If your from Manchester, yes, it probably is.
As far as how competitive it is, accumulated points amongst the top 5, then its no different than most others, beyond Liverpools performance levels.
As a neutral its pash.
Usual one team league.
As a neutral with a passing interest in English football (I don't really watch any games, but I'm vaguely aware of what's going on), it seems like it's a very poor league this year.
Most teams are poor, some are dreadful, yet one is excellent.
You have no title race, your 'top 4' thing is something that means nothing to me, while your relegation battle is such that it's a shame they can't increase the number relegated to 5 or 6 because so many teams are lacking quality.
It's odd that with all the money swilling around that league that it's such a poor product this term.
1 excellent team.
the rest in a transition period with some of their worst sides in decades.
Only thing that would have made it interesting is if city could keep up, but with injuries to key players, ageing players etc it wasn't meant to be.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 minutes ago
1 excellent team.
the rest in a transition period with some of their worst sides in decades.
Only thing that would have made it interesting is if city could keep up, but with injuries to key players, ageing players etc it wasn't meant to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems odd that all these underperforming teams points totals for their reletive positions, aren't much different than they usually are at this stage of the season. 🤔
Also, pretty much every poor or underperforming team in the prem, are still all involved in European competitions.
Last year saw the underperforming transitional league providing all 4 teams for both of Europe's top Cup competitions. 🤔
It's very poor,but still a lot better than the Scottish league !
comment by HarlequinHebdo (U16981)
posted 4 seconds ago
It's very poor,but still a lot better than the Scottish league !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The team that finishes bottom of your league gets more money than all our teams put together.
Yet if 90% of the teams in your league were playing in my back garden I'd draw the curtains.
PASH , I think is the operative word in Scotland !
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 minutes ago
1 excellent team.
the rest in a transition period with some of their worst sides in decades.
Only thing that would have made it interesting is if city could keep up, but with injuries to key players, ageing players etc it wasn't meant to be.
To add to this the lower teams in the league are worse than most years. Gone are the days of stokes/blackburns etc making it harder for the top teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems odd that all these underperforming teams points totals for their reletive positions, aren't much different than they usually are at this stage of the season. 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it shows that the lower teams are at an all time low aswell.
Thanks. I'll add that above.
comment by HarlequinHebdo (U16981)
posted 1 minute ago
PASH , I think is the operative word in Scotland !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a good word to describe the standard of play in most EPL games these days.
One in six EPL games sees one team with <30% possession. How very entertaining
Not sure it's the worst. It includes the record holders in 2nd place who won the league without their best player last year.
I'd argue city, one of the world's best teams, have had a blip for sure...after several seasons of near perfection, but accept most the other teams are simply miles behind these two.
If anything Liverpool and city have shown they have pulled away from their rivals and are simply on another level. Spurs got to the CL final and beat lots of good euro teams last year so to make out the Pl is just rubbish all of a sudden is comical.
Spurs fans will tell you it was a miracle they got to the final, they were outplayed in so many games.
And chelsea and arsenal didn't play anyone to get to the europa either.
Were no atleticos etc.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 minutes ago
1 excellent team.
the rest in a transition period with some of their worst sides in decades.
Only thing that would have made it interesting is if city could keep up, but with injuries to key players, ageing players etc it wasn't meant to be.
To add to this the lower teams in the league are worse than most years. Gone are the days of stokes/blackburns etc making it harder for the top teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems odd that all these underperforming teams points totals for their reletive positions, aren't much different than they usually are at this stage of the season. 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it shows that the lower teams are at an all time low aswell.
Thanks. I'll add that above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the real point, is that the league is little different than it has been for 5 or 6 years.
Only difference is, that Liverpool are p155ing the league, and Man City or Chelsea aren't.
Thats not the only difference though. That's the point of the debate. Nobody is taking away liverpool being good. Stop being so defensive. Weakest utd team since the pl started. Arguably our weakest team since about 1996.
Arsenals weakest team since the pl began.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 5 minutes ago
Thats not the only difference though. That's the point of the debate. Nobody is taking away liverpool being good. Stop being so defensive. Weakest utd team since the pl started. Arguably our weakest team since about 1996.
