Serie A harder than the EPL

[spurs9]

Because that was the only year Barcelona dominated Spanish football ?

Come on, how about the team with Marcelo, Khadira, Ronaldo, Alonso, Benzema, Modric, Isco, Rodriguez, that didn't get close to achieving what Guardiola's Barca did.

Are you saying you don't think Guardiola's was not a major factor in Barca's success?

IMO Xavi, Inesta & Busquets are better than Modric, Alonso, Isco or Khedira. If you did a Best 11 made from both teams usuing Barca players under Pep and Real players from the last 7 years, it would be the below IMO. & from Barca and 3 from Real.

Casillas
Alves Pique Puyol Marcelo
Busquets
Xavi Inesta
Messi -------------------Ronaldo
Eto'o​

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Only 8 of the managers in the PL are English, and surely those 12 that aren't wouldn't abandon the way the coach to adopt and "English" way of coaching?

According to King's autobiography, it wasn't the ideas or training the Spurs players rejected, it was the way Ramos went about it, trying to stamp his authority when it wasn't required and this crested resistance. Another problem Ramos has was that his assistant (Poyet) wasn't one he had worked with and both would tell the players 2 different things, so no-one was sure what to do.

On your point about players being taught "tactically" in their academies, most players in the PL aren't from the PL academies, they are from overseas.

A lot of what you are saying is very valid if talking about producing footballers for our national team, however it doesn't point to Serie A being a tougher league.

I think a dressing room of multi-million pound assets carries a lot more collective power in the majority of cases than a foreign manager does. It's far easier to sack on manager than it is to lose an asset(s) worth tens of millions.

Of course authority creates resistance, as a club you make a choice, Do you think Stam & Beckham were sold for football reasons ?

Look at the lesson learnt by Levy with AVB and Pochettino. Both also egalitarian collectivists who met resistance. One was backed and one wasn't.

The point about most players in the PL not being from PL academies is exactly my point. The reason for that is that you get a better value product from everywhere else for the last couple of decades, because it's been coached better.

I really couldn't give a shit about national teams, but there is a reason why the English national team has played abysmal football for decades and it's part of the same reason why the PL is full of players not coached at PL academies. English football has always been able to produce an individually talented footballer, it just hasn't had a clue how to produce tactically intelligent, well coached and educated footballers.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Modric didn't even play for Real Madrid when Guardiola managed Barca. Of course credit is due to Guardiola, same with any manager who achieves success at any club. But you're making it seem like it was a bunch of misfits coached into brilliance by some real life Gordon Bombaby when the truth of the matter is the club had already assembled one of the greatest groups of players football has ever seen, and Guardiola's success perfectly coincided with Messi's coming of age. That's not to say Guardiola wasn't at all responsible for Messi being what he is, or was, but he is, or certainly was, the best player in the world and had a lot of the best players in the world playing along side him. Look at what Spain did, they won 3 international competitions in a row but wait a second, Guardiola wasn't managing them, and oh, they didn't have the best player in the world in their team. And did most of their squad come from Barcelona? Yes, yes they did

No, I'm making the point that coaching and tactical application can make a difference. It's that simple. It can make a great side like Barca's even greater and it can make a decent side great. etc etc.

Like I said, if you don't want to take the example of Barca, who before Guardiola came along had always been stacked with world class players but still didn't manage to emulate what he achieved, you can use Atletico's league win as another example of how much difference tactical application can make. Surely you are not going to argue Simeone's side could remotely compare with either Barca's or RM's ?

 

[spurs9]

I think a dressing room of multi-million pound assets carries a lot more collective power in the majority of cases than a foreign manager does. It's far easier to sack on manager than it is to lose an asset(s) worth tens of millions.

Of course authority creates resistance, as a club you make a choice, Do you think Stam & Beckham were sold for football reasons ?

Look at the lesson learnt by Levy with AVB and Pochettino. Both also egalitarian collectivists who met resistance. One was backed and one wasn't.

The point about most players in the PL not being from PL academies is exactly my point. The reason for that is that you get a better value product from everywhere else for the last couple of decades, because it's been coached better.

