Staff Overhaul

[Power n Glory]

Anyway I'm not bothered either way, I would say there are more teams now that are able to hand us a can of ass whooping as we have seen regularly anyway so, in that respect there are more "top teams" in the league now. I remember when it was just Man U and Liverpool handing our arses to us, then Chelsea came on the scene, then Man City, now Spurs are doing it now and then.

You have no business talking about goal post switching and people talking bollox after the above post. You admit that the league is tougher which is in line with what DG has been posting. Lol. Crazy guy.

[CrimsonGunner11]

I think this debate is all about perspective.

If you’re an Arsenal fan, then the difficulty of getting into the top 4 is harder now than before;
If you’re a City fan, then the difficulty of getting into the top 4 is easier now than before;
If you’re a Stoke fan, then the difficulty of getting into the top 4 has been the same for eons.

No, its not perspective, its facts.

City became a rich, big club, that is the only reason they broke in.

The reason its tougher for us is the same reason its tougher for every other club, the teams capable and with the financial muscle to get into the top 4 was increased, defacto and proof wise of the last 14 years meaning other teams cannot pick up that 3rd or 4th spot they used to.

Your point on Stoke is inaccurate, prior to Roman Abramovich 3rd and 4th spot were open to any other team who got in form, West Ham, New Castle, Leeds etc then you had your likely's like Liverpool but even that wasn't guaranteed.

Since then Liverpool and Spurs have been consistently on the rise and are now as capable as Arsenal or more so, City, Utd and Chelsea are all financially superior.

The big clubs have all hit their stride making currently a Super 6, this has completely squeezed out other teams from getting top 4.

It simply is the case that unless your in that top 6 ........... its never been so hard to crack top 4, 14 years of facts back that up irrefutably.

You said it yourself when you said Liverpool and Sp*rs are on the rise. Does this not mean that there will be and have been periods when other teams will be on the rise? Conversely, does this not mean that there will be and have been periods where teams will fall out of favor? When Stoke could not get into the top 4 before, there were most likely periods where teams were rising as well as falling below them. Going by your point, about the top being open to the teams in form, this means that there were always at least four teams in form/better than Stoke during these periods where Stoke could not make top four. My comment regarding Stoke was based off this; i.e. that the difficulty for making the top 4 for teams like Stoke has ultimately always been the same. Yes, you can say that there are times were maybe its less difficult than others but ultimately the answer remains the same for them.

To put it another way: You ask Arsenal, City, and Stoke fans today “is it difficult to get into the top 4?” The answers will most likely be yes, no, and yes respectively. You ask the same question a few years ago, the answers will most likely be no, yes, and yes respectively. You see how the narrative changes and how the answer for Stoke fans is still the same EDIT: despite teams like City and Chelsea not really being in the picture before.

Tl;dr - You can’t simply dismiss the point that perspective doesn’t come into play here.

A team may replace either us, Spurs or Liverpool but think about it, how likely is that? what other club is going beat either of those three teams consistently based on their infrastructure and fan base and not being bought by a billionaire?

We are all traditionally "big clubs" Utd, City and Chelsea are money clubs so unless one of us Pool or Spurs bomb then no, certainly not anytime soon.

Top 6 as in 5th or 6th yes, it could and may very well happen, top 4 though.............. it hasn't happened in 14 years, and that's really what the debate was about, how easy is it for an outside team to break top 4.

The answer is in 14 years only Leicester has done it.

Well, if something like a super league happens, we could be looking at PL top 4 of Sp*rs, Everton, West Ham, and Leicester soon. Crazy things have happened before and they will probably happen again

[theHotHead]

You said it yourself when you said Liverpool and Sp*rs are on the rise. Does this not mean that there will be and have been periods when other teams will be on the rise? Conversely, does this not mean that there will be and have been periods where teams will fall out of favor? When Stoke could not get into the top 4 before, there were most likely periods where teams were rising as well as falling below them. Going by your point, about the top being open to the teams in form, this means that there were always at least four teams in form/better than Stoke during these periods where Stoke could not make top four. My comment regarding Stoke was based off this; i.e. that the difficulty for making the top 4 for teams like Stoke has ultimately always been the same. Yes, you can say that there are times were maybe its less difficult than others but ultimately the answer remains the same for them.

To put it another way: You ask Arsenal, City, and Stoke fans today “is it difficult to get into the top 4?” The answers will most likely be yes, no, and yes respectively. You ask the same question a few years ago, the answers will most likely be no, yes, and yes respectively. You see how the narrative changes and how the answer for Stoke fans is still the same EDIT: despite teams like City and Chelsea not really being in the picture before.