Arsenals weakest team since the pl began.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thing is them clubs have invested badly....really badly, and have no given right to be at the top.
I'd argue Leicester are the strongest they've been, and wolves... sure arsenal/spurs have dropped and Chelsea are inconsistent with a young team but I'd say it's simply cos the bar has been raised to such a high level and some teams have managed really poor attempts at rebuilding.
U can look at some prev seasons with the top 5-6 performing but rarely were our top 2 teams also some of the most feared teams in Europe.
All this worst Pl season ever talk is simply people trying to undermine the records city and pool have set.
Thing is them clubs have invested badly....really badly, and have no given right to be at the top.
---------------------------------------------------
nobody says they have. still doesn't change the fact its their weakest sides in years. Wolves and leicester would never challenge for the league with their sides. Nobody is undermining it, liverpool are fantastic. But it is the weakest league I can remember. Just my opinion. Over the last 5 years or so, the most successful pl clubs has been on a downward spiral, hence why leicester won it.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
Thing is them clubs have invested badly....really badly, and have no given right to be at the top.
---------------------------------------------------
nobody says they have. still doesn't change the fact its their weakest sides in years. Wolves and leicester would never challenge for the league with their sides. Nobody is undermining it, liverpool are fantastic. But it is the weakest league I can remember. Just my opinion. Over the last 5 years or so, the most successful pl clubs has been on a downward spiral, hence why leicester won it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weakest league but the CL winners are top and the PL record holders are 2nd after losing a small number of games. To me it seems obvious really. Them two aresimply miles ahead of the others so kinda warps things.
Europe final was English teams and the CL final was English teams. Sure their league positions may be dire compared to expectation/resources but results gainst Europe's best seem to suggest otherwise.
I think the top 2 have just pulled away and some of the usual top 6 have spent large amounts in a panic.
Look at the players in them teams. Look at any other club that's 2nd in a big league and tell me they are better than city. I don't see it myself.
I accept the competition this year has been bad but don't accept this is the worst quality pl since it started. If anything there has never been as much quality spread through the league.
If we're talking about quality, then the question surely rests on who a neutral would pay money to go and watch.
I'd pay money to go and watch Liverpool, City, Leicester and maybe Wolves. That's pretty much it. They're the only teams I'd have any interest in parting with my cash for.
In years gone by that list would be far bigger.
It's an interesting league this year, never known only 1 team to be in consistent form. 3rd place onwards has been there for the taking for any club able to put a decent run together but every side has at least one major reason why they've struggled this season. With Liverpool as good as they are it's created the perfect storm for them to be so far ahead of 2nd place.
Should trim the league to 18 teams, 3 go down and play off for a 4th place. Basically the same as the Bundesliga. The likes of Brighton, Bournemouth, Norwich and others can all put in a good performance now and then but on the whole they aren't competitive and it's all about inching towards that magical 40 point mark. You could get rid of the current bottom 6 and they wouldn't be missed.
I would have 0-0 count as zero points for both sides too but that will only happen in my imaginary tinpot, dystopian dictatorship.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 13 minutes ago
If we're talking about quality, then the question surely rests on who a neutral would pay money to go and watch.
I'd pay money to go and watch Liverpool, City, Leicester and maybe Wolves. That's pretty much it. They're the only teams I'd have any interest in parting with my cash for.
In years gone by that list would be far bigger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the power of money and the fact it's a result business has had some bearing on that....just look at Jose constantly finding work despite his football being generally dire.
I think the quality is the best it's been across the league. 5-10 yes ago u knew the top 5-6 already and teams coming up usually went straight back down.
Now you have Sheffield United, wolves shaking things up playing good football and recruiting well.
Most the top 6 that are having a mare have tried to buy their way back to success throwing big money and wages at players with little appetite to succeed or are not what the club's really needs.
Problem is a viscous circle for lots of the big clubs as a downturn in fortunes means good players turn you down more, as man u and arsenal have found.
