6 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

 

Chelsea were not even remotely close to being a quality free flowing champion that we have been used to in top flight football's history (under a different league environment). Even some of their fans on here have expressed a boredom and low energy for football. Both of their titles in the last 3 years have been dour and barely champion like at all. Someone has to win it, it's not just Chelsea, it sums up about 6 or 7 of the last 7 or 8 years of champions. 

That 4 or 5 teams can spend between a quarter and a half of a billion pounds on players each over the course of a half a dozen years and still not have a single one of them look like proper champions seems too off to just be a big coincidence that you imply it is imo.

Obviously every team is going to have an internal crisis about it and blame factors within their control. Those factors like the manager and the idea that the players just aren't good enough, so change the manager, spend another £100m on players. You might win the title like Chelsea but there's no history being made. No real side to be in awe of for years. That's odd. That's unusual for any league system.

But the whole point of the debate and argument is reasoning for English clubs losing to or struggling against sides BELOW them in the food chain in European competitions. So no one having a Messi superstar player is not really relevant because they're not always being knocked out by or playing naff against teams above them in the food chain.

Chelsea have never been a free flowing side but they've still managed to win.

If the toughness of the league were why it's so "competitive" (which again is a myth) then the last few years in the Prem wouldn't have coincided with the top teams lacking the level of players they used to have players, as well as managers. I mean you say it's no coincidence but the last few years Spurs have sold Bale, Liverpool sold Suarez, United lost Ferguson, sold Van Persie, Chelsea sacked Mourinho because he went off on one in a one off season and Man City's team just slowly fell apart.

None of our clubs have been playing at the highest level of football because they've all had separate issues that have meant they've either lacked the management or the players and that's not down to foreign imports between the mid-lower level players. The so called competitiveness created around the top 6 has been because they've all been either over performing (Spurs and Leicester) or because they've under performed (Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man City).

[Inverted]

Toughness is entirely from the perspective of any given team. In terms of a league you can't just pretend there's a set meaning of what makes a league tough, say that makes it the most worthwhile and then pretend that's the gospel.

From the perspective of Real, Barca, or Atleti, the PL would not be tougher, because they are all comfortably better than any PL side and so would be more guaranteed the title than they would be in Spain. In Atleti's case, they would go from massive underdogs to favourites overnight.

From the perspective of 2004 Arsenal, 2006 Chelsea, or 2009 United, it would be less tough today because they have no single competitor as strong as they had at that time. Take last season for example: I'm sure Alex Ferguson would much rather be chased by Poch's Spurs, who got knocked out the Europea league by Gent, than Benitez's Liverpool side that won the CL and reached another final 2 years later. 

Most crucially, I don't personally see how depth makes a league more tough. If a league has lot of especially plucky small teams, that's a challenge that all the big teams need to deal with. It doesn't harm or increase your chances of winning the title or coming 4th or whatever. 

If you're still better than your closest competitors, you'll still win the league. You might drop a few more points, but so will your competitors so your qualitative superiority counts all the same.

But in any case it's all futile and makes for shit threads because English people or fans of PL teams will naturally be inclined to find some measure by which the PL is the best, and it's equally easy to dismiss any argument from a non-English person as being biased too.  

Personally, I think the entire "toughness" idea is just a way of putting a positive spin on the recent decline in the number of world class players in the PL, the shortage of long-term planning or sound management from the elite clubs,  the consequent lack of consistent form, and the tactical ineptitude of the major teams in Europe.

And I think that decline is being reversed at this moment and most of the big clubs look on their way to solving these problems, which should hopefully mean more European success, more real elite title-fights, and then people should feel less need to talk about "toughness". 

Jesus Christ that's a long post, sorry troops. 

[Danny]

11 minutes ago, shut up said:

 

Our top sides struggling to make top 4 doesn't mean the Premier League is competitive?

 

That's literally the definition of competitiveness you div. 

I was referencing finishing inside the top 4 being used as a barometer of "competitiveness", I know being an Arsenal fan you're used to winning the Champions League spot trophy but it's not actually a real thing.

[Honey Honey]

2 minutes ago, Danny said:

Chelsea have never been a free flowing side but they've still managed to win.

If the toughness of the league were why it's so "competitive" (which again is a myth) then the last few years in the Prem wouldn't have coincided with the top teams lacking the level of players they used to have players, as well as managers. I mean you say it's no coincidence but the last few years Spurs have sold Bale, Liverpool sold Suarez, United lost Ferguson, sold Van Persie, Chelsea sacked Mourinho because he went off on one in a one off season and Man City's team just slowly fell apart.

None of our clubs have been playing at the highest level of football because they've all had separate issues that have meant they've either lacked the management or the players and that's not down to foreign imports between the mid-lower level players. The so called competitiveness created around the top 6 has been because they've all been either over performing (Spurs and Leicester) or because they've under performed (Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man City).

