This is in response to the claim that the EPL race involves "five or six teams for the title"

Stats I used for this analysis is below. You can scroll down to see what I'm referencing.

Let's consider "title-race" this way. If a team is within 9 points of the 1st place team, then they are three games behind. This would make them competitive, because if the winner wins with four games to spare, then it doesn't really count as a "title-race". Let's round 9 up to 10 just so it's easier to tell from the charts.

So let's count how many teams were within 10 points of winning the title. [Basically, let's see how many teams were actually 'competing' for the title.]

.

Average # of teams that are 'competing' (aka the first team + teams that are within 10 points of the first team)...
LL: 2.65
PL: 2.24

So you see, over the past 17 years, since the turn of the new millenium, the EPL and La Liga have, on average, two teams fighting for the title. A far cry from your claim that "five or six teams fight for the title". If a team is more than 10 points from the top, they are not "competing" for the title because 10 points is a huge f.ucking gap. It's a 4-game's worth of space in the table at the very minimum.

You wanna see the # of teams that finished in the Top 3 for each league from 1999-00 season to 2015-16?

PL: Chelsea, United, City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, Leicester, Tottenham (9 teams)
LL: Real, Barcelona, Atletico, Villarreal, Valencia, Deportivo, Mallorca, Sociedad, Sevilla (9 teams)

Number of wins?

United: 8
Chelsea: 4
City: 2
Arsenal: 2
Leicester: 1

Barcelona: 8
Real: 5
Valencia: 2
Deportivo: 1
Atletico: 1

Notice the similarity? Lol. United and Barcelona both win eight times in seventeen years. That's almost half. Real and Chelsea follow suit with 5 and 4 wins respectively. The remaining three teams in either league did not win more than twice. I'm struggling to see this "5 or 6 teams competing for the title" argument anymore. Matter of fact, that argument does not exist. It's a farce. Statistics is all it takes to disprove that claim.

Stats for difference in points for the EPL Top 6 each season

Stats for the difference in points for La Liga Top 6 each season

Wow,

Excellent analysis @Dynastinian.

Despite I have the same feeling as all EPL fans, since teams just beat up each other which make it feels more competitive.... But again, it's just a feeling.

This stats shelters the argument for me until someone else proved it's wrong which I dont think so.

Wow,

Excellent analysis @Dynastinian.

Can FR pint this answer? (especially the part about number of games too)...

I have to admit again, this thread is great!

Despite I have the same feeling as all EPL fans, since teams just beat up each other which make it feels more competitive.... But again, it's just a feeling.

This stats shelters the argument for me until someone else proved it's wrong which I dont think so.

I just proved that the EPL has 2-3 teams fighting for the title, just the same as La Liga. Of course which team(s) compete changes in the EPL, unlike La Liga. However, the number is still 2-3, regardless of which team(s) are in the race. Sevilla is within one point of Barca right now, but if Barca finish first place and Sevillla don't finish within 10 points of Barcelona, you can't say that they were really "competing" for the title. It means that Barcelona peeled away at one point in time. Same with Chelsea, United, etc.

@Joze

I genuinely don't understand why you guys have to be di.cks about a debate. I legitimately threw out facts and you respond by being a di.ck. If you still ignore the conclusion I presented to you with facts then I don't know what more to present to you in this thread.

@JozeMourinho You are the one who spoiled the party here. It's not the first time you say things like

Having mod rights does not give you the right to call anyone a di.ck also.

to Dynastian. Argue if you can. But if you can't, don't pull a leverage on the mods by talking them like this. And don't get personal.

Excellent dynast +1, i only disagree on the Barca part struggling in PL, the kind of teams like Celtics are easier to play rather than space limitatir team like Villareal or pressing high team like Sociedad/Bilbao. The roughest place to play atm is Africa and South America, Neymar who could be the tiniest of the team dominate Brazil games....
Teams like Arsenal can put 4 or 5 past Stokes, and some say Barca would struggle against them ? How can you win CL And struggle vs physical teams with average technical and tactical Atributes ?

Is Stoke more dangerous than Bayern ? With Vidal, Xabi Alonso, Boateng, Miller, Lewa and co... Busquets And Alba are part of a national side almost undefeated from 2007 to 2014 with 3 continental wins in a row, facing the best nations in the world, How their body would cost them issues against kick and rush football teams ? Explain please...
And " The PL has 6 contenders debate " is a false debate because it's irrelevant in term of level. Ligue 1 was past 5 years an 8 club race, every year has its contender, what does this show ?