Few seasons back wolves best players would install go to arsenal or man u if they showed any interest, nowadays I'm not so sure.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
Thats not the only difference though. That's the point of the debate. Nobody is taking away liverpool being good. Stop being so defensive. Weakest utd team since the pl started. Arguably our weakest team since about 1996.
Arsenals weakest team since the pl began.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is he being defensive? He respectfully made his point.
Its people like you who fling baseless accusations that ruin debates.
Close battle with the Leicester winning season. Both pretty poor products in truth.
Wolves as an example basically don't have a squad and are playing loads of extra games in Europe but still sit in 6th-7th
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
Thing is them clubs have invested badly....really badly, and have no given right to be at the top.
---------------------------------------------------
nobody says they have. still doesn't change the fact its their weakest sides in years. Wolves and leicester would never challenge for the league with their sides. Nobody is undermining it, liverpool are fantastic. But it is the weakest league I can remember. Just my opinion. Over the last 5 years or so, the most successful pl clubs has been on a downward spiral, hence why leicester won it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weakest league but the CL winners are top and the PL record holders are 2nd after losing a small number of games. To me it seems obvious really. Them two aresimply miles ahead of the others so kinda warps things.
Europe final was English teams and the CL final was English teams. Sure their league positions may be dire compared to expectation/resources but results gainst Europe's best seem to suggest otherwise.
I think the top 2 have just pulled away and some of the usual top 6 have spent large amounts in a panic.
Look at the players in them teams. Look at any other club that's 2nd in a big league and tell me they are better than city. I don't see it myself.
I accept the competition this year has been bad but don't accept this is the worst quality pl since it started. If anything there has never been as much quality spread through the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dont really know what you are on about here. I mentioned city. Still doesn't cover the fact that the rest of the league, especially its big teams, are at their weakest in years.
Sign in if you want to comment
Is this the worst...
Page 1 of 3
posted on 27/1/20
Discuss
posted on 27/1/20
If your from Manchester, yes, it probably is.
As far as how competitive it is, accumulated points amongst the top 5, then its no different than most others, beyond Liverpools performance levels.
posted on 27/1/20
As a neutral its pash.
Usual one team league.
posted on 27/1/20
As a neutral with a passing interest in English football (I don't really watch any games, but I'm vaguely aware of what's going on), it seems like it's a very poor league this year.
Most teams are poor, some are dreadful, yet one is excellent.
You have no title race, your 'top 4' thing is something that means nothing to me, while your relegation battle is such that it's a shame they can't increase the number relegated to 5 or 6 because so many teams are lacking quality.
It's odd that with all the money swilling around that league that it's such a poor product this term.
posted on 27/1/20
1 excellent team.
the rest in a transition period with some of their worst sides in decades.
Only thing that would have made it interesting is if city could keep up, but with injuries to key players, ageing players etc it wasn't meant to be.
posted on 27/1/20
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 minutes ago
1 excellent team.
the rest in a transition period with some of their worst sides in decades.
Only thing that would have made it interesting is if city could keep up, but with injuries to key players, ageing players etc it wasn't meant to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems odd that all these underperforming teams points totals for their reletive positions, aren't much different than they usually are at this stage of the season. 🤔
posted on 27/1/20
Also, pretty much every poor or underperforming team in the prem, are still all involved in European competitions.
Last year saw the underperforming transitional league providing all 4 teams for both of Europe's top Cup competitions. 🤔
posted on 27/1/20
It's very poor,but still a lot better than the Scottish league !
posted on 27/1/20
comment by HarlequinHebdo (U16981)
posted 4 seconds ago
It's very poor,but still a lot better than the Scottish league !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The team that finishes bottom of your league gets more money than all our teams put together.
Yet if 90% of the teams in your league were playing in my back garden I'd draw the curtains.
posted on 27/1/20
PASH , I think is the operative word in Scotland !
posted on 27/1/20
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 minutes ago
1 excellent team.
the rest in a transition period with some of their worst sides in decades.
Only thing that would have made it interesting is if city could keep up, but with injuries to key players, ageing players etc it wasn't meant to be.
To add to this the lower teams in the league are worse than most years. Gone are the days of stokes/blackburns etc making it harder for the top teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems odd that all these underperforming teams points totals for their reletive positions, aren't much different than they usually are at this stage of the season. 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it shows that the lower teams are at an all time low aswell.