I really couldn't give a shit about national teams, but there is a reason why the English national team has played abysmal football for decades and it's part of the same reason why the PL is full of players not coached at PL academies. English football has always been able to produce an individually talented footballer, it just hasn't had a clue how to produce tactically intelligent, well coached and educated footballers.

All good points but again, none of that has anything to do with Serie A vs PL.

 

[Lufti]

No, I'm making the point that coaching and tactical application can make a difference. It's that simple. It can make a great side like Barca's even greater and it can make a decent side great. etc etc.

Like I said, if you don't want to take the example of Barca, who before Guardiola came along had always been stacked with world class players but still didn't manage to emulate what he achieved, you can use Atletico's league win as another example of how much difference tactical application can make. Surely you are not going to argue Simeone's side could remotely compare with either Barca's or RM's ?

You have a bad habit of seeing what you want to see. I never said managers are completely irrelevant to a team's success which you seem to have picked up somewhere. Likewise, you clearly overstate how far a manager's tactics can take a team. Here's one for you, why is it that Guardiola has been unable to replicate Bayern's treble when he had exactly the same team? Dun dun duuuuuuhhhhh. Guardiola has been guilty of over coaching them if anything. Under Heynckes they were a squad of the best players in the world allowed to play freely and destroy other teams. It wasn't simple, but it wasn't over complicated either. Work hard, defend as a team, and play freely. Guardiola's always trying to out think the opponent. Italian teams may have superior tactics, but that will only get them so far. For all Juve's tactics last year, they ultimately lost to a team that wasn't tactically superior, just superior full stop.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

All good points but again, none of that has anything to do with Serie A vs PL.

It does I think, it's about attitude, intelligence and receptiveness to learn. About teaching methods.

And I think it's why England have played such poor football as a nation for so long (though I accept we are seeing a modicum of improvement recently).

Evra played for the most successful club in England, one of the richest 3 clubs in the world, but is saying that the whole approach to coaching and tactical education is on another level at Juve.

And then everyone wonders why England can produce the odd talented footballer but look like a pub team every tournament they have been to for the last 30 years.

The Scholes anecdote (told by Evra) I thought was bang on the money. An incredibly talented footballer, but the minute a (foreign) coach tried a tactical routine without the ball he got the hump and sulked.

 

[Lufti]

And I think it's why England have played such poor football as a nation for so long (though I accept we are seeing a modicum of improvement recently).

And then everyone wonders why England can produce the odd talented footballer but look like a pub team every tournament they have been to for the last 30 years.

The Scholes anecdote (told by Evra) I thought was bang on the money. An incredibly talented footballer, but the minute a (foreign) coach tried a tactical routine without the ball he got the hump and sulked.

This theory doesn't hold up though, unless ofc we're to believe that the number of English players who have won the CL, most of them playing with English teams (Hargreaves being the only exception) only did so because they had the company of foreign players who must have been ignoring all tactical instructions from the current managers and simply reminiscing of the tactical wonder that is foreign football.

Over the last 11 years England has had 3 CL winners and 5 CL runners up, and given the national team has been largely made up of players playing for those clubs, it wouldn't be possible to make the claim that England didn't have good players. And given they were playing in teams which were clearly successful in European competition, you couldn't say that those teams weren't playing a winning brand of football.

Now that we've established that England had good players capable of winning against European opposition, surely we can dismiss the notion that England is a poor footballing nation? Granted the current pool of players in the national team aren't world class, but clearly there was some issue which went further than just the tactical coaching or players receptiveness to it. Hodgson, Capello, McClaren and Eriksson couldn't fix the problems so I think you might have to look at the bigger picture.

 

[dontcallme]

It does I think, it's about attitude, intelligence and receptiveness to learn. About teaching methods.

And I think it's why England have played such poor football as a nation for so long (though I accept we are seeing a modicum of improvement recently).

Evra played for the most successful club in England, one of the richest 3 clubs in the world, but is saying that the whole approach to coaching and tactical education is on another level at Juve.