Tl;dr - You can’t simply dismiss the point that perspective doesn’t come into play here.

Seriously? When the same six teams have dominated for two decade, who now have massively more money than the rest, and with FFP and EPL spending rules in place that almost certainly prevent anyone from catching up ...

In twenty years only Leeds (3rd 2000) and Leicester (1st 2016) have managed to take a top three spot from the "Big" clubs .... that's hardly evidence for "periods when other teams will be on the rise"

The top six have it all - income, stadiums, sponsorship, marketing, managers and players - ask any fan at any club outside the top six what they think is the best they can do next season, or indeed for the next ten seasons ... Man City will be the last team to do a 'sugar daddy' the rules just don't allow that anymore, and even if they did you would need a whole country's assets to convert any mid-table EPL team into challenging the top six ... West Ham got a free 60,000 stadium, didn't change a thing. Everton spent 300m on players didn't change a thing ...

It's sad but the day's of it's a new season 'we all start equal' are long since gone ....

LOOOL !!!

Who are these 6 teams that have dominated for 2 decades ???? When have Spurs dominated anything for 2 decades ??? Or Man City ?? The last 3 seasons Spurs have been a force and the last 5 for City. And as for Stadiums, Spurs still don't have a stadium and their previous one only held 36,000 - yet they were already becoming a much better team. spurs are where they are because of Poch, nothing more and when he goes so will their beloved top 4.

[theHotHead]

Anyway I'm not bothered either way, I would say there are more teams now that are able to hand us a can of ass whooping as we have seen regularly anyway so, in that respect there are more "top teams" in the league now. I remember when it was just Man U and Liverpool handing our arses to us, then Chelsea came on the scene, then Man City, now Spurs are doing it now and then.

You have no business talking about goal post switching and people talking bollox after the above post. You admit that the league is tougher which is in line with what DG has been posting. Lol. Crazy guy.

Mate, read what I wrote and don't get it twisted. I clearly acknowledged throughout my previous posts that you could make the argument for and against based on the numbers I pulled up and I could not say you are wrong, I also said to DG that I heard what he was saying and that I was bringing balance to the argument by putting forward the other side. Clearly the topic is not as open and shut as you or he is making out, its what others have been saying too, you need all kinds of numbers and analysis to get the whole picture, you can't just isolate one or 2 and say that proves anything conclusively - because it doesn't.

Me admitting I think the league may be tougher now does not mean it is provable, its my gut feeling, but I pulled up the numbers to see if it was true - either way and I am still none the wiser

[DiamondGooner]

You're none the wiser ............ yet the answer is obvious.

There is 14 years of proof and prior to that the whole history of the Premier league, specifically the creation of elite clubs with Wenger's original Arsenal and Fergies Utd.

This is like the easiest, most traceable info I think I've ever had to debate lol.

But that's fine though, if your having trouble with accepting what's in front of your face then I can't help you anymore than I've tried to do.

"Who are these 6 teams that have dominated for 2 decades ????"

.......... again, creating false narratives that no one ever said because you can't back up your point.

Quote where anyone said this? I'll save you some time, you can't.

Your looking hella foolish now, stop squirming and let it go and accept the facts, they're not going to change anytime soon.

[Santi]

I'm still not sure how this '14 years of proof' relates to the league being harder now than the Chamakh days which are in that 14 years??

If we're really focusing on the original point:

Chamakh played at Arsenal from 2010-2013

10/11 - Arsenal 4th (68 pts), Spurs 5th (62pts), top 3 were United, Chelsea, City with Liverpool 6th
11/12 - Arsenal 3rd (70 pts), Spurs 4th (69 pts), Newcastle 5th (65 pts), top 2 were City and United with Liverpool 8th and Chelsea 6th.
12/13 - Arsenal 4th (73 pts), Spurs 5th (72 pts), top 3 were United, City, Chelsea with Liverpool 7th

So what do we compare to? Last season is the most recent data we have with a full season

17/18 - Arsenal 6th (63 pts), Liverpool 4th (75 pts), top 3 were City, United and Spurs with Chelsea 5th (70 pts).

Based on that you could say that Chamakh's first season was relatively easy to get top 4 given it required 68 pts and it's gotten harder progressively since. However, 5th place in 12/13 was stronger than 17/18 so you can't conclusively say the whole league is harder and/or the top teams are better.

Like I said, it's clear, based on common sense, it's become harder because Liverpool improved and we now have 6 clubs competing for 4 spots, but the most critical factor in this for Arsenal is that WE have become progressively worse in the same time. The points total required for top 4 itself hasn't changed drastically in either direction.

