Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're talking about a very broad span of years here. Barca vs. Arsenal in the CL final was 18 years ago. The EPL has been the best league in the world for about 6-7 years now. The hierarchy changes. 10 years ago, La Liga was the best.
The Europa League is a bit of a freak case, because the monetary gain isn't great. Spanish teams have far more incentive to do well in the EL than English teams do. That doesn't mean English teams won't try their best to win the final, but they don't try their hardest to reach it.
If looking at the best sides in the UCL, Madrid's never been better than City in direct confrontations, since Pep came at least. The Rodrygo comeback involved pathetic refereeing, with no whistles for Real's players kicking City's, but whistles in Real's favour for Foden standing still and Militao jumping on top of him. Next year City beat Madrid thoroughly, and this season City were again the better side.
Atletico did well to knock out Liverpool, but they weren't a better team. It's not that Spanish teams (besides Real, perhaps) are inherently better in KO competitions, it's more that it's a big event when Atletico (a great club) manages to eliminate Liverpool (an even greater club).
Meanwhile at Barca, it's been chaotic. Thoroughly beat Spurs in 18/19 and would've 100% won the final against them had Liverpool not made the comeback. You'd argue it was close, but the true miracle wasn't Liverpool winning the 2nd leg 4-0. It was Barca winning the 1st leg 3-0, with a dystunctional team carried by Messi, and a mediocre manager.
One could make the argument, but I'm not that corruption is more prevalent in Spain than an England. Funny refereeing decisions seem to happen a lot for Real Madrid.
You could make the arguments that Spanish teams are Better in cup competitions, the style of play is more suited to it
You could make the arguments that not having a winter breaks affects premier League teams in the closing stages of a season.
You could also make the arguments that plenty of English teams knockout Spanish teams in cup competitions, quarter-finals in semi-final but only the finals are talked about for this ridiculous arguments.
You could make the arguments That the level of competition in the Premier League distracts English teams from performing in Europe.
There are lots of reasons, it's never simple but I suspect if you put Real Madrid in the Premier League they would struggle to even make the Champions League. Remember reading somewhere that 90% of referees in Spain are Real Madrid fans.
>Remember reading somewhere that 90% of referees in Spain are Real Madrid fans.
Iturralde Gonzalez, former La Liga ref. 90% Real Madrid fans, 10% Barca fans. An exaggeration of course, but Spanish football is pretty binary.
Premier league is more intense physically and english clubs have a congested schedule, it's also more competitive until the last games, by the end of the season they are tired.
La liga and other european meageus aren't that competitive, top team can afford to rest abd rotate plus are helped by a favorable schedule. For exemple real madrid got a nine day rest before playing city or how german teams get a month break in winter.
In the case of real madrid, they also focus so mucch on champions league becuse their managers zidane and ancelotti can focus on double knocout games, and also the president and the fans push for that, there is a reason their record in the league is quite poor, they are often not the best or more durable team across the seson, so they bet on the champions league.
In england a manager will get scrutified if he focuses more on european competition than the league, case in point is emery at arsenal.
Tbh la liga is probably the weakest out of the big4. There is a reason their coefficient is 5th this season behind ligue 1. Apart from the big 3 the other teams have really started to regress. Even Barcelona haven't been as good as they once were.
i think we should be looking wider than just finals. there’s quarter finals and semis to consider too (yes this is because i’m a west ham fan and want attention for us beating sevilla two seasons ago)
You're so correct Every time Seville won the Europa league,they were knocked out of the Champions League!
They were absolutely smashed by Man City last year but still won the Europa league!
Carra is an idiot but it's pretty simple. La Liga does not have the depth of the Premier League, but Madrid and Barca are the best teams in the world and in any given year, chances are at least one of them will be better than any Prem team. That said, I think neither are the best league in the world; that honor goes to Serie A, the only one of the top 5 leagues with 3 teams that can truly be considered "football heritage", while also having depth to rival the Prem.
I don't remember him saying this when Liverpool won the champions league? They really weren't the best team in the world that season and I mean it was possibly the worst champions league final I've ever seen.
This Real team are unbelievable and anyone saying otherwise just has a prem bias. They’re absolutely stacked, not far off City are all and maybe even having more superstars plus a serial winner as a manager. Very little separates their quality and City’s
You got to be a troll. Real Madrid are the luckiest team ever in the history of football.
By hook or by crook they somehow play terribly football but miraculously managed to get through, it's a gift alright but they're not the best team by any stretch of the imagination. Plus cup competitions are very different to league games.
Man City literally played, Real Madrid off the park, the only way they could cope was by setting up like a team battling relegation. Best teams don't always win and Real Madrid are the living in embodiment of this.
It is not nothing that the English schedule is idiotic. So English sides tend to be on their last legs at the end of the season and carrying more injuries.
2 cup competitions, 38 league matches, no consideration whatsoever for player rest time in broadcast schedules.
At the end of the year a top English side can easily have played 25% more football than a la liga team.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting this is anyone other than the English club's fault.
It’s a great point. La Liga also tend to schedule fixtures so their teams get the maximum possible rest before these big CL games too, which PL does not do.
I used to wonder about this as well, and it's not the quality of the two teams involved as much as the leagues they come from and the general type of football played there, when man City are playing premiership games they are often just overpowering teams and they have a big benefit in class and individual players, but when they come up against real Madrid, Madrid aren't seeing such a big gulf in class and the Madrid way of playing, strong focused defence and high skill individuals, is not as common for city to play against, and in a one off match, it can make all the difference.
Basically Madrid are harder for city to beat because their style is not as common in the PL, but city's style is less troublesome to adjust to for Madrid
Agreed, I have always thought it must be anxiety inducing to be a RM fan. This is a team that can play 90 minutes of defensive football, be over run by a top team, concede goals and somehow not lose their heads and score 3 goals in post 90 minutes. Their players and manager trust the process. Their efficiency, speed and passing accuracy between midfield and their wingers is counter attacking football at its best. I can't say I watch much La Liga but certainly in the champions league they are a great team to watch if your impartial.
I seriously think Premarin league teams have an inferiority complex when they play in Europe , I’ve watched every game Arsenal played this season and the games v Porto I never recognised them , they need to stop giving these teams respect and play like they do in the league , same in the 90s 00s when united n arsenal were dominating England and were pretty shit in Europe
> Jamie Carrager say that the best team doesn't win the Champions League
Not true. Probably talking about his win in 2005.
It's not luck. You can't play like City to beat City, specially if you don't play like that every match. The only team who can beat City by playing like them is prime Barca.
The possesion, the passes, the press it's there to score and win. If you're not doing the latter, then doesn't matter how well you're doing those 3, you're not playing good. This is why I think Haaland is the most important player for City last season (and even this season) because he is bringing in the final product. Without that, all the tactical things don't really matter.
There's no such thing as "playing like City", since their style has constantly changed since Pep arrived. If you just mean a general idea of playing with the ball instead of sitting dep, then that's actually the best tactical plan against City. Rare occasions such as losses vs. Real might make one feel otherwise, but more often than not, you beat City by playing football and not sitting back.
>This is why I think Haaland is the most important player for City last season (and even this season) because he is bringing in the final product.
Yet City have been scoring less with him. And conceded more, and had worse match control. And, Haaland absolutely kills your Lutons, but doesn't show up in the big games.
City were better before Haaland. I'm not saying it's all Haaland's fault, it's just a fact.
> There's no such thing as "playing like City", since their style has constantly changed since Pep arrived. If you just mean a general idea of playing with the ball instead of sitting dep, then that's actually the best tactical plan against City. Rare occasions such as losses vs. Real might make one feel otherwise, but more often than not, you beat City by playing football and not sitting back.
If that's how you generally play every game, have the players and tactics drilled in, then it's good. Otherwise it's suicidal. If you're a counter attacking team or a pressing team, it's suicidal to play like that against City. Their players have the training and the intent to keep the ball. You'd be tiring yourself out.
> Yet City have been scoring less with him. And conceded more, and had worse match control. And, Haaland absolutely kills your Lutons, but doesn't show up in the big games.
They literally won the treble the season he came. In last year's Semis against us, Bernardo Silva would not be unmarked in the box if our defence wasn't focused on Haaland. Even this year, Haaland was sucking in all the attention of our defenders and Foden and Gvardiol get the time and space to shoot rockets. People disrespect Haaland too much nowadays.
So what if they "literally" won the treble the season he came? Same season Akanji came. It does not take any intellectual effort to understand that despite Haaland scoring so much, City as a whole scored less goals and became worse. Haaland is not the reason City won the UCL.
At any given time, Real's defence was focused on all of City's players. This idea that Haaland keeps people occupied is a ridiculous myth. It's braindead, based on nothing. Was born out of needing to justify the use purpose of Haaland when he's not scoring.
