The latest friendly game between Leicester vs. PSG marked their "first" tough challenge outside of England against a top flight team. A heavy defeat was what they experienced (4 - 0).

I dont know how many of us here watched or at least followed the game, but I can say PSG was rampant, superior in all departments. We all saw this coming, didn't we? This loss would do more good to Leicester I think, they should know who they are keep their feet down and set their priority straight!

I would love to see them doing well in CL, but I think CL should be their least goal. Top 10 in EPL would be realistic, and for that they might surprise us again.

My prediction would be:

• Top 10 in EPL
• Out of CL soon and go down to Europa league
• Win a couple of games in Europa league

@Dynastian/Emo

As long as it doesn't get too personal, I must say I enjoy some solid debate, and Lodatz is always a willing participant.

@Lodatz

You have to realize that my knowledge, and more importantly, exposure to this sport before 2006 is non-existent. I don't remember Arsenal invincibles or Liverpool CL titles. That's why I threw down the ten years mark, because that's all I have to go on. I can read into statistics and results from before that period, but because I didn't experience it, it's guesswork at best. I know that gives me a somewhat difference base of operations when reading into trends of the global game, but who doesn't like a new perspective?

I mean, just to isolate United (and not to pick at them because they're your team), in the last three seasons they've finished 7th, 4th and 5th, which I'm sure you'll agree is nowhere near the level of Ferguson's last year. You can only lay so much of the blame on David Moyes, and only so much upon van Gaal, also. At what point do we consider that they haven't suddenly started to underperform for 3 years, but instead it was that Fergie had them OVERperforming, because he was simply that good? (which he was).

I will confess that I didn't understand just how good of a manager Fergie was until he left. The financial starvation by the Glazers from 2010-2013 hurt United considerably, and has taken vast overspending since that has continued into the present day to overcome. However, I am willing to flip the page on this three year run, maybe it's just early season optimism, but I would be stunned if United didn't finish top 4 or challenge for the title this season. I would personally prefer to view the last three years from United as the exception rather then the rule.

It's easier to pick on United in that regard than City or Chelsea, because yes both were flying high for the last few years until this past season. In Chelsea's case, I think it's not outrageous to say that most of that credit can go to Mourinho himself, since it wasn't until his return that Chelsea became true title contenders again.

City have always felt like they were one step away from doing something amazing, and tbh, even when they finally got to the CL semifinals last season, it still felt that way. City have never played up to their potential, but if Pep is the manager everyone thinks he is, that should change. If not, then I would argue that City will never be the European powerhouse they should have been years ago. Spending 150m on a single position over one year and still failing shouldn't be an option. On your point about Mourinho though, I disagree strongly. Chelsea won the CL and were consistent in Europe without him. And while he traded in Eto for Costa, Mata for Hazard, and Essien for Matic, he also oversaw the epic failing of that squad that was last season. We can debate about why Chelsea screwed up last season, but in the end, regardless of what happened, Mourinho is at least partially responsible, something Chelsea fans are quick to deny and United fans quick to forget.

I will concede to your point about league difficulty. The bottom of the PL appears to be better than the bottom of any other league. But I don't think the difference is as large as people think it is. When our 1-4 teams play other leagues 1-4 teams, they tend to lose. When our 5-8 teams play other leagues 5-8 teams, they tend to lose. I suspect that would be different for teams 9-20, but I have nothing to support that argument, and I'm not even wholly convinced it's true. English fans seem to have poor perceptions of their teams abilities, I remember an analyst on SkySports (don't remember who) when discussing Liverpool was complaining before the start of the last season about the quality of teams allowed into the Europa League group stage. Liverpool won 2 out of 6 group stage games against Sion, Ruben Kazan, and Bordeaux. I know, they ended up advancing to the final, but nevertheless we would be blind to ignore results such as these.

Besides, regardless of league difficulty, the best way to measure up a team against another is head-to-head. English teams have failed miserably in this category.

The financial starvation by the Glazers from 2010-2013 hurt United considerably, and has taken vast overspending since that has continued into the present day to overcome.

Agreed. The question then becomes: did they spend it at least on the right players? It's hard to see Pogba and Ibra being anything other than brilliant for United, but question marks remain about many others. We shall see, but I did pick United to get 4th. But I have a slight issue with this statement:

I would personally prefer to view the last three years from United as the exception rather then the rule.

It depends on how you judge it. Over the last 25 years, yes, because of Ferguson. He always bounced back, and one of the things which elevates him to one of the greatest managers of all time is how he kept on managing to see off the competition. First he took the league from Liverpool, then he out-fought Wenger, then he finally came back and conquered Chelsea, and then finally smacked City back down after narrowly losing the title.