[EliteKiller]

Who are these 6 teams that have dominated for 2 decades ???? When have Spurs dominated anything for 2 decades ??? Or Man City ?? The last 3 seasons Spurs have been a force and the last 5 for City. And as for Stadiums, Spurs still don't have a stadium and their previous one only held 36,000 - yet they were already becoming a much better team. spurs are where they are because of Poch, nothing more and when he goes so will their beloved top 4.

That would be the six teams that on 71 occasions out of the last 80 occasions (20 years x 4 places) have filled the top 4 slots - you are a bit of a non-starter with it comes to seeing the bloody obvious aren't you ...

Sure Chelsea only got cash part way through the last twenty years, and City are just a nine years into their mega riches, and also for Spurs it's just nine years finishing in the top six, but if you are to stupid to recognise the dominance of the top six sides over the last twenty years, even when the evidence is right in front of your very eyes, then why do you even bother to post?

Throwing in a Spuds rant to deflect from your bullshit? good tactic but clueless ... there is no question that the EPL now has a top six, the concern is that the team most likely to drop out of that top six isn't new boys City, or new stadium Spuds, it's us, no cash Arsenal ...

The 'beloved top four' is where the money is ... and money is King in football ... if you can't accept that then maybe financial and business structure threads are probably a bit beyond you, stick to more simple topics you'll make yourself look a lot less foolish.

[swipe right]

You're none the wiser ............ yet the answer is obvious.

There is 14 years of proof and prior to that the whole history of the Premier league, specifically the creation of elite clubs with Wenger's original Arsenal and Fergies Utd.

This is like the easiest, most traceable info I think I've ever had to debate lol.

But that's fine though, if your having trouble with accepting what's in front of your face then I can't help you anymore than I've tried to do.

"Who are these 6 teams that have dominated for 2 decades ????"

.......... again, creating false narratives that no one ever said because you can't back up your point.

Quote where anyone said this? I'll save you some time, you can't.

Your looking hella foolish now, stop squirming and let it go and accept the facts, they're not going to change anytime soon.

That’s the problem mate. For you the early years of the premier league are “history”. Many of us actually lived through it and don’t need to depend on google to understand it.

[DiamondGooner]

I'm still not sure how this '14 years of proof' relates to the league being harder now than the Chamakh days which are in that 14 years??

I've already explained this, I'm not repeating myself.

I'll throw you a bone ............ Manchester City.

Go look when Chamakh signed, then go look what year City became a permanent fixture in the top 4.

That’s the problem mate. For you the early years of the premier league are “history”. Many of us actually lived through it and don’t need to depend on google to understand it.

I'm more than likely older than you, so just another typical inaccurate, pointless post by Andrew.

[theHotHead]

"Who are these 6 teams that have dominated for 2 decades ????"

.......... again, creating false narratives that no one ever said because you can't back up your point.

Quote where anyone said this? I'll save you some time, you can't.

Your looking hella foolish now, stop squirming and let it go and accept the facts, they're not going to change anytime soon.

Are you really asking this question? You absolute buffoon.

EK wrote:

Seriously? When the same six teams have dominated for two decade, who now have massively more money than the rest, and with FFP and EPL spending rules in place that almost certainly prevent anyone from catching up ...

But but but but ...... I am creating false narratives, nobody said it, I can't find it !! The only person that has continually been made to look foolish is you DG! You have moved goalposts and you clearly can't read. You pass off your opinion as facts when they obviously aren't, its why we are arguing in the first place, my numbers proved that your arguments cannot be facts they are just opinions due to how the numbers (which themselves are the only facts in this bloodclart conversation) can be interpreted in different ways.

It would take a far smarter person than you to catch me out DG, obviously used to bullying mongs and imbeciles with your style of arguing/debating.

[theHotHead]

I'm still not sure how this '14 years of proof' relates to the league being harder now than the Chamakh days which are in that 14 years??


Like I said, it's clear, based on common sense, it's become harder because Liverpool improved and we now have 6 clubs competing for 4 spots, but the most critical factor in this for Arsenal is that WE have become progressively worse in the same time. The points total required for top 4 itself hasn't changed drastically in either direction.

Santi, exactly !! The maths don't prove anything conclusively either way as I stated, you could make arguments for and against. More points to get in the top 4 is not even proof that it is harder because that depends on how easy the other teams are to beat - if they are easy then obviously getting more points becomes easier for the top clubs. So you have to look at the spread of points throughout the table as an indicator as well.