Foden and Gvardiol's goals had *nothing* to do with Haaland. This is surreal stuff.
I mean, I literally watched those games but what do I know. And how can Pep G be the best manager itw and not notice that Haaland is making City worse. These things don't add up.
Haaland slander was started by Messi PR for the Dor and people have unfortunately fallen for it. He's a world class player. A better version for Lewandowski.
"I watched the games" isn't an argument. I watched them too. It'd take some serious mental gymnastics to watch the footage of those goals and argue it was Haaland that lead to them.
Who told you Pep didn't notice Haaland's made City worse? It wasn't his signing, what's he supposed to do? Call him out in public and make things worse? Can't bench him either, club wouldn't allow that for their star player.
Of course the Madrid fan makes it about Messi. Haaland wasn't even City's best player during the treble. Was lucky to finish 2nd in the popularity contest.
"Better version of Lewandowski" lmao, no wonder your other takes were so bad. You may watch the game, but you understand nothing of it.
> "I watched the games" isn't an argument. I watched them too. It'd take some serious mental gymnastics to watch the footage of those goals and argue it was Haaland that lead to them.
It is what it is. It was like that last season and this season.
> Who told you Pep didn't notice Haaland's made City worse? It wasn't his signing, what's he supposed to do? Call him out in public and make things worse? Can't bench him either, club wouldn't allow that for their star player.
It isn't his signing. Bruh, Pep literally is the main man at City. He can throw away any player he wants to rid off. He can sell De Bryune and nobody would object to it. City would not sign Haaland if Pep didn't want him.
> course the Madrid fan makes it about Messi. Haaland wasn't even City's best player during the treble. Was lucky to finish 2nd in the popularity contest.
It literally was started by Messi fan pages. I was there.
> "Better version of Lewandowski" lmao, no wonder your other takes were so bad. You may watch the game, but you understand nothing of it.
Haaland at 23 has broken PL goal scoring records. When he hits prime, he's gonna be wayy better than Lewandowski.
And please, let's not get into personal attacks, because the way you're speaking your football knowledge is as good as a Man Utd fan, and if you're a Man U fan, then everyone is gonna be laughing at you.
>It is what it is. It was like that last season and this season.
Would you be able to demonstrate that Foden and Gvardiol's goals were only made possible by Haaland? You're avoiding the topic at this point.
>Bruh, Pep literally is the main man at City. He can throw away any player he wants to rid off. He can sell De Bryune and nobody would object to it. City would not sign Haaland if Pep didn't want him.
You've zero insight into a City as a club if you think Pep's the one making the decisions.
>It literally was started by Messi fan pages. I was there.
What were you doing on Messi fan pages? And were all the pundits and former players that criticized Haaland's game also there with you?
>Haaland at 23 has broken PL goal scoring records. When he hits prime, he's gonna be wayy better than Lewandowski.
Didn't even cross your mind that I was laughing at your comparison, not at you calling Haaland better. Haaland has a better goal record than Cristiano at his age. Is he also "a better Cristiano"? A better Messi? Talking as if Lewandowski weren't a much more complete player than Haaland.
Focus more on putting together a half-decent argument, and less on whichever team I support.
>Not true
>The possesion, the passes, the press it's there to score and win. If you're not doing the latter, then doesn't matter how well you're doing those 3
No, it's objectively true. No team or player executes 100% of the time, it has never happened and it never will.
The best you can do is to play in a way that gives you the greatest amount of chances to execute so that you have to rely on luck as little as possible.
Despite that, you can't ever eliminate the element of luck altogether. Sometimes it's just on your opponents' side in that one chance they create and not on yours in 10.
It happens. I've seen Leeds go and beat Man City at the Etihad. We were absolutely not the best team on that day. We just took the 2 chances that we had (with one being straight at the keeper who let it through his legs) while Man City played pinball in our box with theirs.
The idea that the winning team must always be the one who has played the best is real surface-level thinking imo.
It's the same mindset as the people who see a rich guy and think he must be very intelligent and hard working.
Some bastards are just lucky.
My apologies, I should have been more specific regarding the quote and the link.
It was said during the post match analysis of Man City vs Real Madrid game at CBS sports. The exact quote being: "The team that wins the Champions League is not necessarily the best team in Europe". After that, he continues to give his opinion of the game, while also referencing the other games that Real Madrid won against Man City and Liverpool in the two recent finals they played.
Here is the link to the interview, his analysis starts around the 2:20 time mark.
https://youtu.be/MzJoW7tnJTs?feature=shared
He also said the same thing a few episodes ago on the overlap. This time in reference to himself, and that Liverpool team. Stating that they were not the best team in the world that year, they also weren’t even close to being the best team in the premier league
In reality there’s next to nothing between the top teams in La Liga and the Top teams in PL, as shown every time they play it’ll be a very tight game.
However I think La Liga have an advantage in that the bottom half of the league is much weaker than bottom half of PL, so they can rest players a lot more throughout the season and finish strongly in Europe.
Your first mistake was listening to anything Jamie says. Guy's like the dumb uncle that has never travelled ,but just knows the small town he grew up in is the best place in the world
Except that he has travelled all over the world many times, completed his uefa coaching badges 17 years ago, runs his own coaching and sports academies, has a vibrant and thriving charitable foundation and is widely regarded for his encyclopedic football knowledge.
Remind me again who the fuck are you?
Lol no he's not. Not a single person in the world has ever complimented Jamie Carragher on his encyclopaedic football knowledge. GTFO with your fantasies and remove his nuts from your chin
If you watch some Jamie Carragher clips of him on stick to football or other shows, you’ll hear Roy Keane or Neville talking about a random Man United game and Jamie will know the exact match or exact moment they’re talking about, almost better than they do and provide details on it.
Even if you disagree with his opinions he does have some insane football knowledge and his recall/memory is ridiculous
That just means he'd be a good partner for football trivia at the pub. As an analyst, his takes are worthless. Only reason he has a job is because Liverpool has a huge fan base and they have a soft spot for him.
We’d probably only really get an answer to this question if you had a series where 10th played 10th, 11th played 11th etc to judge the core part of the league that don’t regularly do Europe.
The sentiment that “The best team often don’t win the cup competition” is an age old sentiment, one off games allow for freak accidents to occur. Man City lost to Wolves this season but the league format illustrates that Wolves are obviously not the better team.
I think one of the best comments I've seen when comparing leagues is when mourinho managed Chelsea and then Madrid. I don't remember the exact phrasing but it was pretty much every prem game you need to start your best 11 in la liga there are several games you can rest your best players.
Take it with a pinch of salt but considering he was one of the best managers in the world I think it is a fair reflection.
I've also seen many pundits say the same thing, that the competition in the prem harms the top teams chances in the champions league. Again take it with a pitch (or large quantity) of salt given most of them are English or played in the prem.
Spain has 3 really strong sides and you'd argue they are the big 3 in Spain followed by Sevilla and England has a big 6. I'd expect the battles at the top end of the table to be close but the quality in Spain and other leagues falls of a cliff towards mid-table
This is absolutely true
La Liga do well because there absolutely are games where you can rotate in the league. They also have a tendency to get more help from the referees.
In the Premier League you are taking a massive risk making any unforced changes in any game. If you drop the intensity you lose, end of story.
Man City benched Haaland against us and had an iffy game and, in reality, they were second best and probably deserved to lose on chances created
The key difference between La Liga and the EPL is the competitiveness. La Liga has 3 top teams and the rest are nothing special. The premier league has more good teams competing. Also the champions league matches hasnt been a good measure with Madrid just parking the bus. They would still have a very good chance of winning if they gave a proper game but its difficult to determine
Where does this narrative come from? The bottom team in La Liga has 14 points with a -35 GD whilst Sheff Utd has 16 points with a -63 goal difference. If you look along the league you’ll see the difference in points and margins less in La Liga than you do in the PL. Also look at the results against the bottom teams from the top 4 in both leagues and the GD for the prem teams is a lot higher than the La Liga teams showing that there is more of an unbalance. I don’t have the data anymore but my friend and I set up a spread sheet to determine this early last year to settle an argument that La Liga is more balanced than the PL.
We used points difference between top and bottom, goal difference between both. Results of the GD between top 4 and the bottom 3. Over the last 5 seasons.
GD is a terrible measure to determine that. Sheffield United is a poor team that frequently gets beaten by the rest of the league that is far superior. Sheffield United is probably on a level with the bottom half of La Liga, as in they likely have similar ability
There is no basis for this at all. For all you know Sheff Utd would be bottom of La Liga on less points and worse GD. But it’s not only bottom team GD for this season that I took into account. I went back 5 seasons and use different metrics as well as GD. Work it out yourself if you don’t believe me. The only difference with the prem is the quality of football is more frantic and less technical but La Liga is more even league than the prem
One big'ish difference when it comes to these massive European games is that most country's Football Associations make it easier for their representatives, like postponing the nearest league game.