Every time, he had the answers. Every time, he changed or fixed what required it, and came back stronger. And if not for the incredible team of Guardiola's Barcelona, he would have won two more Champions Leagues.

It could well be that the 'rule' began and ended with him, and now United are simply one of many clubs with enormous resources, but an awful lot of work to do. I still think that there's too much work United to challenge for the title, this season. Next season? Who knows.

I'll address City in another comment, coming right up.

City have always felt like they were one step away from doing something amazing, and tbh, even when they finally got to the CL semifinals last season, it still felt that way. City have never played up to their potential, but if Pep is the manager everyone thinks he is, that should change.

And the question becomes: what IS their full potential? And, I feel that begs another question: did they already miss the chance to, at least for the current stars upon whom the last 5 seasons have been built?

See, if we look at City, I still say their stand-outs have been Aguero, Silva, Toure, Kompany, Zabaleta and (possibly) Hart. The rest were adequate, but either they were not world class, or they failed to be consistent at it. Step forward Nasri, Clichy, Dzeko, Fernandinho, Milner, Navas, Negredo, Balotelli etc.. The true stars of that team are in my mind the 5 named (plus Hart? Optional) earlier, and they've been the ones creating those moments where you thought, as you say, they would become incredible.

And yet, they didn't quite do it. Perhaps because they were assembled relatively quickly and took a few seasons to gel. Don't forget that City got rich in 2008 (and started off by buying Robinho for 32m). They did not break the Top 4 until 2011.

Could it be that this squad simply ran its course, and couldn't stay on top of the competition for the last 2 seasons in a row?

On your point about Mourinho though, I disagree strongly. Chelsea won the CL and were consistent in Europe without him.

Well, hey, I think a bit of context there is needed. When Chelsea finally DID win the CL, it was with the remnants and spine of the team Mourinho assembled and coached into heavyweights: Cech, Terry, Ivanovic, Cole, Essien, Lampard and Drogba...

But, I was talking about his 2nd coming. The seasons before his return, Chelsea had slipped to 6th in the league in 2012, and were a distant 14 points behind 1st in 2013. Then he came back, put them right back in contention in the title race, came only 4 points off the championship and took them to a CL semi-final against the team who won La Liga that year against the odds. The season after? He won the league.

And then, apparently, he lost the locker room, and they fell apart the next season.

And this is the guy who will be leading United next year. Not sure whether that bodes ill or well for the Red Devils, but I think it's certainly true that Mourinho made the difference in that title win.

But I don't think the difference is as large as people think it is. When our 1-4 teams play other leagues 1-4 teams, they tend to lose.

Really? I seem to recall Liverpool (7th) knocking out Dortmund (2nd) in Europe, last season. I recall Arsenal (2nd) beating Bayern (1st) too. I recall City (4th) beating PSG (1) and losing very slimly to Madrid (2nd).

The season before? City beat Bayern, before giving Barca a run for their money, and Arsenal beat Dortmund.

The season before that? City beat Bayern (again), before going out to Barca (again), Arsenal beat Dortmund (again), before being knocked out by Bayern (who also took out United in the next round), but Chelsea steamed through PSG to face Atletico.

And the season before that, which is back to 2013, Arsenal went out on goal difference(!) to Bayern, and United were, ahem, frustrated by the ref against Madrid. ;)

We've been holding our own against everyone, and mainly getting knocked out by, as you've noted before: Barcelona, Bayern and Madrid.

So no, I don't think our head-to-head has been been poor against anyone other than those 3 (plus Atletico) who are simply better than any one team the PL can offer right now. That doesn't change the reality that the standard of our Top 4 is higher than anywhere else (with Spain the only league who could claim otherwise and not be laughed at), and our Top 7-8 too, which brings me to:

Liverpool won 2 out of 6 group stage games against Sion, Ruben Kazan, and Bordeaux. I know, they ended up advancing to the final, but nevertheless we would be blind to ignore results such as these.

I think we'd be even more blind to ignore the fact that Liverpool sent out their reserve team for those games. So did Tottenham. Even when we faced Dortmund later in the knock-out stage we fielded an academy and reserves team (seriously, go look up the line-ups). Liverpool on the other hand (perhaps especially since it's Klopp's team) then decided to take it seriously, and managed to beat (with difficulty) BVB and fight Sevilla to a hard game.

Those group stage games were considered formalities. You may believe that's arrogant, and maybe it is since they only just got away with it, but that doesn't change the fact that this was not the Liverpool first team getting such shoddy results.