• teams having same level
  No dominating team in the league
  The inconsistency of the league holder

Imagine Barca/Madrid having an end of a cycle ( hope not ), How would La liga be like ? The same as PL after SAF era.

Imagine Barca/Madrid having an end of a cycle ( hope not ), How would La liga be like ? The same as PL after SAF era.

I have to disagree there, EPL before SAF was won by the following teams:

Imagine Barca/Madrid having an end of a cycle ( hope not ), How would La liga be like ? The same as PL after SAF era.

I have to disagree there, EPL before SAF was won by the following teams: Everton, Liverpool, Arsenal, Leeds, Blackburn, Chelsea and Manchester City. With the La liga, since 1986, only Valencia and Deportivo have won it since 1986. I also don't think the La Liga will turn out the same way even if the Madrids and Barcelona collapsed.

League competitiveness and strengths of bottoms teams are two different teams. In this forum, what would be the 'bottom' teams? Let's take it as it it's the bottom half of the table.

Currently, the bottom teams in the la liga consists of Malaga, Alaves, Celta Vigo, Real Betis, Deportivo, Leganes, Valencia,Sporting Gijon, Granada and Osasuna. As with EPL, they are West Ham, Bournemouth, Stoke, Burnley, Middlesbrough, Leicester, Crystal Palace, Sunderland, Swansea, and Hull. Ok, let's first look at where these teams finished last season

Malaga- 8
Alaves- NA
Celta Vigo- 6
Real Betis- 10
Deportivo- 15
Leganes- NA
Valencia- 12
Sporting Gijon- 17
Granada- 16
Osasuna- NA

EPL
West Ham- 7
Bournemouth- 16
Stoke- 9
Burnley- NA
Middlesbrough- NA
Leicester- 1
Crystal Palace- 15
Sunderland- 17
Swansea- 12
Hull- NA

So what would one say here, EPL teams are a lot more inconsistent here. I think the closeness of the teams of the teams in the EPL could also be said. Because of this, there is a bigger chance of the unexpected happening. Last season, Swansea conceded 52 goals. In 18 matches, they let in 41 goals. Palace by Christmas were 5th. They ended 15th. Competitiveness plays a part in where a team finishes. Therefore, I believe the EPL is more stronger and the bottom teams are better.

Now money:

In the EPL, the teams that have sold more than they have bought are as follows: Southampton, Everton, Swansea. I know TIki already spoke about EPL teams splashing for no reason, but when you look at Everton there, they've spent money on Bolasie, who was a regular before his injury. Stekelenburg, who is their first choice goalkeeper. Williams, who is their first choice centre back, and Gueye, who is a great midfielder. This all came from cashing in from Stones, who, despite being hyped about, is still a terrible centre back for a team like Manchester City in my opinion. So you can see just how much Swansea are struggling without Williams, who was a king at defending set pieces, and how it's helping Everton.

In the La liga, the teams that have sold more than they have bought are as follows: Real Madrid, Bilbao, Sevilla, Granada, Celta Vigo, Deportivo, Valencia and Osasuna. Right off the bat, I can see that La Liga teams are not replacing where they need replacing, or at least are not buying into replacements. Only like Real Madrid and Sevilla are doing good this season, Real in fact only made one transfer, but they didn't need to buy. They were already a world class who could win things. Sevilla is the same, who bought cheap and now their attacking play is clicking even more stronger than last season, even though they won the Europa League.

Now, as this thread is about the bottom teams, you might think me talking about Real Madrid and Sevilla just then was irrelevant. But, the other teams to me keep getting weaker and weaker, and can only get loans to avoid the drop EVERY season.

Finally, I would like to talk about points, the average season point for the EPL team was 39.3, whilst La Liga was the average for the La Liga was 40. The basic would say, more points, better. Not in this instance. Teams are dropping points due to the hardness of games. Also, the tally was higher taken down by Aston Villa. I would find more evidence, but I want to know what Tiki says first

I also don't think I can be more explicit than this Tiki.

@Dynast:

Barcelona may be carrying La Liga these past 10 years, but the fact remains that when Real Madrid, Deportivo, Valencia, and Atletico have played English teams throughout the Champions League era, they've won.

All you're doing is stating another arbitrary period to be considered. The 'Champions League era' means nothing, because it's a continuation of the old European Cup.