And then everyone wonders why England can produce the odd talented footballer but look like a pub team every tournament they have been to for the last 30 years.

The Scholes anecdote (told by Evra) I thought was bang on the money. An incredibly talented footballer, but the minute a (foreign) coach tried a tactical routine without the ball he got the hump and sulked.

I can happily quote you a bunch of footballers on the continent claiming Scholes was the best player of his generation. He was widely respected as a great trainer who knew what he was doing.

I doubt he's the only player to ever think playing against no men is stupid and a waste of time.

If Scholes' performances weren't world class I'd understand you bringing him up, but they were.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

This theory doesn't hold up though, unless ofc we're to believe that the number of English players who have won the CL, most of them playing with English teams (Hargreaves being the only exception) only did so because they had the company of foreign players who must have been ignoring all tactical instructions from the current managers and simply reminiscing of the tactical wonder that is foreign football.

Over the last 11 years England has had 3 CL winners and 5 CL runners up, and given the national team has been largely made up of players playing for those clubs, it wouldn't be possible to make the claim that England didn't have good players. And given they were playing in teams which were clearly successful in European competition, you couldn't say that those teams weren't playing a winning brand of football.

Now that we've established that England had good players capable of winning against European opposition, surely we can dismiss the notion that England is a poor footballing nation? Granted the current pool of players in the national team aren't world class, but clearly there was some issue which went further than just the tactical coaching or players receptiveness to it. Hodgson, Capello, McClaren and Eriksson couldn't fix the problems so I think you might have to look at the bigger picture.

What exactly have you established ?

We know that English teams, some of them the richest in the world, containing a multinational mixture of players, none of which coached by an English manager did well on occasion in Europe's premier cup competition. But haven't for five years nearly and even then it was Chelsea's flakiest CL win ever (a team full of foreign players, managed by a foreign manager, who were not only a long way from being the best team in Europe, were the fifth or 6th best team in England at the time).

Of course the people in charge of the senior national team couldn't put right generations of institutionalised problems that start at youth level and have become entrenched in the fabric of all levels of the English game.

I have acknowledged that England has and is producing talented footballers. But why do you think it is that England have played awful football for decades and have been embarrassed the minute they get to a tournament and play anyone remotely decent. And I don't mean just embarrassed by results, I mean embarrassed by performances. Tiny countries with a fraction of English football's financial and population resources (Belgium, Holland, Portugla, Croatia, etc etc) have played better football that England.

France and Italy (and Germany and Spain) are all poorer leagues with smaller resources, yet all have had far more success at international level continually than England.

I think it is absolutely about the approach to the game taken from the ground up coaching in England and the attitude it has fostered in English players.

 

[Lufti]

What exactly have you established ?

We know that English teams, some of them the richest in the world, containing a multinational mixture of players, none of which coached by an English manager did well on occasion in Europe's premier cup competition. But haven't for five years nearly and even then it was Chelsea's flakiest CL win ever (a team full of foreign players, managed by a foreign manager, who were not only a long way from being the best team in Europe, were the fifth or 6th best team in England at the time).

Of course the people in charge of the senior national team couldn't put right generations of institutionalised problems that start at youth level and have become entrenched in the fabric of all levels of the English game.

I have acknowledged that England has and is producing talented footballers. But why do you think it is that England have played awful football for decades and have been embarrassed the minute they get to a tournament and play anyone remotely decent. And I don't mean just embarrassed by results, I mean embarrassed by performances. Tiny countries with a fraction of English football's financial and population resources (Belgium, Holland, Portugla, Croatia, etc etc) have played better football that England.

France and Italy (and Germany and Spain) are all poorer leagues with smaller resources, yet all have had far more success at international level continually than England.

I think it is absolutely about the approach to the game taken from the ground up coaching in England and the attitude it has fostered in English players.

That's all a massive hyperbole though isn't it? The international football hasn't been that bad for decades. As recently as 2002 England were pretty good to watch, although the best player arguably ever produced by the country, arguably, was shunted out to left mid cause of poor management. Even in 2006, okay it wasn't scintillating but they were cheated out of the tournament.