Thanks. I'll add that above.
posted on 27/1/20
comment by HarlequinHebdo (U16981)
posted 1 minute ago
PASH , I think is the operative word in Scotland !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a good word to describe the standard of play in most EPL games these days.
One in six EPL games sees one team with <30% possession. How very entertaining
posted on 27/1/20
Not sure it's the worst. It includes the record holders in 2nd place who won the league without their best player last year.
I'd argue city, one of the world's best teams, have had a blip for sure...after several seasons of near perfection, but accept most the other teams are simply miles behind these two.
If anything Liverpool and city have shown they have pulled away from their rivals and are simply on another level. Spurs got to the CL final and beat lots of good euro teams last year so to make out the Pl is just rubbish all of a sudden is comical.
posted on 27/1/20
Spurs fans will tell you it was a miracle they got to the final, they were outplayed in so many games.
And chelsea and arsenal didn't play anyone to get to the europa either.
Were no atleticos etc.
posted on 27/1/20
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 minutes ago
1 excellent team.
the rest in a transition period with some of their worst sides in decades.
Only thing that would have made it interesting is if city could keep up, but with injuries to key players, ageing players etc it wasn't meant to be.
To add to this the lower teams in the league are worse than most years. Gone are the days of stokes/blackburns etc making it harder for the top teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems odd that all these underperforming teams points totals for their reletive positions, aren't much different than they usually are at this stage of the season. 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it shows that the lower teams are at an all time low aswell.
Thanks. I'll add that above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the real point, is that the league is little different than it has been for 5 or 6 years.
Only difference is, that Liverpool are p155ing the league, and Man City or Chelsea aren't.
posted on 27/1/20
Thats not the only difference though. That's the point of the debate. Nobody is taking away liverpool being good. Stop being so defensive. Weakest utd team since the pl started. Arguably our weakest team since about 1996.
Arsenals weakest team since the pl began.
posted on 27/1/20
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 5 minutes ago
Thats not the only difference though. That's the point of the debate. Nobody is taking away liverpool being good. Stop being so defensive. Weakest utd team since the pl started. Arguably our weakest team since about 1996.
Arsenals weakest team since the pl began.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thing is them clubs have invested badly....really badly, and have no given right to be at the top.
I'd argue Leicester are the strongest they've been, and wolves... sure arsenal/spurs have dropped and Chelsea are inconsistent with a young team but I'd say it's simply cos the bar has been raised to such a high level and some teams have managed really poor attempts at rebuilding.
U can look at some prev seasons with the top 5-6 performing but rarely were our top 2 teams also some of the most feared teams in Europe.
All this worst Pl season ever talk is simply people trying to undermine the records city and pool have set.
posted on 27/1/20
Thing is them clubs have invested badly....really badly, and have no given right to be at the top.
---------------------------------------------------
nobody says they have. still doesn't change the fact its their weakest sides in years. Wolves and leicester would never challenge for the league with their sides. Nobody is undermining it, liverpool are fantastic. But it is the weakest league I can remember. Just my opinion. Over the last 5 years or so, the most successful pl clubs has been on a downward spiral, hence why leicester won it.
posted on 27/1/20
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
Thing is them clubs have invested badly....really badly, and have no given right to be at the top.
---------------------------------------------------
nobody says they have. still doesn't change the fact its their weakest sides in years. Wolves and leicester would never challenge for the league with their sides. Nobody is undermining it, liverpool are fantastic. But it is the weakest league I can remember. Just my opinion. Over the last 5 years or so, the most successful pl clubs has been on a downward spiral, hence why leicester won it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weakest league but the CL winners are top and the PL record holders are 2nd after losing a small number of games. To me it seems obvious really. Them two aresimply miles ahead of the others so kinda warps things.
Europe final was English teams and the CL final was English teams. Sure their league positions may be dire compared to expectation/resources but results gainst Europe's best seem to suggest otherwise.
I think the top 2 have just pulled away and some of the usual top 6 have spent large amounts in a panic.
