| No, it doesn't. on 09:46 - Mar 24 with 573 views | SaintNick |
| No, it doesn't. on 09:43 - Mar 14 by dirk_doone |
5 different teams have won the Premier League in the last 8 years and 5 different Premier League teams have been in Champions League finals in the last 15 years. This year, the new kids on the block, Man City, could be the 6th. It's easily the most competitive of the major leagues in Europe, most of which are totally dominated by just 2 or 3 big clubs.
Juventus have won Serie A for the last 9 years. and no team outside of the big 3 of Juventus, Inter and AC Milan has won the league in the last 20 years. In Spain, no team outside of the big 3 of Barcelona, Real and Atletico Madrid has won La Liga for 17 years. In Germany, Bayern have won the Bundesliga for the last 8 years and no team outside of the big 2 of Bayern and Borussia Dortmund has won the league in the last 12 years. In Portugal, no team outside of the big 2 of Benfica and Porto has won the league for 19 years. In France, PSG have won the league in 8 of the last 9 years. And we are whingeing about the Premier League being uncompetitive???
If you really want something to whinge about, try supporting a lower league team like Pompey. See how happy their fans are being in a 'competitive' league.
Saints' record v Man City:
https://www.soccerbase.com/teams/head_to_head.sd?team_id=2471&team2_id=1718 [Post edited 14 Mar 2021 11:32]
|
Dirk this shows how easy it is to manipulate facts
Yes 5 different teams have won it in the last 8 years, but then again those 5 different teams are the only ones to win it in the last 17 years and only 6 different teams have won it in the last 26 years
Of those 5 teams two of them have won it just once, so the Premier League has been dominated for the last 17 years by 3 clubs.
It is time for change, let the big clubs go off to a European super league and let the rest of play in a competitive league again, if we were in the top 4 of the Premier League most who go to games would not care that there was no City, United or Liverpool |  |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
|  |
| No, it doesn't. on 11:33 - Mar 24 with 533 views | dirk_doone |
| No, it doesn't. on 09:46 - Mar 24 by SaintNick |
Dirk this shows how easy it is to manipulate facts
Yes 5 different teams have won it in the last 8 years, but then again those 5 different teams are the only ones to win it in the last 17 years and only 6 different teams have won it in the last 26 years
Of those 5 teams two of them have won it just once, so the Premier League has been dominated for the last 17 years by 3 clubs.
It is time for change, let the big clubs go off to a European super league and let the rest of play in a competitive league again, if we were in the top 4 of the Premier League most who go to games would not care that there was no City, United or Liverpool |
Nick, the facts are all here. The only real difference in the Premier League era is that Liverpool aren't as dominant as they used to be in the decades before it, although in its early years Manchester United more or less took over their role. There has always been a handful of clubs who've dominated the league. The incidence of smaller, less fashionable clubs, like Leicester, Blackburn, Nottingham Forest and Ipswich breaking their stranglehold on the league title is really no less now than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions
What does it take to break that stranglehold? Either a very wealthy owner who wants to buy success, like Jack Walker or Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, or a once in a generation manager, like Alf Ramsey or Brian Clough. [Post edited 24 Mar 2021 11:54]
|  |
| |
| No, it doesn't. on 11:40 - Mar 24 with 522 views | SaintNick |
| No, it doesn't. on 11:33 - Mar 24 by dirk_doone |
Nick, the facts are all here. The only real difference in the Premier League era is that Liverpool aren't as dominant as they used to be in the decades before it, although in its early years Manchester United more or less took over their role. There has always been a handful of clubs who've dominated the league. The incidence of smaller, less fashionable clubs, like Leicester, Blackburn, Nottingham Forest and Ipswich breaking their stranglehold on the league title is really no less now than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions
What does it take to break that stranglehold? Either a very wealthy owner who wants to buy success, like Jack Walker or Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, or a once in a generation manager, like Alf Ramsey or Brian Clough. [Post edited 24 Mar 2021 11:54]
|
That wasnt my point though I was talking about how 3 teams have dominated the Premier League in the last 17 years, the Premier League isn't competitive overall, it just has more rich clubs than the other leagues who carve it up amongst themselves. | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| No, it doesn't. on 11:53 - Mar 24 with 509 views | dirk_doone |
| No, it doesn't. on 11:40 - Mar 24 by SaintNick |
That wasnt my point though I was talking about how 3 teams have dominated the Premier League in the last 17 years, the Premier League isn't competitive overall, it just has more rich clubs than the other leagues who carve it up amongst themselves. |
The only significant difference now is that Manchester United and Liverpool aren't quite as dominant as they used to be. They've got Man City, Chelsea and Leicester to contend with.
In 10 years' time, Man United and Liverpool will probably have some different contenders to see off, like they saw off the challenge from Everton, Arsenal and Leeds in earlier decades.
As I said, the facts are all here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions [Post edited 24 Mar 2021 12:03]
| |
| |
| Why Southampton's Trip To The Etihad Shows The Premier League Is Dying on 21:10 - Mar 25 with 387 views | Blue |
| Why Southampton's Trip To The Etihad Shows The Premier League Is Dying on 22:56 - Mar 23 by Butty101 |
So why did City get a big fine then? |
For failing to co-operate with a tainted, pre-judged, investigation. |  |
| Still stood in the Kippax |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