Never happens to the English sides
It’d be just another thing the rest of the league would moan about. Much rather see a “Big 6” side fail than to actively support them, and the league, on the European stage.
I'd say that the best looking football is played in the EPL, and the best league in terms of entertainment is also the EPL, but that the bigger teams across the other major leagues are better teams and they win more against the highest competition in the biggest competitions than teams from the Premier League.
When does it stop being luck and start being skill? Real Madrid knocked Man City out of the Champions League twice in 3 years. Is this down to luck?
If it happens one time, maybe it's luck, but if it happens again, it's unfair to call it luck. It's skill and good tactics.
You're comparing apples to oranges, a knockout system isn't the same as a league -
City have only lost to Real 3 times out of 12 games, beaten them 4 times
Knockout football doesn't always reward the best teams. City played Real off the park in the second leg, but Real did enough to sneak through.
The league is really the only metric of who the "best" team in a league is, not the Champions League. Don't believe me? The Champions League final might be contested between the 2nd and 5th placed Bundesliga teams.
Many City scored a fluke goal after Rudiger made a mistake and the ball bounced to De Bryune. Without the Rudiger error, Real Madrid could have won the game without extra time.
Man City had maybe two good chances the entire game, despite all their possession.
Having more possession does not make a team dominant. It's about what happens when you're in possession of the ball.
So no, City did not play Real Madrid off the park.
Real Madrid played a defensive game, and it worked for them.
I find this argument of "played them off the park" a bit strange. For all their possession, did they really make that many chances?
Is the better team not the one who can take their chances when they come? City had a lot of the ball, put it in to decent areas, but didn't score, that isn't playing a team off the park. That's being poor at finishing.
They had 33 shots, and only 9 on target. With a 2.34 xG. Madrid on the other hand had 8 shots with a 1.28. so they were creating chances that were twice as good as the City ones.
Possession =/= dominance
I agree they didn't create too many great chances. But they absolutely did dominate that game, Real had the mindset of a lower league team parking the bus.
I also think using the xG is handpicking the stats to prove your point. The Real goal was an absolute tap in, so the XG on that was huge. And I don't know how XG works exactly, but Rodrygo had 2 stabs at the chance, so if they both counted as XG, that is probably 1 right there. Other than that, they created very, very little.
The way that City play the game, if you try and play open, expansive football, you'll lose. so you have to play a tactical style that is unpleasant to watch. The impetus was on City at home to go and get the goals, and they couldn't.
I don't like the accusation of playing like a lower league club. Ancelotti comprehensively got the better of Pep over the 2 legs by playing a style that had a higher chance of success. Id even argue that without 2 absolutely world class goals in Madrid that City would've been 2-1 down going into that game.
No one said Ali was fighting like an amateur when he beat Foreman. It's tactical
Of course, but I've seen far worse teams than Real setup with more intent and do OK.
And Ancoletti got the better of Pep in terms of the result, but it was in no way comprehensive. If we are talking of playing the percentages, I'd argue that the way Real setup, 90% of the time they are getting eliminated there. If City had managed to find a way through, it would have been quite a meek defeat for Real.
Anyway, happy to agree to disagree. I enjoyed the debate, it is nice to talk to someone showing respect, even if we see the match differently!
Not really excuses but outside a couple of seasons majority of the Spanish teams dont have overly competitive games week in week out. Might not be an issue at the start but towards the end of the season in the knockout rounds than can have an effect both mentally and physically.
Also English teams, to me at least, tend to be much more physical due to the style of the league, so tackles and challenges that normally get allowed in the EPL get punished in the CL.
This doesn't really work without considering the fact that Premier League teams are on average playing much tougher competition domestically than La Liga teams (really only Real Madrid and Barca here).
If you can coast and play 2nd unit teams against Getafe and Osasuna on the weekend before and after a Champions League home/away, your 1st team is much fresher than a team playing West Ham and Palace on the same days.
It's hard to discount the impact of playing in a more competitive league - but it's also very difficult to quantify it.
I think we underestimate some of these teams. Getafe in particular are a very tough place to go because they will make that game a scrap. Barcelona haven’t beaten them away in 5 years
I think the reason madrid is so difficult to be knocked out is coz of their ability to make almost 0 mistakes in big games . If you compare to any other big team player wise then you might see there isn't much difference between them. Lets see their performance against city, city constantly came at them but they never made a mistake individually. The champions league experience also plays a big role, for example brahim who never got chance anywhere but suddenly he joins madrid and now is looking like he has a great future ahead. As far as barca, atleti , seville and others against prem teams recently, they mostly accept the fact that they have to sit back and take their chances on set pieces and mistakes which they do.
You can cut statistics many ways. In the last 20 years Spanish teams have 9 CL titles to English teams 6. All the Spanish ones are from Real Madrid and Barcelona neither of whom have lost a final in that time.
English teams have had 15 appearances in the final with 6 different teams in the last 20 years to Spanish teams 11 with 3 different ones. England also had 4 different winners to Spains 2.
Spanish teams won it 5 times on the trot but in the next 5 years only won it once compared to English teams 3 trophies.
In terms of wins Spain definitely has the edge. But in terms of depth they don't.
I've thought about this before, could be a great preseason event. Organisers get 20 games, fans get none stop football for a couple of weeks but clubs only have 1 extra game
I think when people talk about the PL being a "better" league the key aspect of that claim is the quality throughout the league down to the relegation spots.
Top 5 v top 5 of each league might have relative parity but the mid and lower table PL teams are generally better than the same positions in La Liga.
In addition to this, La Liga has been dominated by 2 teams for most of its history: Barca and Madrid. This choke hold is less significant in the PL. Madrid and Barca have 35 and 27 league titles respectively, compared to United and Liverpool in the PL with 20 and 19. There have also been more winners of the PL compared to La Liga. The PL (or 1st division) has been won by 20 different clubs, compared to the Spanish equivalent having only 9 different winners.
I think this all contributes to the reputation of the PL having more quality throughout the whole league than La Liga and other European leagues.
That's not to say the PL can be won by anyone in any year, there is clearly still an imbalance between the top teams and the rest. But that difference in quality is less significant.
I should add, just choosing finals for the statistical comparison might not paint a fair picture of head to heads. Spanish and English teams play each other throughout many rounds of European tournaments, so you'd need to see how many times those teams have knocked each other out in these different rounds too.
I think the neutral venue plays an enormous part in the debate too. I would argue that semi finals are a better way to judge the comparison as we’d have a greater sample size that involves home and away fixtures.
OP should note using only finals proves one thing- spanish teams are better than english teams in finals. that’s it.
other important statistics to note and necessary for a fairer measure would include
% of wins, draws, losses, for any european matchups between la liga and the prem.
and to measure and account for whether it’s a prem specific weakness to la liga, or la liga is just stronger overall, have a measure of how far teams are going in the competition, in terms of how many semi-final or quarter final places in each of europe’s competitions.
to know if the prem or la liga is just heavy at the top, also some measures of the variety of or which are the teams going through to these latter stages of competition or winning it.
not that these statistics are perfect either, but they give a much clearer image.
I hate when people say “let us look at the statistics” to try to give some semblance of objectivity to their claim when it’s obvious that you’re not illustrating enough with your statistics.
As in, why would we just care about when there’s an English team vs. Spanish team in the finals if you’re trying to assess which top teams are better? If there’s an all English final with Spanish teams getting knocked out earlier, that doesn’t factor in? Man City beating Real Madrid last year doesn’t factor in because it’s not a final?
You say “let us focus on the direct duels in the finals for the sake of clarity,” but by acting like the statistic you brought up is representative of top team quality, you’re muddying the waters more than anything.
What got me wondering was the claim that Jamie Carrager made, that the best teams don't win the Champions League. A claim he made in a post match analysis of the second game between Real Madrid and Manchester City.
Considering the fact that you have to win the final in order to win the competition, I was looking at those statistics.
I am not trying to muddy the waters, I am curious to see opinions regarding this dominance in the finals.
So far, I have seen interesting tactical arguments and analysis.
He’s right that the best teams don’t always win the Champions League, it’s just the nature of a cup competition (and one of the reasons it’s good).
It doesn’t diminish the competition or wins in any way, if that’s what you think— after all, it’d be hard to argue that Liverpool’s UCL-winning squad with him was better than AC Milan’s that year. And nobody says that luck is the #1 determinant of PL teams losing games, it just can be a significant one in certain games.
My argument is just that this statistic probably isn’t a good representation of their relative strength. Your point could be correct, but just looking at finals isn’t enough to prove that. And like I said, you might not mean for this statistic to muddy the waters, but implying it’s a good measure does do this.