The key point is that you have to set a limit on what you wish to consider current data. Hence me pointing out that if we go by say the last 5 years, then it look much more favorable for Spanish teams than the numbers I've given you. I don't feel like you're actually addressing the point, but perhaps you feel otherwise.

I genuinely don't see why there is still an argument here. It may be a Top 2 in Spain, but those Top 2 (+ Bayern) regularly stomp every team in the world."

That's true, but is likewise besides the point. That Top 2 does not represent the league as a whole. In fact, if you take that Top 2 out of the equation, there have been LITERALLY ZERO other Spanish winners of either the Champions League or the European Cup.

Ever.

Are you sure that you want to continue to defend this perspective? Because once again I don't think you've addressed the point that was made.

Manipulating data to just show stats since the mid-2000's is conveniently choosing the prime of the English Premier League and the beginning of Barcelona's dominance.

That's not manipulating data; it's called providing context, instead. Would you like to like throw 'convenience' out of the window and talk about how strong English teams have been throughout history? Or would that not work in favor of your argument, and therefore somehow be suddenly rendered invalid, hmm?

Go back further to the 90's and the early 00's, and you'll find that La Liga was performing extremely well in Europe, especially compared to English teams.

Yes, that's true. And if we go back to the late 70s and early 80s, English teams won 7 European Cups in a row. IN A ROW. So, you do see now that your point is, well, a little silly... right?

I chose that starting point for a reason: it provided backdrop to the CURRENT landscape. If you want to distort that data, then go shorter, not longer. The fact still remains that aside from Barca and Real, other Spanish teams have done rather poorly against English opposition in the last 12 years: a whole generation in football.

Make of it what you will, but I suspect the reason why this point keeps coming around again is because you never address the central point of the argument, which is:

Barcelona and Real Madrid's success does not indicate overall league strength, and never has.

The day that this finally is conceded, the day that the argument will likely stop happening.

@Dynast:

Barcelona may be carrying La Liga these past 10 years, but the fact remains that when Real Madrid, Deportivo, Valencia, and Atletico have played English teams throughout the Champions League era, they've won.

All you're doing is stating another arbitrary period to be considered. The 'Champions League era' means nothing, because it's a continuation of the old European Cup.

The key point is that you have to set a limit on what you wish to consider current data. Hence me pointing out that if we go by say the last 5 years, then it look much more favorable for Spanish teams than the numbers I've given you. I don't feel like you're actually addressing the point, but perhaps you feel otherwise.

I genuinely don't see why there is still an argument here. It may be a Top 2 in Spain, but those Top 2 (+ Bayern) regularly stomp every team in the world."

That's true, but is likewise besides the point. That Top 2 does not represent the league as a whole. In fact, if you take that Top 2 out of the equation, there have been LITERALLY ZERO other Spanish winners of either the Champions League or the European Cup.

Ever.

Are you sure that you want to continue to defend this perspective? Because once again I don't think you've addressed the point that was made.

Manipulating data to just show stats since the mid-2000's is conveniently choosing the prime of the English Premier League and the beginning of Barcelona's dominance.

That's not manipulating data; it's called providing context, instead. Would you like to like throw 'convenience' out of the window and talk about how strong English teams have been throughout history? Or would that not work in favor of your argument, and therefore somehow be suddenly rendered invalid, hmm?

Go back further to the 90's and the early 00's, and you'll find that La Liga was performing extremely well in Europe, especially compared to English teams.

Yes, that's true. And if we go back to the late 70s and early 80s, English teams won 7 European Cups in a row. IN A ROW. But, while that is most certainly dominance, is it relevant to today's modern, current landscape of football? Well, no, it isn't. It would be silly of me to rely upon this data to make my case, wouldn't it? So, you do see now that your point is, well, a little silly... right?

I chose that starting point for a reason: it provided backdrop to the CURRENT landscape. If you want to distort that data, then go shorter, not longer. The fact still remains that aside from Barca and Real, other Spanish teams have done rather poorly against English opposition in the last 12 years: a whole generation in football.

Make of it what you will, but I suspect the reason why this point keeps coming around again is because you never address the central point of the argument, which is:

Barcelona and Real Madrid's success does not indicate overall league strength, and never has.

The day that this finally is conceded, the day that the argument will likely stop happening.

@Dynast:

Barcelona may be carrying La Liga these past 10 years, but the fact remains that when Real Madrid, Deportivo, Valencia, and Atletico have played English teams throughout the Champions League era, they've won.

All you're doing is stating another arbitrary period to be considered. The 'Champions League era' means nothing, because it's a continuation of the old European Cup.