Strange examples. Van Persie had 1 good season at Man Utd when they won the title in the worst manner they ever have, they collapsed with him in their side. They were terrible champions, just like Conte's Chelsea are. Gareth Bale had 1 good season at Spurs, Harry Kane has easily beaten the quality Bale provided. Liverpool never got anywhere near the top 4 in 3 out of Suarez's 4 years at the club.

[6666]

18 minutes ago, Danny said:

I was referencing finishing inside the top 4 being used as a barometer of "competitiveness", I know being an Arsenal fan you're used to winning the Champions League spot trophy but it's not actually a real thing.

As said before, you don't seem to have any idea what competitiveness means. I know being a Brentford fan you're used to shagging bumblebees but I'm still surprised by how crazy your posts have been.

[Cicero]

4 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Strange examples. Van Persie had 1 good season at Man Utd when they won the title in the worst manner they ever have, they collapsed with him in their side. They were terrible champions, just like Conte's Chelsea are. Gareth Bale had 1 good season at Spurs, Harry Kane has easily beaten the quality Bale provided. Liverpool never got anywhere near the top 4 in 3 out of Suarez's 4 years at the club.

13 wins on the trot and most ever wins in a season = terrible champions? 

[Honey Honey]

13 minutes ago, Cicero said:

13 wins on the trot and most ever wins in a season = terrible champions? 

Someone's got to win. You don't win the league by not winning games. Terrible football by the standard expected of champions (because of the enviornment), unworthy of any real history making memory. 

[Cicero]

Just now, HoneyNUFC said:

Someone's got to win. You don't win the league by not winning games. Someone has to win the league. Terrible football by the standard expected of champions, unworthy of any real history making memory.

We played the best football we've ever played since 2010

[Honey Honey]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

We played the best football we've ever played since 2010

Like I said, the champions of the last 8 years have all been dross by champions standards except maybe 1 of City's wins.

[Danny]

20 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Strange examples. Van Persie had 1 good season at Man Utd when they won the title in the worst manner they ever have, they collapsed with him in their side. They were terrible champions, just like Conte's Chelsea are. Gareth Bale had 1 good season at Spurs, Harry Kane has easily beaten the quality Bale provided. Liverpool never got anywhere near the top 4 in 3 out of Suarez's 4 years at the club.

Not really a strange example, Van Persie's goals set United up to win the league. I didn't agree with it but they were being compared to their 99 side that season so they weren't that bad.

Liverpool had a season of Suarez being world class and they nearly won the league because of it, had they of kept him they'd not of flopped as badly as they did. That's my point. Spurs sold Bale and struggled to replace him, prior to the last two seasons they were hardly setting the league on fire since selling him.

[Danny]

27 minutes ago, 6666 said:

As said before, you don't seem to have any idea what competitiveness means. I know being a Brentford fan you're used to shagging bumblebees but I'm still surprised by how crazy your posts have been.

This topic is about how the league is (or isn't in Guardiolas case) tougher because of how competitive it is. The whole topic is about competitiveness relating to a higher quality of division, there is no way for the league to be tougher if the competitiveness wasn't related to how tough the league is because that marketing term is also used to describe the inferior Championship.

Being a Brentford fan means I've been to Griffin Park though, but the Emirates does look great on tele 

[Bluewolf]

2 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Winning the Champions League is more prestigious as it creates a greater memory in history but it has been downgraded since Chelsea won by accident

1 hour ago, Danny said:

This topic is about how the league is (or isn't in Guardiolas case) tougher because of how competitive it is. The whole topic is about competitiveness relating to a higher quality of division, there is no way for the league to be tougher if the competitiveness wasn't related to how tough the league is because that marketing term is also used to describe the inferior Championship.

Being a Brentford fan means I've been to Griffin Park though, but the Emirates does look great on tele 

[LFCMadLad]

You can't really take Pep seriously though after he's won the Spanish and German Leagues at a canter yet comes over here and scrapes top four by the skin of his teeth. 

Lets see how he does this season after spending a hundred gazillion quid. 

[6666]

7 minutes ago, Danny said:

This topic is about how the league is (or isn't in Guardiolas case) tougher because of how competitive it is. The whole topic is about competitiveness relating to a higher quality of division, there is no way for the league to be tougher if the competitiveness wasn't related to how tough the league is because that marketing term is also used to describe the inferior Championship.

Being a Brentford fan means I've been to Griffin Park though, but the Emirates does look great on tele 

Emirates does look good on tele. Same can't be said of your Family Guy tribute stadium.

And yes, The Championship is also a competitive league that's tough for teams to get out of and it's harder to predict who those teams will be.

A league being tougher is determined by the competitiveness within it, not by the quality of other teams in other leagues.

You're failing at basic logic here.

[Danny]

Just now, 6666 said:

Emirates does look good on tele. Same can't be said of your Family Guy tribute stadium.

And yes, The Championship is also a competitive league that's tough for teams to get out of and it's harder to predict who those teams will be.

A league being tougher is determined by the competitiveness within it, not by the quality of other teams in other leagues.

You're failing at basic logic here.

Spoken like someone that's never been to a football match before.

Your basic logic suggests the Championship is tougher than La Liga.