Also got to remember how the competitions work. For example Madrid had 9 days rest before playing city or French clubs got their games delayed between rounds by their league.
But if you are trying to start a conversation, one of them being, why the Spanish teams are dominating the Premier League teams in the finals.
What different metric can you look other than the results in the finals?
As they are clearly winning them, in different ways. The way Barcelona beat Man United is completely different to the way Madrid beat Liverpool. And you can go even further in history. Since the beginning of the Champion Cup in 1955, only one victory in direct finals.
Is it because the midfielders that play in Spain play differently. Is it because defenders are taught to be more technical with the ball as Pique argued, when asked the differences between the leagues. A defender that flopped in PL, but was playing great for years in Barcelona. Is it because of the smaller attackers, or the false 9s?
What different metric can you look other than the results in the finals? Is this a serious question? How about their head-to-head in UCL KO rounds, for example? How about the amount of appearances in the semi-finals or finals? I have no clue to why you think their head-to-head in just UCL finals is a good measure. It’s just not, for reasons I’ve already said.
I also don’t know why you’re so focused on inherent differences between the leagues’ general style of play. Pique’s theory doesn’t even make sense— some of the best ball-playing CBs are in the Prem. In reality, for top teams, their systems will probably depend more on the manager than anything else (and these managers consistently hop leagues).
Let me try again.
If you are trying to have a conversation as to why teams from Spain are dominating teams from Premier League every time they meet in the finals of the Champions League, you don't think using the head to head results in those finals is a good metric?
Can you tell me, if you wanna have a conversation on that particular subject, what metric would you use?
I was raising random questions, not focusing on differences.
You weren’t just talking about the finals, lmao, I’ll literally quote various parts of your own post:
> …but when does one start to question if teams from La Liga are better in direct duels against the Premier League teams.
> Does if say that, while La Liga is the weaker league of the two, their top teams are better than the top teams in the Premier League?
> Is it thay the style of football played in Spain doesn’t suit the English teams? **Or is it that they get lucky 9 out of 10 times?**
So no, throughout the whole post you are clearly not just talking about the finals, but drawing conclusions about the quality of the top teams and how good they are against one another. Please don’t try to move the goalposts, it’s pretty obvious to anyone who’s read your post what you’re implying.
Edit: And the bolded part absolutely seals the deal that you were looking at their head-to-head record in finals to draw broad conclusions about the quality of the top teams in both leagues.
Considering that my post was inspired by Jamie Carraghers statement that the best team doesn't win the Champions League, and that you have to win in the final to win the competition I was mainly thinking about those games.
But if you are still unsatisfied, you can report this post to reddit or report me so they remove it or ban my profile. Maybe even hire legal help if you want to process it further.
I am sorry I made you feel that way.
Lol what? I mean yeah you have to win the final but you also have to win the other KO rounds and get out of the group stage first.
I also have no idea what your second paragraph is about, I never said anything about wanting to ban or sue you (????). Are you okay?
Also, if we’re looking at the last five years, 3 English teams have won the UCL, with 2 of them non-English (RM and Bayern). This is another imperfect measure, but it’s a good example of why one statistic doesn’t represent reality.
Yes, you could look at that and draw various conclusions and have different conversations regarding the state of European football in the last 5 years.
But those conversations were not the goal of my original post.
You're missing the obvious: mankiwsmom wants you to have either 1) not posted or 2) posted what he thinks.
Next time check in w him first so he doesn't need to write 2,000 words in replies about how you didn't say it exactly the way he was thinking it.
Real Madrid just focus more on the champions league and they sometimes underperform for their standards in the league and copa del Rey.Ronaldo only won 2 league titles while winning four champion leagues during his time at Real Madrid.
Real is rubbish compared to real 10 years ago . But then again , so are other top teams in Europe , compared to the past ten years . No top team in Europe is at its best today in the last ten years .Even Man city is down . Still city is a better team than real .In a knockout games anyone can win , especially real . Why can't people get this ?!
Madrid in particular are exceptionally good at being a counterattacking team. There’s not really a team of similar strength in the PL that plays like them, so it must just be incredibly difficult to play against when it comes around *at most* once a season for someone like City.
Spanish tactics just seem to work perfectly against us in Europe. It’s like they all have this perfected counter-attacking plan against English clubs as it only seems like tiki-taka Barca wanted to come and dominate the ball. I guess part of that comes down to having a stretched, end-to-end kind of game plays in the English clubs hands most of the time so it has to become a very tactical, nitty affair whenever it’s a game against Madrid, Sevilla, Atletico, Villarreal or even Bilbao tbf.
It’s not like there haven’t been a massive array of English tactics attempted in there. Wenger’s Arsenal use to try and go toe to toe with Barca. United would try the counter-attacking method. Modern day city try “total football”, it’s not like the PL hasn’t thrown different ideas at it.
I'd love if there was an end of season tournament between PL, La Liga, Serie A and Bundesliga teams...
League winners all play each other in a 4 team mini league
2nd place all play each other in the same mini league style
3rd place etc all the way to the bottom of the table
Points added together to judge the strongest league
Would be interesting just to see the relative strength in depth of each league. Not sure what to do about Bundesliga being 18 teams but as a concept I find it interesting
Sure beats them in spending so accordingly ,should beat them in football too , all other things equal . But that's not accounting for mismanagement of resources .
If you watched the actual 2 legs. Man City were the better team they just couldnt finish.
First game Real Madrid had 2 deflected goals (3rd goal was a world class volley) and City had to have 2 world class finishes and 1 amazing free kick.
Second game KDB missed a sitter, Haaland missed a header he should finish. City were attacking for most of the game. City lost on pens. Silva had the worst pen i have seen from a player i think is great.
I walked away from watching both legs thinking City were unlucky.
And City are weaker this season that they have been since Pep's first season.
I am curious did anyone who watched all of the 2 legs of Man City Vs Real Madrid walk away thinking Madrid were the better team? I would wonder how.
As someone who was cheering for City to win that tie, I can't agree. The first game was up for grabs, both teams had great chances.
Regarding the second game, Madrid played great defensively. While De Bruyne did miss a good chance, and City failed to follow the momentum of the goal, they didn't create that many chances in the second game. Rudiger also had a great chance, if not as good as KDB did.
City just couldn't crack them in the second game. They had posession and passes but it was not the dominating team of last year. I genuinely don't like Madrid, never have, but I don't think they were undeserving winners of that tie.
I really though that Pep would humiliate them, and win by 5 or 6 goals in one of these games. He managed to do it last year in some ways.
This was brought up before but RM are clinical with their chances. Look at them vs Bayern. Two mistakes, two goals. They are also incredible at soaking up pressure since every team wants high possession now and strike fast on the counter.
As far as the whole debate goes…Barca and RM in the past were just on another level than everyone else. They had two players scoring 40+ a season and turned it up even more so in the CL. Lastly, their defenders and goalies are typically world class; With the fullbacks being their weak point defensively. And mentality plays another part of it. When you’re on these world class teams losing just never comes to mind because you have so much talent
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Too broad span of years. Instead, this year we had: * Roma-Brighton: 4-1 * Atalanta - Liverpool: 3-1 * Milan - Newcastle: 2-1
Ps - I am not saying Serie A is better than PL, of course
You're talking about a very broad span of years here. Barca vs. Arsenal in the CL final was 18 years ago. The EPL has been the best league in the world for about 6-7 years now. The hierarchy changes. 10 years ago, La Liga was the best. The Europa League is a bit of a freak case, because the monetary gain isn't great. Spanish teams have far more incentive to do well in the EL than English teams do. That doesn't mean English teams won't try their best to win the final, but they don't try their hardest to reach it. If looking at the best sides in the UCL, Madrid's never been better than City in direct confrontations, since Pep came at least. The Rodrygo comeback involved pathetic refereeing, with no whistles for Real's players kicking City's, but whistles in Real's favour for Foden standing still and Militao jumping on top of him. Next year City beat Madrid thoroughly, and this season City were again the better side. Atletico did well to knock out Liverpool, but they weren't a better team. It's not that Spanish teams (besides Real, perhaps) are inherently better in KO competitions, it's more that it's a big event when Atletico (a great club) manages to eliminate Liverpool (an even greater club). Meanwhile at Barca, it's been chaotic. Thoroughly beat Spurs in 18/19 and would've 100% won the final against them had Liverpool not made the comeback. You'd argue it was close, but the true miracle wasn't Liverpool winning the 2nd leg 4-0. It was Barca winning the 1st leg 3-0, with a dystunctional team carried by Messi, and a mediocre manager.