The key point is that you have to set a limit on what you wish to consider current data. Hence me pointing out that if we go by say the last 5 years, then it look much more favorable for Spanish teams than the numbers I've given you. I don't feel like you're actually addressing the point, but perhaps you feel otherwise.

I genuinely don't see why there is still an argument here. It may be a Top 2 in Spain, but those Top 2 (+ Bayern) regularly stomp every team in the world."

That's true, but is likewise besides the point. That Top 2 does not represent the league as a whole. In fact, if you take that Top 2 out of the equation, there have been LITERALLY ZERO other Spanish winners of either the Champions League or the European Cup.

Ever.

Are you sure that you want to continue to defend this perspective that La Liga's success doesn't hinge (historically or otherwise) upon two teams? Because once again I don't think you've addressed the point that was made.

Manipulating data to just show stats since the mid-2000's is conveniently choosing the prime of the English Premier League and the beginning of Barcelona's dominance.

That's not manipulating data; it's called providing context, instead. Would you like to like throw 'convenience' out of the window and talk about how strong English teams have been throughout history? Or would that not work in favor of your argument, and therefore somehow be suddenly rendered invalid, hmm?

Go back further to the 90's and the early 00's, and you'll find that La Liga was performing extremely well in Europe, especially compared to English teams.

Yes, that's true. And if we go back to the late 70s and early 80s, English teams won 7 European Cups in a row. IN A ROW. But, while that is most certainly dominance, is it relevant to today's modern, current landscape of football? Well, no, it isn't. It would be silly of me to rely upon this data to make my case, wouldn't it? So, you do see now that your point is, well, a little silly... right?

I chose that starting point for a reason: it provided backdrop to the CURRENT landscape. If you want to distort that data, then go shorter, not longer. The fact still remains that aside from Barca and Real, other Spanish teams have done rather poorly against English opposition in the last 12 years: a whole generation in football.

Make of it what you will, but I suspect the reason why this point keeps coming around again is because you never address the central point of the argument, which is:

Barcelona and Real Madrid's success does not indicate overall league strength, and never has.

The day that this finally is conceded, the day that the argument will likely stop happening.

Also, Dynast, I think you've forgotten that when people say there are 5 or 6 teams who can vie for the title, they are talking about 5 or 6 PONTENTIAL teams. At the start of the season, you can expect eventual title contenders to come from a much larger pool of teams. 5 or 6 of them, in fact, as opposed to 2 teams in Spain. Every year, 2 or 3 of those teams end up being title contenders, yes, but taken from a larger (and thus more competitive) pool.

Do you understand this? Am I communicating in clear enough English for you, (since you did once tell me that you are ESL)?

And why are you going to back 1990, by the way? What does the fact that once upon a time there was more competition in Spain when there has been so precious little of it for the last 10+ years? You're not cherry-picking a period which suits your statistics, are you?

Can you find me a player who is still playing today who was playing in, say, 2000 (let alone 1990)? That's in itself a generation (or two) ago, so why is it relevant to the current landscape?

Did you know that since Valencia last won the title, in 2004, that Real and Barca have occupied precisely 92% (or 22 out of 24) possible 1st or 2nd places?

C'mon, sir. Be reasonable in how much you're willing to stretch and manipulate statistics...

Also, Dynast, I think you've forgotten that when people say there are 5 or 6 teams who can vie for the title, they are talking about 5 or 6 POTENTIAL teams, who have the quality to become part of that title race, if well-managed. At the start of the season, you can expect eventual title contenders to come from a much larger pool of teams. 5 or 6 of them, in fact, as opposed to 2 teams in Spain. Every year, 2 or 3 of those teams end up being title contenders, yes, but taken from a larger (and thus more competitive) pool.

Do you understand this? Am I communicating in clear enough English for you, (since you did once tell me that you are ESL)?

And why are you going to back 1990, by the way? What does the fact that once upon a time there was more competition in Spain when there has been so precious little of it for the last 10+ years? You're not cherry-picking a period which suits your statistics, are you?

Can you find me a player who is still playing today who was playing in, say, 2000 (let alone 1990)? That's in itself a generation (or two) ago, so why is it relevant to the current landscape?

Did you know that since Valencia last won the title, in 2004, that Real and Barca have occupied precisely 92% (or 22 out of 24) possible 1st or 2nd places?

C'mon, sir. Be reasonable in how much you're willing to stretch and manipulate statistics...