I showed that there was a top 5 previously, now there is a top 6 - we don't know for how long but typically its a top 5 - just like it was 21 years ago. DG and EK have proved nothing whatsoever.

Your final point is far more pertinent and the comment someone made about perspective. In 2010 I think it was when City and Spurs first made it a top 6 (before Spurs dropped out making it a top 5 again for 3 years) Arsenal still made the top 4, so having 6 teams in it didn't derail us even though our squad quality continued to be reduced!! So getting in the top 4 allegedly became harder because more teams were battling for it but Arsenal's squad quality deteriorated but we still managed it (which in itself could be argued that it wasn't becoming more difficult to achieve).

Perspective - had we not replaced our players with inferior versions we would be saying its still easy to finish top 4.

[EliteKiller]

Santi, exactly !! The maths don't prove anything conclusively either way as I stated, you could make arguments for and against. More points to get in the top 4 is not even proof that it is harder because that depends on how easy the other teams are to beat - if they are easy then obviously getting more points becomes easier for the top clubs. So you have to look at the spread of points throughout the table as an indicator as well.

I showed that there was a top 5 previously, now there is a top 6 - we don't know for how long but typically its a top 5 - just like it was 21 years ago. DG and EK have proved nothing whatsoever.

Your final point is far more pertinent and the comment someone made about perspective. In 2010 I think it was when City and Spurs first made it a top 6 (before Spurs dropped out making it a top 5 again for 3 years) Arsenal still made the top 4, so having 6 teams in it didn't derail us even though our squad quality continued to be reduced!! So getting in the top 4 allegedly became harder because more teams were battling for it but Arsenal's squad quality deteriorated but we still managed it (which in itself could be argued that it wasn't becoming more difficult to achieve).

Perspective - had we not replaced our players with inferior versions we would be saying its still easy to finish top 4.

In 2010 I think it was when City and Spurs first made it a top 6 (before Spurs dropped out making it a top 5 again for 3 years) Arsenal still made the top 4, so having 6 teams in it didn't derail us even though our squad quality continued to be reduced!! So getting in the top 4 allegedly

and that bollocks shows you up as the ignorant poster you so obviously are .... it's already been pointed out to you that you have no clue on statistics, facts, or football history so here's another brief lesson for you ...

Firstly we didn't replace with inferior players we spent 250m when we bought in Koscielny, Arteta, Mertsacker, Cazorla, Giroud, Ozil, Sanchez, Cech were these all inferior quality? and in the last 3 years we've spent another 300m on Xhaka, Mustafi, Aubameyang, Lacazette, Mkhitaryan, Torreira, Leno, Sokratis are they all inferior players as well?

Looking at the last ten seasons (including this one) how well have the new boys in the top six done, and no Spuds didn't miss out for three years that's just your fake facts letting you down again ...

Man City last 10 seasons - average finishing position 2.4
Man City last 5 seasons - average finishing position 2.4

2009–10 5th
2010–11 3rd
2011–12 1st
2012–13 2nd
2013–14 1st
2014–15 2nd
2015–16 4th
2016–17 3rd
2017–18 1st
2018 -19 2nd

Spuds last 10 seasons - average finishing position 4.0
Spuds last 5 seasons - average finishing position 3.2

2009–10 4th
2010–11 5th
2011–12 4th
2012–13 5th
2013–14 6th
2014–15 5th
2015–16 3rd
2016–17 2nd
2017–18 3rd
2018 -19 3rd

Arsenal last 10 seasons - average finishing position 3.9
Arsenal last 5 seasons - average finishing position 4.2

2009–10 3rd
2010–11 4th
2011–12 3rd
2012–13 4th
2013–14 4th
2014–15 3rd
2015–16 2nd
2016–17 5th
2017–18 6th
2018 -19 5th

Reality is that over the last ten years, when despite your 'memory' both City and Spurs have been ever present in the top six, City have fared best at an average position of 2.4 then Arsenal and Spurs are very close at 3.9 and 4.0 respectively ...

However if you look just at the last five years City maintain an average position of 2.4 but Spuds improve to 3.2 and Arsenal drop back to 4.2

If it's getting "easier" to beat these imaginary weaker teams then please explain how we've spent some +500m on players only to do worse?

