The price we pay for having the best league?

First topic message reminder :

One could argue for La Liga being the best league, and with Spain being one of the best international sides this argument could be weak.

However, why is it that for a country with the best league, we do so poor internationally, yet countries like France, Italy or even Brazil that can't match the quality of ours seem to do better?

Do we pay a huge price for how great our league is (due to attracting and bringing so many foreigners)? And would the quality of the premiership plummet if we had less foreigners and more English players?

I reckon it would, just because of the system and how things are over here. In Spain, there's an emphasis on how well a games played, and there are A LOT of Spanish players in la liga.

Do I have a point here? or would there be no difference if there was less foreigners (and arguably a less exciting league) on how well England do as a nation (considering that we'd have more players given a chance at a high level, and more to pick from)

super_realist... come on now, Rangers and Celtic would be comfortable top 6 teams in the premier league.

Show them respect!!

Are you having a laugh Jay-Z (I think you are) , they'd be on a par with Wigan and Blackburn.
They are absolute garbage and would get pumped each and every week.

Besides, it's all academic, they'll never play in England because nobody wants them down there, why would they. It would be like turkey's voting for Christmas

Their main strength is their fan following, but with their current squads they'd struggle in the Premier League. However, if they were to actually move, it would be very interesting (just ignore all the issues) because their following might mean they get better investment and be able to build a team that could compete.

There are a few problems with questions like the ones raised both at the top of this article and by some of the posters:
1. There are too many variables to come to any reasonable conclusions, especially in the OPs original question
2. Talent is subjective, so there will never be definitive answers when attempting to rate players
3. An awful lot of people are thick, a decent percentage are so thick they can't actually think for themselves and certainly can't make any form of reasoned judgements (just look at the bell curve for intelligence if you don't belive me), yet apparently their views are just as important as everyone elses

Fan base really means nothing in the EPL, it's all about having a gazillionaire behind you. Teams like West Ham, Leeds, Sheffield Wed and Everton have huge fan bases yet still don't achieve much.
I don't see how having a few hundred thousand plastic fans abroad would help Celtic or Rangers in the EPL.

Even if you do have moderately rich backers it guarantees nothing (Liverpool, Villa). You basically have to spend a considerable amount more than every other team, and then you end up buying the league like Man City look like doing this season.

To win that league, you basically need a mega rich oil sheikh, Russian oligarch or American billionaire in charge (who puts your club in debt). If such a person came in for Wigan, I'm sure they'd be challenging in a year or two, despite having few fans

So the OF could probably do well if they had billions (and I do mean billions) invested, but they wouldn't do any better than Stoke, Everton or Norwich if they just went in as they were regardless how many fans turn up every week. Which players would want to live in that toilet Glasgow anyway?

Thing is though, it will never happen because no one wants them. Perhaps they should just set up their own two team league and play each other 36 times a year.
They think they are big teams, but they aren't really. Not anymore.

I wasn't suggesting that they would be able to win the league, or even come close to winning the league because of their fan base. What I meant was the squad they have at the moment would struggle to compete in the Premier League and would be in and around the relegation zone, but because of their fan base, they are more likely to get investment, and therefore would be able to build a team that could keep them up and have them fight around the mid-table.

I agree with that invisible.


I'm not so sure about the investment though, I mean, no one has come in for Everton and domestically they are bigger than either of the OF at the moment and don't come with all the childish sectarian baggage either.


You are right though I think, the best they could hope for would be mid table. Challenging the likes of Bolton, Villa and Sunderland.

Super being a bitter fud again.

I think a lot of people confuse "Best" with "Most Exciting" and I'd even dispute that the EPL is the most exciting (just think about how many boring, scrappy games you've seen over the years).

True, the British brand of football is fast and frenetic, end to end stuff. However, as some highly qualified pundits and former players have noted, the emphasis in British football seems to be on speed and strength, rather than skill...and this is endemic in coaching from grass roots level upwards.

