|
|
Post by londonstokie17 on Oct 8, 2015 9:48:01 GMT
With more money in the premier league than ever competition is fierce. Anyone seems to be able to beat anyone and the only Safe bet you can find this season is probably backing west brom not to score 3 or more away from home as long as captain tracksuit is still in charge. However, what I can't comprehend is, if smaller clubs like West Ham, palace,and Leicester have spent money and significantly improved. Why have the bigger clubs not improved at the same rate? It isn't like they haven't spent. City and united have epecially spent large ammounts of money. I understand it may be harder for them to win against the smaller teams now as they are all improving and I think one thing that is harming them in the league is the quality of wingers and attacking midfielders with pace being purchased enabling teams to be absorb pressure then be very strong on the break. However as I said. For whatever the smaller clubs have spent. They have spent more so why are the smaller clubs better and the bigger clubs worse. For proof they are worse see Europe.
Thoughts ?
|
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 8, 2015 10:10:56 GMT
One thing with the bigger clubs is that none of them seemed to entirely address the problems they had.
If Aguero gets injured, who's going to score the goals for Citeh? Bony?
Man Utd still look like they need a centre half and another wide player.
Chelsea spent their summer signing fringe players.
Arsenal still won't buy a striker or a defensive midfielder.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 8, 2015 11:50:04 GMT
One thing with the bigger clubs is that none of them seemed to entirely address the problems they had. If Aguero gets injured, who's going to score the goals for Citeh? Bony? Man Utd still look like they need a centre half and another wide player. Chelsea spent their summer signing fringe players. Arsenal still won't buy a striker or a defensive midfielder. The problem with strikers is how few genuinely world class ones there are in the whole game worldwide. It's easy enough to buy good strikers, but not exceptional ones. There are only a handful of them at any level so it's rare for any team to have one, let alone two. |
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 8, 2015 12:13:38 GMT
One thing with the bigger clubs is that none of them seemed to entirely address the problems they had. If Aguero gets injured, who's going to score the goals for Citeh? Bony? Man Utd still look like they need a centre half and another wide player. Chelsea spent their summer signing fringe players. Arsenal still won't buy a striker or a defensive midfielder. The problem with strikers is how few genuinely world class ones there are in the whole game worldwide. It's easy enough to buy good strikers, but not exceptional ones. There are only a handful of them at any level so it's rare for any team to have one, let alone two. A good one would've done, to be fair. Their rivals have all managed to find at least 'very good' strikers in the last 3-4 seasons while he's steadfastly refused to go for one. |
|
|
|
Post by right on Oct 8, 2015 13:49:29 GMT
Diminishing returns. The better you are, the more you have to spend to get better. Say west Ham buys a £10mil player. Their team increases in skill by maybe 15 "units". It would take £40mil for man city to increase in skill by 15 "units". And the other way around, put a £10mil player on one of lower leagues and they'll be eyed for promotion.
Additionally, there is scarcity. It's difficult to find players to make your club better when you're already at the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Oct 8, 2015 13:53:52 GMT
City and United, who?
|
|
|
|
Post by potterblade on Oct 8, 2015 14:22:03 GMT
The top teams in the Prem have always attracted top talent. The lesser teams can now too because of £££££. So yes the gap is probably narrowing in the Premier League.
|
|