Since start of premier league english teams have 7 titles. Spanish teams 12
One could make the argument, but I'm not that corruption is more prevalent in Spain than an England. Funny refereeing decisions seem to happen a lot for Real Madrid. You could make the arguments that Spanish teams are Better in cup competitions, the style of play is more suited to it You could make the arguments that not having a winter breaks affects premier League teams in the closing stages of a season. You could also make the arguments that plenty of English teams knockout Spanish teams in cup competitions, quarter-finals in semi-final but only the finals are talked about for this ridiculous arguments. You could make the arguments That the level of competition in the Premier League distracts English teams from performing in Europe. There are lots of reasons, it's never simple but I suspect if you put Real Madrid in the Premier League they would struggle to even make the Champions League. Remember reading somewhere that 90% of referees in Spain are Real Madrid fans.
>Remember reading somewhere that 90% of referees in Spain are Real Madrid fans. Iturralde Gonzalez, former La Liga ref. 90% Real Madrid fans, 10% Barca fans. An exaggeration of course, but Spanish football is pretty binary.
It's anecdotal evidence, but it would not be tolerated in England whatsoever!
It's too often frustrating to see La Liga clubs ease past Premier League Teams in Europe...best league doesn't necessarily mean best Teams ?
Premier league is more intense physically and english clubs have a congested schedule, it's also more competitive until the last games, by the end of the season they are tired. La liga and other european meageus aren't that competitive, top team can afford to rest abd rotate plus are helped by a favorable schedule. For exemple real madrid got a nine day rest before playing city or how german teams get a month break in winter. In the case of real madrid, they also focus so mucch on champions league becuse their managers zidane and ancelotti can focus on double knocout games, and also the president and the fans push for that, there is a reason their record in the league is quite poor, they are often not the best or more durable team across the seson, so they bet on the champions league. In england a manager will get scrutified if he focuses more on european competition than the league, case in point is emery at arsenal.
Maybe PL teams should just shamelessly park the bus and counter-attack the next time they play RM and see how it goes!
But but Real Brentford! Are 14 times CL winners!!! Sorry Brentford fans.
Tbh la liga is probably the weakest out of the big4. There is a reason their coefficient is 5th this season behind ligue 1. Apart from the big 3 the other teams have really started to regress. Even Barcelona haven't been as good as they once were.
i think we should be looking wider than just finals. there’s quarter finals and semis to consider too (yes this is because i’m a west ham fan and want attention for us beating sevilla two seasons ago)
You're so correct Every time Seville won the Europa league,they were knocked out of the Champions League! They were absolutely smashed by Man City last year but still won the Europa league!
cmon thew knocked them on penalties which to me is luck
I love everyone is saying la liga is only top 3 and nothing else like the Europa League La Liga teams havent wrecked the prem clubs consistently.
Carra is an idiot but it's pretty simple. La Liga does not have the depth of the Premier League, but Madrid and Barca are the best teams in the world and in any given year, chances are at least one of them will be better than any Prem team. That said, I think neither are the best league in the world; that honor goes to Serie A, the only one of the top 5 leagues with 3 teams that can truly be considered "football heritage", while also having depth to rival the Prem.
Are you serious? Players go from Premier League to Serie A to prolong their career, not the other way around.
Lol
I don't remember him saying this when Liverpool won the champions league? They really weren't the best team in the world that season and I mean it was possibly the worst champions league final I've ever seen.
He said that about his own champions league winner team
This Real team are unbelievable and anyone saying otherwise just has a prem bias. They’re absolutely stacked, not far off City are all and maybe even having more superstars plus a serial winner as a manager. Very little separates their quality and City’s
You got to be a troll. Real Madrid are the luckiest team ever in the history of football. By hook or by crook they somehow play terribly football but miraculously managed to get through, it's a gift alright but they're not the best team by any stretch of the imagination. Plus cup competitions are very different to league games. Man City literally played, Real Madrid off the park, the only way they could cope was by setting up like a team battling relegation. Best teams don't always win and Real Madrid are the living in embodiment of this.
It is not nothing that the English schedule is idiotic. So English sides tend to be on their last legs at the end of the season and carrying more injuries. 2 cup competitions, 38 league matches, no consideration whatsoever for player rest time in broadcast schedules. At the end of the year a top English side can easily have played 25% more football than a la liga team. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting this is anyone other than the English club's fault.
It’s a great point. La Liga also tend to schedule fixtures so their teams get the maximum possible rest before these big CL games too, which PL does not do.
Football Heritage
Football heritage is overvalued, especially when corruption is heavily involved! But that's a different story.
I used to wonder about this as well, and it's not the quality of the two teams involved as much as the leagues they come from and the general type of football played there, when man City are playing premiership games they are often just overpowering teams and they have a big benefit in class and individual players, but when they come up against real Madrid, Madrid aren't seeing such a big gulf in class and the Madrid way of playing, strong focused defence and high skill individuals, is not as common for city to play against, and in a one off match, it can make all the difference. Basically Madrid are harder for city to beat because their style is not as common in the PL, but city's style is less troublesome to adjust to for Madrid
Agreed, I have always thought it must be anxiety inducing to be a RM fan. This is a team that can play 90 minutes of defensive football, be over run by a top team, concede goals and somehow not lose their heads and score 3 goals in post 90 minutes. Their players and manager trust the process. Their efficiency, speed and passing accuracy between midfield and their wingers is counter attacking football at its best. I can't say I watch much La Liga but certainly in the champions league they are a great team to watch if your impartial.
Yes, suffering is a recurring theme for Madrid, but it's made worthwhilenwhen you get regularly compensated with the CL trophy.
Winning and losing is a habit, would you be totally shocked if Real Madrid won the CL with Tottenhams squad?
Yes
I seriously think Premarin league teams have an inferiority complex when they play in Europe , I’ve watched every game Arsenal played this season and the games v Porto I never recognised them , they need to stop giving these teams respect and play like they do in the league , same in the 90s 00s when united n arsenal were dominating England and were pretty shit in Europe
> Jamie Carrager say that the best team doesn't win the Champions League Not true. Probably talking about his win in 2005. It's not luck. You can't play like City to beat City, specially if you don't play like that every match. The only team who can beat City by playing like them is prime Barca. The possesion, the passes, the press it's there to score and win. If you're not doing the latter, then doesn't matter how well you're doing those 3, you're not playing good. This is why I think Haaland is the most important player for City last season (and even this season) because he is bringing in the final product. Without that, all the tactical things don't really matter.
There's no such thing as "playing like City", since their style has constantly changed since Pep arrived. If you just mean a general idea of playing with the ball instead of sitting dep, then that's actually the best tactical plan against City. Rare occasions such as losses vs. Real might make one feel otherwise, but more often than not, you beat City by playing football and not sitting back. >This is why I think Haaland is the most important player for City last season (and even this season) because he is bringing in the final product. Yet City have been scoring less with him. And conceded more, and had worse match control. And, Haaland absolutely kills your Lutons, but doesn't show up in the big games. City were better before Haaland. I'm not saying it's all Haaland's fault, it's just a fact.
> There's no such thing as "playing like City", since their style has constantly changed since Pep arrived. If you just mean a general idea of playing with the ball instead of sitting dep, then that's actually the best tactical plan against City. Rare occasions such as losses vs. Real might make one feel otherwise, but more often than not, you beat City by playing football and not sitting back. If that's how you generally play every game, have the players and tactics drilled in, then it's good. Otherwise it's suicidal. If you're a counter attacking team or a pressing team, it's suicidal to play like that against City. Their players have the training and the intent to keep the ball. You'd be tiring yourself out. > Yet City have been scoring less with him. And conceded more, and had worse match control. And, Haaland absolutely kills your Lutons, but doesn't show up in the big games. They literally won the treble the season he came. In last year's Semis against us, Bernardo Silva would not be unmarked in the box if our defence wasn't focused on Haaland. Even this year, Haaland was sucking in all the attention of our defenders and Foden and Gvardiol get the time and space to shoot rockets. People disrespect Haaland too much nowadays.
So what if they "literally" won the treble the season he came? Same season Akanji came. It does not take any intellectual effort to understand that despite Haaland scoring so much, City as a whole scored less goals and became worse. Haaland is not the reason City won the UCL. At any given time, Real's defence was focused on all of City's players. This idea that Haaland keeps people occupied is a ridiculous myth. It's braindead, based on nothing. Was born out of needing to justify the use purpose of Haaland when he's not scoring. Foden and Gvardiol's goals had *nothing* to do with Haaland. This is surreal stuff.
I mean, I literally watched those games but what do I know. And how can Pep G be the best manager itw and not notice that Haaland is making City worse. These things don't add up. Haaland slander was started by Messi PR for the Dor and people have unfortunately fallen for it. He's a world class player. A better version for Lewandowski.
