theHotHead wrote: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?