As for your 'what exactly have you established line', you must have missed the part which I wrote starting with 'we've established'. The fact is that the coaching at ground roots etc can't be THAT bad given the number of world class players produced over the last 20 years or so who've proven their capabilities on the highest stage at club level. The fact that they couldn't do so on the international stage therefore is surely more to do with the way the national team is run and managed?

The current side is a different dilemma as clearly there aren't any world class players, but you're talking about the past 30 years and it's just not true.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

That's all a massive hyperbole though isn't it? The international football hasn't been that bad for decades. As recently as 2002 England were pretty good to watch, although the best player arguably ever produced by the country, arguably, was shunted out to left mid cause of poor management. Even in 2006, okay it wasn't scintillating but they were cheated out of the tournament.

As for your 'what exactly have you established line', you must have missed the part which I wrote starting with 'we've established'. The fact is that the coaching at ground roots etc can't be THAT bad given the number of world class players produced over the last 20 years or so who've proven their capabilities on the highest stage at club level. The fact that they couldn't do so on the international stage therefore is surely more to do with the way the national team is run and managed?

The current side is a different dilemma as clearly there aren't any world class players, but you're talking about the past 30 years and it's just not true.

See, here is a problem. Here is where you are just not getting the point. All nations, even the much smaller populated pool to choose from or infinitely detrimentally hampered by economic, social, political and disadvantages produce world class players from the Ivory Coast to Chile and everywhere in between. This is not a remarkable feat. You keep chanting this mantra and completely missing the point and the point at the hub of this thread based around what Evra was talking about.

Greece, Costa Rica, Switzeralnd, Nigeria, USA, Algeria to name a few are teams who out performed England (and others) with its "world class" players at the last world cup.

Personally I prefer watching this current England team (even though it's still not exactly wonderful) than I have any other for quite a while (bar possibly that brief spell ender Hoddle). It's plays more like a "team" at least some of the time than most other recent teams have with their collection of ill balanced, tactically ill prepared, supposed world class players.

 

[Lufti]

See, here is a problem. Here is where you are just not getting the point. All nations, even the much smaller populated pool to choose from or infinitely detrimentally hampered by economic, social, political and disadvantages produce world class players from the Ivory Coast to Chile and everywhere in between. This is not a remarkable feat. You keep chanting this mantra and completely missing the point and the point at the hub of this thread based around what Evra was talking about.

Greece, Costa Rica, Switzeralnd, Nigeria, USA, Algeria to name a few are teams who out performed England (and others) with its "world class" players at the last world cup.

Personally I prefer watching this current England team (even though it's still not exactly wonderful) than I have any other for quite a while (bar possibly that brief spell ender Hoddle). It's plays more like a "team" at least some of the time than most other recent teams have with their collection of ill balanced, tactically ill prepared, supposed world class players.

No but you're missing the point too. Other countries might have produced world class players too, but not in the same quantity as England have and I doubt as many players from the Ivory Coast have won the CL as players from England have. Therefore surely it's more in the setup of the international team than some inherent nationwide problem which means the players brought up in the country are too dumb to comprehend tactics. I don't think you can claim English players are more tactically naive than their foreign counterparts given their successes at club level. If you want to say that the current range of English managers aren't at a high standard then yes, I'd agree, but England as a country isn't tactically inferior - they can produce the players to a high standard who are capable of performing at the highest level.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

IMO Xavi, Inesta & Busquets are better than Modric, Alonso, Isco or Khedira. If you did a Best 11 made from both teams usuing Barca players under Pep and Real players from the last 7 years, it would be the below IMO. & from Barca and 3 from Real.

Casillas
Alves Pique Puyol Marcelo
Busquets
Xavi Inesta
Messi -------------------Ronaldo
Eto'o​

Look, we can debate this forever. Eto better than Benzema as a team forward ? Busquets better than Alonso ? It gets very complicated because it's about what/who balances with what/who. Guardiola choosing to buy Alonso for his Bayern team is a great example of this.