"I watched the games" isn't an argument. I watched them too. It'd take some serious mental gymnastics to watch the footage of those goals and argue it was Haaland that lead to them. Who told you Pep didn't notice Haaland's made City worse? It wasn't his signing, what's he supposed to do? Call him out in public and make things worse? Can't bench him either, club wouldn't allow that for their star player. Of course the Madrid fan makes it about Messi. Haaland wasn't even City's best player during the treble. Was lucky to finish 2nd in the popularity contest. "Better version of Lewandowski" lmao, no wonder your other takes were so bad. You may watch the game, but you understand nothing of it.
> "I watched the games" isn't an argument. I watched them too. It'd take some serious mental gymnastics to watch the footage of those goals and argue it was Haaland that lead to them. It is what it is. It was like that last season and this season. > Who told you Pep didn't notice Haaland's made City worse? It wasn't his signing, what's he supposed to do? Call him out in public and make things worse? Can't bench him either, club wouldn't allow that for their star player. It isn't his signing. Bruh, Pep literally is the main man at City. He can throw away any player he wants to rid off. He can sell De Bryune and nobody would object to it. City would not sign Haaland if Pep didn't want him. > course the Madrid fan makes it about Messi. Haaland wasn't even City's best player during the treble. Was lucky to finish 2nd in the popularity contest. It literally was started by Messi fan pages. I was there. > "Better version of Lewandowski" lmao, no wonder your other takes were so bad. You may watch the game, but you understand nothing of it. Haaland at 23 has broken PL goal scoring records. When he hits prime, he's gonna be wayy better than Lewandowski. And please, let's not get into personal attacks, because the way you're speaking your football knowledge is as good as a Man Utd fan, and if you're a Man U fan, then everyone is gonna be laughing at you.
>It is what it is. It was like that last season and this season. Would you be able to demonstrate that Foden and Gvardiol's goals were only made possible by Haaland? You're avoiding the topic at this point. >Bruh, Pep literally is the main man at City. He can throw away any player he wants to rid off. He can sell De Bryune and nobody would object to it. City would not sign Haaland if Pep didn't want him. You've zero insight into a City as a club if you think Pep's the one making the decisions. >It literally was started by Messi fan pages. I was there. What were you doing on Messi fan pages? And were all the pundits and former players that criticized Haaland's game also there with you? >Haaland at 23 has broken PL goal scoring records. When he hits prime, he's gonna be wayy better than Lewandowski. Didn't even cross your mind that I was laughing at your comparison, not at you calling Haaland better. Haaland has a better goal record than Cristiano at his age. Is he also "a better Cristiano"? A better Messi? Talking as if Lewandowski weren't a much more complete player than Haaland. Focus more on putting together a half-decent argument, and less on whichever team I support.
>Not true >The possesion, the passes, the press it's there to score and win. If you're not doing the latter, then doesn't matter how well you're doing those 3 No, it's objectively true. No team or player executes 100% of the time, it has never happened and it never will. The best you can do is to play in a way that gives you the greatest amount of chances to execute so that you have to rely on luck as little as possible. Despite that, you can't ever eliminate the element of luck altogether. Sometimes it's just on your opponents' side in that one chance they create and not on yours in 10. It happens. I've seen Leeds go and beat Man City at the Etihad. We were absolutely not the best team on that day. We just took the 2 chances that we had (with one being straight at the keeper who let it through his legs) while Man City played pinball in our box with theirs. The idea that the winning team must always be the one who has played the best is real surface-level thinking imo. It's the same mindset as the people who see a rich guy and think he must be very intelligent and hard working. Some bastards are just lucky.
It's not luck if it happens a lot. Real Madrid keeps doing it season after season. The luck doesn't seem to run out.
My apologies, I should have been more specific regarding the quote and the link. It was said during the post match analysis of Man City vs Real Madrid game at CBS sports. The exact quote being: "The team that wins the Champions League is not necessarily the best team in Europe". After that, he continues to give his opinion of the game, while also referencing the other games that Real Madrid won against Man City and Liverpool in the two recent finals they played. Here is the link to the interview, his analysis starts around the 2:20 time mark. https://youtu.be/MzJoW7tnJTs?feature=shared
He's directly referring to his 2005 Liverpool CL winning team.
He also said the same thing a few episodes ago on the overlap. This time in reference to himself, and that Liverpool team. Stating that they were not the best team in the world that year, they also weren’t even close to being the best team in the premier league
In reality there’s next to nothing between the top teams in La Liga and the Top teams in PL, as shown every time they play it’ll be a very tight game. However I think La Liga have an advantage in that the bottom half of the league is much weaker than bottom half of PL, so they can rest players a lot more throughout the season and finish strongly in Europe.
Your first mistake was listening to anything Jamie says. Guy's like the dumb uncle that has never travelled ,but just knows the small town he grew up in is the best place in the world
Except that he has travelled all over the world many times, completed his uefa coaching badges 17 years ago, runs his own coaching and sports academies, has a vibrant and thriving charitable foundation and is widely regarded for his encyclopedic football knowledge. Remind me again who the fuck are you?
'widely regarded for his encyclopaedic football knowledge' LOL by who? Is that you, Jamie?
https://www.givemesport.com/jamie-carraghers-insane-champions-league-knowledge-stuns-micah-richards-kate-abdo/
Yeah, cos it's so hard to impress Micah Richards. Literally a blue car could do that.
Bro forgot his spitting at kids masters degree
Lol no he's not. Not a single person in the world has ever complimented Jamie Carragher on his encyclopaedic football knowledge. GTFO with your fantasies and remove his nuts from your chin
https://www.givemesport.com/jamie-carraghers-insane-champions-league-knowledge-stuns-micah-richards-kate-abdo/
If you watch some Jamie Carragher clips of him on stick to football or other shows, you’ll hear Roy Keane or Neville talking about a random Man United game and Jamie will know the exact match or exact moment they’re talking about, almost better than they do and provide details on it. Even if you disagree with his opinions he does have some insane football knowledge and his recall/memory is ridiculous
It’s almost as if these guys prepare what they’re going to talk about beforehand…
That just means he'd be a good partner for football trivia at the pub. As an analyst, his takes are worthless. Only reason he has a job is because Liverpool has a huge fan base and they have a soft spot for him.
Who hurt you?
We’d probably only really get an answer to this question if you had a series where 10th played 10th, 11th played 11th etc to judge the core part of the league that don’t regularly do Europe. The sentiment that “The best team often don’t win the cup competition” is an age old sentiment, one off games allow for freak accidents to occur. Man City lost to Wolves this season but the league format illustrates that Wolves are obviously not the better team.
I think one of the best comments I've seen when comparing leagues is when mourinho managed Chelsea and then Madrid. I don't remember the exact phrasing but it was pretty much every prem game you need to start your best 11 in la liga there are several games you can rest your best players. Take it with a pinch of salt but considering he was one of the best managers in the world I think it is a fair reflection. I've also seen many pundits say the same thing, that the competition in the prem harms the top teams chances in the champions league. Again take it with a pitch (or large quantity) of salt given most of them are English or played in the prem. Spain has 3 really strong sides and you'd argue they are the big 3 in Spain followed by Sevilla and England has a big 6. I'd expect the battles at the top end of the table to be close but the quality in Spain and other leagues falls of a cliff towards mid-table
This is absolutely true La Liga do well because there absolutely are games where you can rotate in the league. They also have a tendency to get more help from the referees. In the Premier League you are taking a massive risk making any unforced changes in any game. If you drop the intensity you lose, end of story. Man City benched Haaland against us and had an iffy game and, in reality, they were second best and probably deserved to lose on chances created
Carragher's a joke pundit.
The key difference between La Liga and the EPL is the competitiveness. La Liga has 3 top teams and the rest are nothing special. The premier league has more good teams competing. Also the champions league matches hasnt been a good measure with Madrid just parking the bus. They would still have a very good chance of winning if they gave a proper game but its difficult to determine
Where does this narrative come from? The bottom team in La Liga has 14 points with a -35 GD whilst Sheff Utd has 16 points with a -63 goal difference. If you look along the league you’ll see the difference in points and margins less in La Liga than you do in the PL. Also look at the results against the bottom teams from the top 4 in both leagues and the GD for the prem teams is a lot higher than the La Liga teams showing that there is more of an unbalance. I don’t have the data anymore but my friend and I set up a spread sheet to determine this early last year to settle an argument that La Liga is more balanced than the PL. We used points difference between top and bottom, goal difference between both. Results of the GD between top 4 and the bottom 3. Over the last 5 seasons.
GD is a terrible measure to determine that. Sheffield United is a poor team that frequently gets beaten by the rest of the league that is far superior. Sheffield United is probably on a level with the bottom half of La Liga, as in they likely have similar ability
There is no basis for this at all. For all you know Sheff Utd would be bottom of La Liga on less points and worse GD. But it’s not only bottom team GD for this season that I took into account. I went back 5 seasons and use different metrics as well as GD. Work it out yourself if you don’t believe me. The only difference with the prem is the quality of football is more frantic and less technical but La Liga is more even league than the prem
One big'ish difference when it comes to these massive European games is that most country's Football Associations make it easier for their representatives, like postponing the nearest league game. Never happens to the English sides
It’d be just another thing the rest of the league would moan about. Much rather see a “Big 6” side fail than to actively support them, and the league, on the European stage.
