+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Huh? England was the best performing nation in Europe last season according to the UEFA coefficient score, with all five Champions League teams making it through the group stage to the round of 16, losing a total of just three out of 30 games. Arsenal did likewise in the Europa League, making the semi-final. Spending across the board was the highest it's ever been, with even Championship-Wolves signing one of Porto's star players for over £15m.
Right, but then you can always pick a few teams near the bottom of the table and say they weren't really good, particularly if you pick two of the relegated sides also. But, for a bit of perspective, have a flick through the squads of the Premier League sides ten years ago. 2007/08 saw a Sunderland team fielded a 36-year Dwight Yorke, Fulham's number 9 was David Healey and Middlesbrough were relying on Jérémie Aliadière. If you were to de-age those players ten years and dump them back into English football, I'd imagine they'd end up at some mid-table Championship teams like Preston or Bristol City, not surviving in the Premier League in the days when Fulham can spunk £25m on a French player from Nice without breaking a sweat.
And sure, you could try to argue that those three players are actually good, and we could be here all night because that is subjective, or that they were cherry-picked, or list some players you think were iffy from last season's squads. Fine, whatever. But what I really wanna know is, if you genuinely believe that half the Premier League ten years ago could sign better players from across the world with half the money spent today... how did they do it? And how can we copy them?
But really I think football fans nearly always say a league is the weakest or strongest ever. They love 'em some superlatives.