It's not really the point. The only championship an uber talented RM team have won in the last few years was under a coach who's tactical preparation is meticulous and intensive (Mourinho).

How an earth do Atletico win a league that contains those barca and RM teams ?

I'm not arguing that talented players don't influence games, of course they do, but truly great teams are the ones that are also tactically excellent too. RM have been poor in this respect IMO and this is why they have one title in the last 7 years.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

No but you're missing the point too. Other countries might have produced world class players too, but not in the same quantity as England have and I doubt as many players from the Ivory Coast have won the CL as players from England have. Therefore surely it's more in the setup of the international team than some inherent nationwide problem which means the players brought up in the country are too dumb to comprehend tactics. I don't think you can claim English players are more tactically naive than their foreign counterparts given their successes at club level. If you want to say that the current range of English managers aren't at a high standard then yes, I'd agree, but England as a country isn't tactically inferior - they can produce the players to a high standard who are capable of performing at the highest level.

Players don't get coached on a "national" level in any meaningful way, the bulk of their coaching from an early age is done by clubs. For decades they used guidelines and manuals handed down from the FA etc I guess and were usually coached by English coaches in academies (ex-players) who themselves had learnt bad methods.

And I fundamentally disagree with the last statement and don't understand how anyone could claim England haven't been tactically inferior when they have been continually outperformed by footballing "minnows" and humiliated by other decent teams and most tournaments.

 

[Lufti]

Players don't get coached on a "national" level in any meaningful way, the bulk of their coaching from an early age is done by clubs. For decades they used guidelines and manuals handed down from the FA etc I guess and were usually coached by English coaches in academies (ex-players) who themselves had learnt bad methods.

And I fundamentally disagree with the last statement and don't understand how anyone could claim England haven't been tactically inferior when they have been continually outperformed by footballing "minnows" and humiliated by other decent teams and most tournaments.

But Fabio Capello is supposed to be a renowned tactician and disciplinarian no? So why were England arguably at their worst under him (with the exception of McClaren). I mean, it's not that the players aren't good enough, and it's not that they're incapable of following tactics because as I said before, the bulk of them were CL winners. Maybe they didn't win the CL in sides which were as rigorously coached and didn't do 11 v 0 matches in training, but you don't actually think they're incapable of following instructions, do you? If anything I think the opposite is probably true and they've been over coached. What other reason could there be for none of them playing at all similar to the way they do at club level? The problem has been managers trying to get all the best players into one formation that the manager liked. Scholes should have played behind Lampard and Gerrard, freeing them of having to do any defensive work, not at left mid.

Bringing it back in line with the OP a bit, 'harder' is difficult to substantiate. Just because they're putting more emphasis on tactical positioning and opponents are more well drilled, it doesn't necessarily mean it's harder. You could easily argue that the fact you have less perpetration means the game is more difficult as you have to rely on instinct more. More hard work in Serie A, maybe, but even then that doesn't equate to more success, especially considering over the last 10 years there've been 7 English CL finalists and 2 winners, and 2 Italian finalists and 2 winners.

 

[michaelden]

Bringing it back in line with the OP a bit, 'harder' is difficult to substantiate. Just because they're putting more emphasis on tactical positioning and opponents are more well drilled, it doesn't necessarily mean it's harder. You could easily argue that the fact you have less perpetration means the game is more difficult as you have to rely on instinct more. More hard work in Serie A, maybe, but even then that doesn't equate to more success, especially considering over the last 10 years there've been 7 English CL finalists and 2 winners, and 2 Italian finalists and 2 winners.

Which teams made up the CL places in those 10 years, and which in Italy? Surely if a league was harder there would be more variation in the teams that make the CL. We have to account for Serie A only having 3 places so can only look at the to[ 3 in the Premier League.