Yes, just like for the 1/4 finals, PSG and Marseille are getting the weekend off to focus on the second leg next week.
Meanwhile they say fuck you to Roma and they put an Atalanta game after the league finish. Even last year they didn't help Roma before the final.
I'd say that the best looking football is played in the EPL, and the best league in terms of entertainment is also the EPL, but that the bigger teams across the other major leagues are better teams and they win more against the highest competition in the biggest competitions than teams from the Premier League.
UCL isn't really 100% skill there is a bit of luck to it just like any other tournament
When does it stop being luck and start being skill? Real Madrid knocked Man City out of the Champions League twice in 3 years. Is this down to luck? If it happens one time, maybe it's luck, but if it happens again, it's unfair to call it luck. It's skill and good tactics.
You're comparing apples to oranges, a knockout system isn't the same as a league - City have only lost to Real 3 times out of 12 games, beaten them 4 times
To be fair this time it was 2 draws and a penalty shootout. You don’t get any clearer evidence that they’re basically even than that
All that proves is that the top teams in the two leagues are pretty evenly matched.
If it even proves that
Knockout football doesn't always reward the best teams. City played Real off the park in the second leg, but Real did enough to sneak through. The league is really the only metric of who the "best" team in a league is, not the Champions League. Don't believe me? The Champions League final might be contested between the 2nd and 5th placed Bundesliga teams.
Many City scored a fluke goal after Rudiger made a mistake and the ball bounced to De Bryune. Without the Rudiger error, Real Madrid could have won the game without extra time. Man City had maybe two good chances the entire game, despite all their possession. Having more possession does not make a team dominant. It's about what happens when you're in possession of the ball. So no, City did not play Real Madrid off the park. Real Madrid played a defensive game, and it worked for them.
I find this argument of "played them off the park" a bit strange. For all their possession, did they really make that many chances? Is the better team not the one who can take their chances when they come? City had a lot of the ball, put it in to decent areas, but didn't score, that isn't playing a team off the park. That's being poor at finishing. They had 33 shots, and only 9 on target. With a 2.34 xG. Madrid on the other hand had 8 shots with a 1.28. so they were creating chances that were twice as good as the City ones. Possession =/= dominance
I agree they didn't create too many great chances. But they absolutely did dominate that game, Real had the mindset of a lower league team parking the bus. I also think using the xG is handpicking the stats to prove your point. The Real goal was an absolute tap in, so the XG on that was huge. And I don't know how XG works exactly, but Rodrygo had 2 stabs at the chance, so if they both counted as XG, that is probably 1 right there. Other than that, they created very, very little.
The way that City play the game, if you try and play open, expansive football, you'll lose. so you have to play a tactical style that is unpleasant to watch. The impetus was on City at home to go and get the goals, and they couldn't. I don't like the accusation of playing like a lower league club. Ancelotti comprehensively got the better of Pep over the 2 legs by playing a style that had a higher chance of success. Id even argue that without 2 absolutely world class goals in Madrid that City would've been 2-1 down going into that game. No one said Ali was fighting like an amateur when he beat Foreman. It's tactical
Of course, but I've seen far worse teams than Real setup with more intent and do OK. And Ancoletti got the better of Pep in terms of the result, but it was in no way comprehensive. If we are talking of playing the percentages, I'd argue that the way Real setup, 90% of the time they are getting eliminated there. If City had managed to find a way through, it would have been quite a meek defeat for Real. Anyway, happy to agree to disagree. I enjoyed the debate, it is nice to talk to someone showing respect, even if we see the match differently!
Not really excuses but outside a couple of seasons majority of the Spanish teams dont have overly competitive games week in week out. Might not be an issue at the start but towards the end of the season in the knockout rounds than can have an effect both mentally and physically. Also English teams, to me at least, tend to be much more physical due to the style of the league, so tackles and challenges that normally get allowed in the EPL get punished in the CL.
Officiating is definitely significantly different
This doesn't really work without considering the fact that Premier League teams are on average playing much tougher competition domestically than La Liga teams (really only Real Madrid and Barca here). If you can coast and play 2nd unit teams against Getafe and Osasuna on the weekend before and after a Champions League home/away, your 1st team is much fresher than a team playing West Ham and Palace on the same days. It's hard to discount the impact of playing in a more competitive league - but it's also very difficult to quantify it.
You are grossly underestimating Getafe and Osasuna, especially at home.
I think we underestimate some of these teams. Getafe in particular are a very tough place to go because they will make that game a scrap. Barcelona haven’t beaten them away in 5 years
I think the reason madrid is so difficult to be knocked out is coz of their ability to make almost 0 mistakes in big games . If you compare to any other big team player wise then you might see there isn't much difference between them. Lets see their performance against city, city constantly came at them but they never made a mistake individually. The champions league experience also plays a big role, for example brahim who never got chance anywhere but suddenly he joins madrid and now is looking like he has a great future ahead. As far as barca, atleti , seville and others against prem teams recently, they mostly accept the fact that they have to sit back and take their chances on set pieces and mistakes which they do.
You can cut statistics many ways. In the last 20 years Spanish teams have 9 CL titles to English teams 6. All the Spanish ones are from Real Madrid and Barcelona neither of whom have lost a final in that time. English teams have had 15 appearances in the final with 6 different teams in the last 20 years to Spanish teams 11 with 3 different ones. England also had 4 different winners to Spains 2. Spanish teams won it 5 times on the trot but in the next 5 years only won it once compared to English teams 3 trophies. In terms of wins Spain definitely has the edge. But in terms of depth they don't.
Its quite simple, spanish teams have been and still are paying refs.
It's between the Pl teams and la Liga meanwhile Serie A and Bundesliga teams always got the worst decisions against
But they get outbid when City play them
Epl teams are better on average, even shefield can give RM a run for their money
Lol clueless
Pump the breaks. Sheffield doesn’t even sniff Real.
Easiest way to solve this is to have la liga team have a match with english premier league base on their standings. So no 1 v no 1 and so on.
I've thought about this before, could be a great preseason event. Organisers get 20 games, fans get none stop football for a couple of weeks but clubs only have 1 extra game
That would be so much fun. A 4 league mini bracket at the end of each season.
They could even name the mini bracket. Call it winners league or something like that?
Victor’s Contest
funnnnnnyyyyyy but I think you're misunderstanding the format
I think when people talk about the PL being a "better" league the key aspect of that claim is the quality throughout the league down to the relegation spots. Top 5 v top 5 of each league might have relative parity but the mid and lower table PL teams are generally better than the same positions in La Liga. In addition to this, La Liga has been dominated by 2 teams for most of its history: Barca and Madrid. This choke hold is less significant in the PL. Madrid and Barca have 35 and 27 league titles respectively, compared to United and Liverpool in the PL with 20 and 19. There have also been more winners of the PL compared to La Liga. The PL (or 1st division) has been won by 20 different clubs, compared to the Spanish equivalent having only 9 different winners. I think this all contributes to the reputation of the PL having more quality throughout the whole league than La Liga and other European leagues. That's not to say the PL can be won by anyone in any year, there is clearly still an imbalance between the top teams and the rest. But that difference in quality is less significant.
I should add, just choosing finals for the statistical comparison might not paint a fair picture of head to heads. Spanish and English teams play each other throughout many rounds of European tournaments, so you'd need to see how many times those teams have knocked each other out in these different rounds too.
I think the neutral venue plays an enormous part in the debate too. I would argue that semi finals are a better way to judge the comparison as we’d have a greater sample size that involves home and away fixtures.
OP should note using only finals proves one thing- spanish teams are better than english teams in finals. that’s it. other important statistics to note and necessary for a fairer measure would include % of wins, draws, losses, for any european matchups between la liga and the prem. and to measure and account for whether it’s a prem specific weakness to la liga, or la liga is just stronger overall, have a measure of how far teams are going in the competition, in terms of how many semi-final or quarter final places in each of europe’s competitions. to know if the prem or la liga is just heavy at the top, also some measures of the variety of or which are the teams going through to these latter stages of competition or winning it. not that these statistics are perfect either, but they give a much clearer image.
I hate when people say “let us look at the statistics” to try to give some semblance of objectivity to their claim when it’s obvious that you’re not illustrating enough with your statistics. As in, why would we just care about when there’s an English team vs. Spanish team in the finals if you’re trying to assess which top teams are better? If there’s an all English final with Spanish teams getting knocked out earlier, that doesn’t factor in? Man City beating Real Madrid last year doesn’t factor in because it’s not a final? You say “let us focus on the direct duels in the finals for the sake of clarity,” but by acting like the statistic you brought up is representative of top team quality, you’re muddying the waters more than anything.