So, going back to the question of competition, you have to appreciate how that shapes things at the top end. Think of City, and why it took a few seasons to get there when it had only taken Chelsea 2 years when they got rich. Even though they have roughly the same money as say, PSG, in their league they have to SHARE. In England, they're not the only rich kids on the block, buying up superstar players for ridiculous amounts of cash. ;) In Spain, you have two rich kids, in Germany you have one, in France only one, and in Italy only the remnants of what used to be the richest league in the world.

In England? There are 4 clubs who can afford to attract the highest (or at least the expensive) sort of talent, and a tier of 3 below them who can afford the next best thing, or the unproven but potential world-class players of tomorrow. That's how Liverpool end up with a Suarez, a Torres and an Alonso, and how Spurs get hold of a Modric and a Bale.

Imagine if all those players were funneled into only 1 or 2 places, as they are in other leagues. Consider the 5 players (Aguero, Toure, Silva, Zabaleta and Kompany) that I mentioned with regard to City, and then imagine that you could add Hazard, Ozil, Lloris and Kane to their ranks.

Or, go back a few seasons ago, and imagine putting Aguero, Bale, Silva, Modric, Toure, Kompany, Zabaleta, and Cech up against Hazard, RVP, Suarez, Ozil, Matic, Fabregas, de Gea etc. Those types of teams would be winning CL titles, but they can't be assembled in one place in this league, as they can be in others.

As it is, all that talent is split up among 4 very rich teams, 3 just behind them, and then another 10 who are picking out gems from all across Europe, who will be trying to be the next Leicester.

Hence it not being down to the teams 'under-performing', it's down to being so hard to sustain high performance at all.

Lol. Please talk to sunflash, he is more patient than me imo.

@Lodatz

Alot of that is pretty fair. If what you say about league difficulty is true, which I'm not convinced it is, but let's pretend we both agree on it for a second, what do the top teams in England need to do to get on the level of Barcelona/Madrids/Bayern/Juventus? I see very few ways of that being possible in England in regards to the league, because this is how it happens everywhere else:

1: Bayern method, top teams starve the rest of the league for players.
2: Spanish method, top teams starve the rest of the league for money.
3: Italian method, everyone is in utter turmoil, all the time.

None of those work in the BPL. There's too much money in the smaller teams, so you can't starve them of money, and because of that money you have to overspend spectacularly to get players from them and then they smartly invest that money to get even better players (see: Southampton). And as much as people think the English game is a mess, for every Portsmouth that falls spectacularly, there is a Leicester, or a West Ham, or a Southampton (who I still think has the best administration in the world).

So how then to put the English teams on the level of Europe's elite? It's not like City/United/Chelsea don't spend tons of money. It's not like City/Arsenal/Chelsea (and I guess United this season) haven't had fantastic managers. Aside from the lack of stranglehold on the lower teams, they don't have anything that Europe's elite don't, because the difference between Middlesbough and Betis doesn't matter in head-to-head European competition, yet English teams still lose to them upwards of 75% of the time over the last seven years, and shockingly, 100% of the time since Chelsea won in 2012.

If I had to rank the European hierarchy it would look something like this:

Tier 1: Real Madrid, Barca, Bayern
Tier 2: Juventus, Atletico
Tier 3: City
Tier 4: PSG, Arsenal, Chelsea, United (when they stop screwing around and missing the competition)
Tier 5: Whatever Portuguese team decides to be good that year and Dortmund

Before last season, City would have been rank 4 as well.

So the question becomes, screw the top tier, how do we even get into tier 2? I would be very happy if any of United/Chelsea/Arsenal got to the final, regardless of winning itself, just so the European top teams could change a little bit. But the fact is, none of tiers 3-4 have defeated any of tiers 1-2 since 2011-12. In fact, the most successful team over the last few years I listed that's not in tiers 1-2 is Dortmund.

To be perfectly honest, as long as Arsenal have Wenger and fail to splash some cash, I can't see them getting into a semi-final, let alone a final. City has the best squad in England, but have always been off the pace in Europe. Chelsea and United are probably the best hope for the BPL in Europe, and that has been the case over the last decade, but ironically, neither of them got into the competition last season.

I don't see Leicester of Spurs making much of a splash. Sorry Lodatz.

So what would be your solution that would bump one or more English teams into tier 2, or even tier 1?

You two...

Still a better love story than Twilight!!!

@Tuan_jinn Damn it jinn, you just had to make that one, didn't you? XD

Now it's only fair for the FOX to dig up this thread again.

Leicester has proven some us wrong. But how much wrong did we do?

Gotta start a new thread, this one is too interesting to mix up =)))
http://footyroom.com/forum/discussions/how-would-leicester-city-do-next-season-80823?page=3