We've needed the foreign imports to improve our teams technically and to help the top ones compete in European competitions. I think this is gradually starting to change, but we're a long way from seeing greater numbers of homegrown players starting regularly for their teams.


The other major factor is the cost of players. As others have commented, foreign players, besides often being technically more gifted, are also far cheaper than their British counterparts...so it also makes economic sense to go for foreign players.

Until something is done to address this trend AND to start introducing a more technically biased coaching ethos in this country, from grass roots upwards, I don't think we will see England's fortunes change much on the international stage...even with the new homegrown player quota rule.

I think it depends what you want from football. I have to admit I find the, although near perfect, technical skill of the Spanish side boring. I can honestly say I'd rather watch a scrappy game with some end to end football than possession football of Spain, and sometimes Barcelona (although they usually are more exciting than Spain.)

I also think, although there is an emphasis on speed and skill in recent years we're seeing that skill enter our league, and the combination of the two is what makes it so exciting. For example, if you look at Man City you have the speed and strength of Yaya Toure, but the deft touch and skill of David Silva. Players like Silva, Mata, Suarez and others add the skill that some say is missing, while keeping the exciting end to end, scrappy nature of the Premier League.

JDandfries wrote:

liverbnz wrote:

JDandfries wrote:

liverbnz wrote:

JDandfries wrote:The end of the day, if English (British and Irish too) players were good enough, then PL teams wouldn't need to go to Africa or the continent to get players.

Lets not kid oursleves that George Best or Roy Keane or any English players are among the best of all time - there are 30+ Brazilians, a few Argies and plenty of Italians, Germans etc, who are far better than anything that has come from these shores - except David Beckham of course

Who are you to judge whether or not George Best or Roy Keane are among the best in the world? For a start, it's hard to take anything you say seriously and secondly, it's not an opinion of mine, but have many who have played the game against and with the players themselves. Probably not always the best place in the world to find the most thoughtful opinions, but a damn sight better than some.

Was that supposed to make sense, or did you just inanely bash away at the keyboard??


Incidentally, I am as entitled to my opinion as anyone else!

It made perfect sense and you know it.

Furthermore, you didn't express your opinion, you tried to put down another. If I think George Best is one of the best footballers of all time, I've the right to say it without anyone telling me not to 'kid' myself. Same goes for Roy Keane and his role.

Sorry if I offended you, but please read through what you wrote, it makes little sense and sounds like you wrote it drunk.

Anyway all I was saying is, that there are loads of players better than Best or Keane, and to help you out, off the top of my head, I'll list a few for you, who are infinately better than those two you mention!

Maradona
Romario
Pele
Cruyff
Beckenbaur
Puskas
Zidane
Messi
Cantona
Garrincha
Di Stefano
Platini
Mattheus
Neeskens
Gullit
Van Basten
Ronaldo
Baresi
Eusebio
Muller
Tostao
Jarzhino
Socrates
Zico
Stiockov
Breitner
Rivalino
Maldini
Laudrup

Of all players from these shores, Daglish is probably the best, closly followed by Bobby Charlton, maybe Jimmy Johnstone or Duncan Edwards but none are top 50

I think there are many experts (i.e. people who's opinion perhaps counts for more than mine or yours) who might put the likes of Bobby Moore, John Charles and Stanley Matthews as contenders for an all-time top 50.

I don't think Cantona can be placed above Best. Although he was outstanding in the English game, Cantona's career lacked outstanding exploits at International & European Club level.

User Name wrote:Super being a bitter fud again.

Not being bitter at all User, just being honest.

If I was Levein/SFA I'd even go so far as to exclude anyone from the national team who plays in Scotland. No point in picking anyone from a league so poor.

If any of you saw the Stoke vs Blackburn game, you will have seen 2 teams that could not string 2 passes together. Some of the first touches were so bad the second touch was a tackle. The ball was constantly in the air. The top teams in the EPL can play really great football but lower down, it's just kick and rush still.