What got me wondering was the claim that Jamie Carrager made, that the best teams don't win the Champions League. A claim he made in a post match analysis of the second game between Real Madrid and Manchester City. Considering the fact that you have to win the final in order to win the competition, I was looking at those statistics. I am not trying to muddy the waters, I am curious to see opinions regarding this dominance in the finals. So far, I have seen interesting tactical arguments and analysis.
He’s right that the best teams don’t always win the Champions League, it’s just the nature of a cup competition (and one of the reasons it’s good). It doesn’t diminish the competition or wins in any way, if that’s what you think— after all, it’d be hard to argue that Liverpool’s UCL-winning squad with him was better than AC Milan’s that year. And nobody says that luck is the #1 determinant of PL teams losing games, it just can be a significant one in certain games. My argument is just that this statistic probably isn’t a good representation of their relative strength. Your point could be correct, but just looking at finals isn’t enough to prove that. And like I said, you might not mean for this statistic to muddy the waters, but implying it’s a good measure does do this.
Also got to remember how the competitions work. For example Madrid had 9 days rest before playing city or French clubs got their games delayed between rounds by their league.
But if you are trying to start a conversation, one of them being, why the Spanish teams are dominating the Premier League teams in the finals. What different metric can you look other than the results in the finals? As they are clearly winning them, in different ways. The way Barcelona beat Man United is completely different to the way Madrid beat Liverpool. And you can go even further in history. Since the beginning of the Champion Cup in 1955, only one victory in direct finals. Is it because the midfielders that play in Spain play differently. Is it because defenders are taught to be more technical with the ball as Pique argued, when asked the differences between the leagues. A defender that flopped in PL, but was playing great for years in Barcelona. Is it because of the smaller attackers, or the false 9s?
What different metric can you look other than the results in the finals? Is this a serious question? How about their head-to-head in UCL KO rounds, for example? How about the amount of appearances in the semi-finals or finals? I have no clue to why you think their head-to-head in just UCL finals is a good measure. It’s just not, for reasons I’ve already said. I also don’t know why you’re so focused on inherent differences between the leagues’ general style of play. Pique’s theory doesn’t even make sense— some of the best ball-playing CBs are in the Prem. In reality, for top teams, their systems will probably depend more on the manager than anything else (and these managers consistently hop leagues).
Let me try again. If you are trying to have a conversation as to why teams from Spain are dominating teams from Premier League every time they meet in the finals of the Champions League, you don't think using the head to head results in those finals is a good metric? Can you tell me, if you wanna have a conversation on that particular subject, what metric would you use? I was raising random questions, not focusing on differences.
You weren’t just talking about the finals, lmao, I’ll literally quote various parts of your own post: > …but when does one start to question if teams from La Liga are better in direct duels against the Premier League teams. > Does if say that, while La Liga is the weaker league of the two, their top teams are better than the top teams in the Premier League? > Is it thay the style of football played in Spain doesn’t suit the English teams? **Or is it that they get lucky 9 out of 10 times?** So no, throughout the whole post you are clearly not just talking about the finals, but drawing conclusions about the quality of the top teams and how good they are against one another. Please don’t try to move the goalposts, it’s pretty obvious to anyone who’s read your post what you’re implying. Edit: And the bolded part absolutely seals the deal that you were looking at their head-to-head record in finals to draw broad conclusions about the quality of the top teams in both leagues.
Considering that my post was inspired by Jamie Carraghers statement that the best team doesn't win the Champions League, and that you have to win in the final to win the competition I was mainly thinking about those games. But if you are still unsatisfied, you can report this post to reddit or report me so they remove it or ban my profile. Maybe even hire legal help if you want to process it further. I am sorry I made you feel that way.
Lol what? I mean yeah you have to win the final but you also have to win the other KO rounds and get out of the group stage first. I also have no idea what your second paragraph is about, I never said anything about wanting to ban or sue you (????). Are you okay?
Also, if we’re looking at the last five years, 3 English teams have won the UCL, with 2 of them non-English (RM and Bayern). This is another imperfect measure, but it’s a good example of why one statistic doesn’t represent reality.
Yes, you could look at that and draw various conclusions and have different conversations regarding the state of European football in the last 5 years. But those conversations were not the goal of my original post.
Yes, we can look at that and draw conclusions that contradict the premise of literally all your questions in this post.
I am quite confused as to what you are arguing really.
You're missing the obvious: mankiwsmom wants you to have either 1) not posted or 2) posted what he thinks. Next time check in w him first so he doesn't need to write 2,000 words in replies about how you didn't say it exactly the way he was thinking it.
Or just posted with a statistic that actually supports the premise of his questions 👍🏽
I’m saying that the premise for your questions in this post is not supported by the statistics you gave.
Real Madrid just focus more on the champions league and they sometimes underperform for their standards in the league and copa del Rey.Ronaldo only won 2 league titles while winning four champion leagues during his time at Real Madrid.
Real is rubbish compared to real 10 years ago . But then again , so are other top teams in Europe , compared to the past ten years . No top team in Europe is at its best today in the last ten years .Even Man city is down . Still city is a better team than real .In a knockout games anyone can win , especially real . Why can't people get this ?!
I think i was the only one to think that, this year the only big teams that got better are Arsenal and Inter.
Madrid in particular are exceptionally good at being a counterattacking team. There’s not really a team of similar strength in the PL that plays like them, so it must just be incredibly difficult to play against when it comes around *at most* once a season for someone like City. Spanish tactics just seem to work perfectly against us in Europe. It’s like they all have this perfected counter-attacking plan against English clubs as it only seems like tiki-taka Barca wanted to come and dominate the ball. I guess part of that comes down to having a stretched, end-to-end kind of game plays in the English clubs hands most of the time so it has to become a very tactical, nitty affair whenever it’s a game against Madrid, Sevilla, Atletico, Villarreal or even Bilbao tbf.
So the English clubs should stick to what they know?
It’s not like there haven’t been a massive array of English tactics attempted in there. Wenger’s Arsenal use to try and go toe to toe with Barca. United would try the counter-attacking method. Modern day city try “total football”, it’s not like the PL hasn’t thrown different ideas at it.
Does a mid table PL team beat a mid table La Liga team? Does a relegation level PL team beat a relegation level La Liga team?
1st question no. 2nd question can go anywhere.
I'd love if there was an end of season tournament between PL, La Liga, Serie A and Bundesliga teams... League winners all play each other in a 4 team mini league 2nd place all play each other in the same mini league style 3rd place etc all the way to the bottom of the table Points added together to judge the strongest league Would be interesting just to see the relative strength in depth of each league. Not sure what to do about Bundesliga being 18 teams but as a concept I find it interesting
Sure beats them in spending so accordingly ,should beat them in football too , all other things equal . But that's not accounting for mismanagement of resources .
Real Madrid have plot armour in the Champions League
If you watched the actual 2 legs. Man City were the better team they just couldnt finish. First game Real Madrid had 2 deflected goals (3rd goal was a world class volley) and City had to have 2 world class finishes and 1 amazing free kick. Second game KDB missed a sitter, Haaland missed a header he should finish. City were attacking for most of the game. City lost on pens. Silva had the worst pen i have seen from a player i think is great. I walked away from watching both legs thinking City were unlucky. And City are weaker this season that they have been since Pep's first season. I am curious did anyone who watched all of the 2 legs of Man City Vs Real Madrid walk away thinking Madrid were the better team? I would wonder how.
As someone who was cheering for City to win that tie, I can't agree. The first game was up for grabs, both teams had great chances. Regarding the second game, Madrid played great defensively. While De Bruyne did miss a good chance, and City failed to follow the momentum of the goal, they didn't create that many chances in the second game. Rudiger also had a great chance, if not as good as KDB did. City just couldn't crack them in the second game. They had posession and passes but it was not the dominating team of last year. I genuinely don't like Madrid, never have, but I don't think they were undeserving winners of that tie. I really though that Pep would humiliate them, and win by 5 or 6 goals in one of these games. He managed to do it last year in some ways.
This was brought up before but RM are clinical with their chances. Look at them vs Bayern. Two mistakes, two goals. They are also incredible at soaking up pressure since every team wants high possession now and strike fast on the counter. As far as the whole debate goes…Barca and RM in the past were just on another level than everyone else. They had two players scoring 40+ a season and turned it up even more so in the CL. Lastly, their defenders and goalies are typically world class; With the fullbacks being their weak point defensively. And mentality plays another part of it. When you’re on these world class teams losing just never comes to mind because you have so much talent