[LMAO]

-season.-|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|--------average--------
1992-93 | 84 | 74 | 72 | 71| 63 | top 4: 75, top 5: 73
1993-94 | 92 | 84 | 77 | 71| 70 | top 4: 81, top 5: 79
1994-95 | 89 | 88 | 77 | 74| 73 | top 4: 82, top 5: 80
1995-96 | 82 | 78 | 71 | 63| 63 | top 4: 74, top 5: 71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Arsene Wenger becomes Arsenal manager)
1996-97 | 75 | 68 | 68 | 68 | 61 | top 4: 70, top 5: 68
1997-98 | 78 | 77 | 65 | 63 | 59 | top 4: 71, top 5: 68
1998-99 | 79 | 78 | 75 | 67 | 57 | top 4: 75, top 5: 71
1999-00 | 91 | 73 | 69 | 67 | 65 | top 4: 75, top 5: 73
2000-01 | 80 | 70 | 69 | 68 | 66 | top 4: 72, top 5: 71
2001-02 | 87 | 80 | 77 | 71 | 66 | top 4: 79, top 5: 76
2002-03 | 83 | 78 | 69 | 67 | 64 | top 4: 74, top 5: 72
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Chelsea bought by Abramovich)
2003-04 | 90 | 79 | 75 | 60 | 56 | top 4: 76, top 5: 72
2004-05 | 95 | 83 | 77 | 61 | 58 | top 4: 79, top 5: 75
2005-06 | 91 | 83 | 82 | 67 | 65 | top 4: 81, top 5: 78
2006-07 | 89 | 83 | 68 | 68 | 60 | top 4: 77, top 5: 74
2007-08 | 87 | 85 | 83 | 76 | 65 | top 4: 83, top 5: 79
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (City bought by Abu Dhabi United Group)
2008-09 | 90 | 86 | 83 | 72 | 63 | top 4: 83, top 5: 79
2009-10 | 86 | 85 | 75 | 70 | 67 | top 4: 79, top 5: 77
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Big Six)
2010-11 | 80 | 71 | 71 | 68 | 62 | top 4: 73, top 5: 70
2011-12 | 89 | 89 | 70 | 69 | 65 | top 4: 79, top 5: 76
2012-13 | 89 | 78 | 75 | 73 | 72 | top 4: 79, top 5: 77
2013-14 | 86 | 84 | 82 | 79 | 72 | top 4: 83, top 5: 81
2014-15 | 87 | 79 | 75 | 70 | 64 | top 4: 78, top 5: 75
2015-16 | 81 | 71 | 70 | 66 | 66 | top 4: 72, top 5: 71
2016-17 | 93 | 86 | 78 | 76 | 75 | top 4: 83, top 5: 82
2017-18 | oh | 81 | 77 | 75 | 70 | top 4: 83, top 5: 81 *

*oh = one hundred. City had 100 pts., but throws table out of alignment.

1st high: 100 (2017-18)
1st low: 75 (1996-97)

2nd high: 89 (2011-12)
2nd low: 68 (1996-97)

3rd high: 83 (2007-08, 2008-09)
3rd low: 65 (1997-98)

4th high: 79 (2013-14)
4th low: 60 (2003-04)

5th high: 75 (2016-17)
5th low: 56 (2003-04)

Top 4 high: 83.25 (2016-17, 2017-18) sidenote: 82.75 occurred 3 times (2007-08, 2008-09, 2013-14)
Top 4 low: 70 (1996-97)

Top 5 high: 82 (2016-17)
Top 5 low: 68 (1996-97) sidenote: 68.4 occurred 1 time (1997-98)


It's difficult to establish getting top 4 is harder/the same/easier because you'd have to look at more data points like points for every league position, but just from the top 5, getting into top 4 (i.e., 1 more point than 5th place) hasn't really changed since the PL's inception. Although the points required for 4th look to be trending higher, we need a few more seasons before making a definitive conclusion.

Imo, it's similar to why you can't really directly compare Olympic athletes of different eras. While the overall competition has improved due to numerous factors, the gap between contemporaries isn't that great (excluding outliers like Usain Bolt/Man City and Jesse Owens/Man Utd). HotHead, I like your delta example for this reason.

[swipe right]

I'm still not sure how this '14 years of proof' relates to the league being harder now than the Chamakh days which are in that 14 years??

I've already explained this, I'm not repeating myself.

I'll throw you a bone ............ Manchester City.

Go look when Chamakh signed, then go look what year City became a permanent fixture in the top 4.

That’s the problem mate. For you the early years of the premier league are “history”. Many of us actually lived through it and don’t need to depend on google to understand it.

I'm more than likely older than you, so just another typical inaccurate, pointless post by Andrew.

Don’t know who Andrew is. Know I’m not him.

[Interest: waning]

Can't read all this shit. These lists are exhausting.