Look at the players in them teams. Look at any other club that's 2nd in a big league and tell me they are better than city. I don't see it myself.
I accept the competition this year has been bad but don't accept this is the worst quality pl since it started. If anything there has never been as much quality spread through the league.
posted on 27/1/20
If we're talking about quality, then the question surely rests on who a neutral would pay money to go and watch.
I'd pay money to go and watch Liverpool, City, Leicester and maybe Wolves. That's pretty much it. They're the only teams I'd have any interest in parting with my cash for.
In years gone by that list would be far bigger.
posted on 27/1/20
It's an interesting league this year, never known only 1 team to be in consistent form. 3rd place onwards has been there for the taking for any club able to put a decent run together but every side has at least one major reason why they've struggled this season. With Liverpool as good as they are it's created the perfect storm for them to be so far ahead of 2nd place.
Should trim the league to 18 teams, 3 go down and play off for a 4th place. Basically the same as the Bundesliga. The likes of Brighton, Bournemouth, Norwich and others can all put in a good performance now and then but on the whole they aren't competitive and it's all about inching towards that magical 40 point mark. You could get rid of the current bottom 6 and they wouldn't be missed.
I would have 0-0 count as zero points for both sides too but that will only happen in my imaginary tinpot, dystopian dictatorship.
posted on 27/1/20
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 13 minutes ago
If we're talking about quality, then the question surely rests on who a neutral would pay money to go and watch.
I'd pay money to go and watch Liverpool, City, Leicester and maybe Wolves. That's pretty much it. They're the only teams I'd have any interest in parting with my cash for.
In years gone by that list would be far bigger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the power of money and the fact it's a result business has had some bearing on that....just look at Jose constantly finding work despite his football being generally dire.
I think the quality is the best it's been across the league. 5-10 yes ago u knew the top 5-6 already and teams coming up usually went straight back down.
Now you have Sheffield United, wolves shaking things up playing good football and recruiting well.
Most the top 6 that are having a mare have tried to buy their way back to success throwing big money and wages at players with little appetite to succeed or are not what the club's really needs.
Problem is a viscous circle for lots of the big clubs as a downturn in fortunes means good players turn you down more, as man u and arsenal have found.
Few seasons back wolves best players would install go to arsenal or man u if they showed any interest, nowadays I'm not so sure.
posted on 27/1/20
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
Thats not the only difference though. That's the point of the debate. Nobody is taking away liverpool being good. Stop being so defensive. Weakest utd team since the pl started. Arguably our weakest team since about 1996.
Arsenals weakest team since the pl began.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is he being defensive? He respectfully made his point.
Its people like you who fling baseless accusations that ruin debates.
posted on 27/1/20
Close battle with the Leicester winning season. Both pretty poor products in truth.
Wolves as an example basically don't have a squad and are playing loads of extra games in Europe but still sit in 6th-7th
posted on 27/1/20
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
Thing is them clubs have invested badly....really badly, and have no given right to be at the top.
---------------------------------------------------
nobody says they have. still doesn't change the fact its their weakest sides in years. Wolves and leicester would never challenge for the league with their sides. Nobody is undermining it, liverpool are fantastic. But it is the weakest league I can remember. Just my opinion. Over the last 5 years or so, the most successful pl clubs has been on a downward spiral, hence why leicester won it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weakest league but the CL winners are top and the PL record holders are 2nd after losing a small number of games. To me it seems obvious really. Them two aresimply miles ahead of the others so kinda warps things.
Europe final was English teams and the CL final was English teams. Sure their league positions may be dire compared to expectation/resources but results gainst Europe's best seem to suggest otherwise.
I think the top 2 have just pulled away and some of the usual top 6 have spent large amounts in a panic.
Look at the players in them teams. Look at any other club that's 2nd in a big league and tell me they are better than city. I don't see it myself.
I accept the competition this year has been bad but don't accept this is the worst quality pl since it started. If anything there has never been as much quality spread through the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dont really know what you are on about here. I mentioned city. Still doesn't cover the fact that the rest of the league, especially its big teams, are at their weakest in years.
Page 1 of 3