14/15 - Chelsea/ Man City / Arsenal--------------------------- Juve / Roma / Sampdoria
13/14 - Man City / Liverpool / Chelsea ------------------------ Juve / Roma / Napoli
12/13 - Man Utd / Man City / Chelsea ------------------------- Juve / Napoli / Milan
11/12 - Man City / Man Utd / Arsenal -------------------------- Juve / Milan / Udinese
10/11 - Man Utd / Chelsea / Man City ------------------------- Milan / Inter / Napoli
09/10 - Chelsea / Man City / Arsenal -------------------------- Inter / Roma / Milan
08/09 - Man Utd / Liverpool / Chelsea------------------------- Inter / Juve / Milan
07/08 - Man Utd / Chelsea / Arsenal -------------------------- Inter / Roma / Juve
06/07 - Man Utd / Chelsea / Liverpool ------------------------ Inter / Roma / Lazio
05/06 - Chelsea / Man Utd / Liverpool ------------------------ Inter / Roma / Milan

EPL - Chelsea / Man City / Arsenal / Liverpool / Man Utd 5 Teams
Serie A - Juve / Roma / Sampdoria / Napoli / Milan / Udinese / Inter / Lazio 8 Teams

While this is terribly unscientific, it shows that the chances of getting into the CL in Serie A is greater but staying there is much harder as the variation is greater. Even established teams have dropped out and others stayed in their place. This is not so much in the EPL showing a status quo that is unhealthy for for the league as a whole.

So in conclusion, the Serie is harder as even the weaker teams have a better chance of displacing a top tier team.

 

[dontcallme]

Which teams made up the CL places in those 10 years, and which in Italy? Surely if a league was harder there would be more variation in the teams that make the CL. We have to account for Serie A only having 3 places so can only look at the to[ 3 in the Premier League.

14/15 - Chelsea/ Man City / Arsenal--------------------------- Juve / Roma / Sampdoria
13/14 - Man City / Liverpool / Chelsea ------------------------ Juve / Roma / Napoli
12/13 - Man Utd / Man City / Chelsea ------------------------- Juve / Napoli / Milan
11/12 - Man City / Man Utd / Arsenal -------------------------- Juve / Milan / Udinese
10/11 - Man Utd / Chelsea / Man City ------------------------- Milan / Inter / Napoli
09/10 - Chelsea / Man City / Arsenal -------------------------- Inter / Roma / Milan
08/09 - Man Utd / Liverpool / Chelsea------------------------- Inter / Juve / Milan
07/08 - Man Utd / Chelsea / Arsenal -------------------------- Inter / Roma / Juve
06/07 - Man Utd / Chelsea / Liverpool ------------------------ Inter / Roma / Lazio
05/06 - Chelsea / Man Utd / Liverpool ------------------------ Inter / Roma / Milan

EPL - Chelsea / Man City / Arsenal / Liverpool / Man Utd 5 Teams
Serie A - Juve / Roma / Sampdoria / Napoli / Milan / Udinese / Inter / Lazio 8 Teams

While this is terribly unscientific, it shows that the chances of getting into the CL in Serie A is greater but staying there is much harder as the variation is greater. Even established teams have dropped out and others stayed in their place. This is not so much in the EPL showing a status quo that is unhealthy for for the league as a whole.

So in conclusion, the Serie is harder as even the weaker teams have a better chance of displacing a top tier team.

Don't see how that makes the league harder, maybe they're just all as shit as each other.

 

[michaelden]

Don't see how that makes the league harder, maybe they're just all as shit as each other.

by your definition, it is harder then as each game is closer so you must try harder to win...

 

[Hot Spur]

Not the same thing as you have given one example. Over a 10 year period if one country has produced 7 finalists to another's 2 then chances are the strength of their upper-tier clubs is better.

I'm sure your aware that that CL is more than a knock-out competition.

The problem with your example of preparation resulting in winning is that the example you've given hasn't resulted in winning.

No it isn't. The final is a one match sudden death game, that makes the whole competition a "knock out cup competition". A chain is as strong as it's weakest link.

 

[dontcallme]

by your definition, it is harder then as each game is closer so you must try harder to win...

More evenly matched maybe, but if the teams in one division are weaker than another then by definition it isn't harder.