Also, Dynast, I think you've forgotten that when people say there are 5 or 6 teams who can vie for the title, they are talking about 5 or 6 POTENTIAL teams, who have the quality to become part of that title race, if well-managed. At the start of the season, you can expect eventual title contenders to come from a much larger pool of teams. 5 or 6 of them, in fact, as opposed to 2 teams in Spain. Every year, 2 or 3 of those teams end up being title contenders, yes, but taken from a larger (and thus more competitive) pool.

Do you understand this? Am I communicating in clear enough English for you, (since you did once tell me that you are ESL)?

And why are you going to back 1990, by the way? What does the fact that once upon a time there was more competition in Spain have to do with the fact that there has been so precious little of it for the last 10+ years? You're not cherry-picking a period which suits your statistics, are you?

Can you find me a player who is still playing today who was playing in, say, 2000 (let alone 1990)? That's in itself a generation (or two) ago, so why is it relevant to the current landscape?

Did you know that since Valencia last won the title, in 2004, that Real and Barca have occupied precisely 92% (or 22 out of 24) possible 1st or 2nd places?

C'mon, sir. Be reasonable in how much you're willing to stretch and manipulate statistics...

Also, Dynast, I think you've forgotten that when people say there are 5 or 6 teams who can vie for the title, they are talking about 5 or 6 POTENTIAL teams, who have the quality to become part of that title race, if well-managed. At the start of the season, you can expect eventual title contenders to come from a much larger pool of teams. 5 or 6 of them, in fact, as opposed to 2 teams in Spain. Every year, 2 or 3 of those teams end up being title contenders, yes, but taken from a larger (and thus more competitive) pool.

Do you understand this? Am I communicating in clear enough English for you, (since you did once tell me that you are ESL)?

And why are you going to back 1999, by the way? What does the fact that once upon a time there was more competition in Spain have to do with the fact that there has been so precious little of it for the last 10+ years? You're not cherry-picking a period which suits your statistics, are you?

Can you find me a player who is still playing today who was playing in, say, 2000? That's in itself a generation (or two) ago, so why is it relevant to the current landscape?

Did you know that since Valencia last won the title, in 2004 (which if you recall was the date that I chose, since it marked the last time La Liga was truly competitive beyond the Big 2), that Real and Barca have occupied precisely 92% (or 22 out of 24) possible 1st or 2nd places?

C'mon, sir. Be reasonable in how much you're willing to stretch and manipulate statistics. Why can't you simply just admit that the Premier League is more competitive than La Liga? I've never understood why it's so hard for you to admit being wrong, even when it's demonstrated to you beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Sad to see. :/

Also, Dynast, I think you've forgotten that when people say there are 5 or 6 teams who can vie for the title, they are talking about 5 or 6 POTENTIAL teams, who have the quality to become part of that title race, if well-managed. At the start of the season, you can expect eventual title contenders to come from a much larger pool of teams. 5 or 6 of them, in fact, as opposed to 2 teams in Spain. Every year, 2 or 3 of those teams end up being title contenders, yes, but taken from a larger (and thus more competitive) pool.

Do you understand this? Am I communicating in clear enough English for you, (since you did once tell me that you are ESL)?

And why are you going to back 1999, by the way? What does the fact that once upon a time there was more competition in Spain have to do with the fact that there has been so precious little of it for the last 10+ years? You're not cherry-picking a period which suits your statistics, are you?

Can you find me a player who is still playing today who was playing in, say, 2000? That's in itself a generation (or two) ago, so why is it relevant to the current landscape?

Did you know that since Valencia last won the title, in 2004 (which if you recall was the date that I chose, since it marked the last time La Liga was truly competitive beyond the Big 2), that Real and Barca have occupied precisely 92% (or 22 out of 24) possible 1st or 2nd places?

In fact, didn't I give you an infographic before, which showed exactly what I am talking about? Here it is again:

Do you notice how there are 6 different teams in there for the PL, and only 3 for Spain?

C'mon, sir. Be reasonable in how much you're willing to stretch and manipulate statistics. Why can't you simply just admit that the Premier League is more competitive than La Liga? I've never understood why it's so hard for you to admit being wrong, even when it's demonstrated to you beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Sad to see. :/

Also, Dynast, I think you've forgotten that when people say there are 5 or 6 teams who can vie for the title, they are talking about 5 or 6 POTENTIAL teams, who have the quality to become part of that title race, if well-managed. At the start of the season, you can expect eventual title contenders to come from a much larger pool of teams. 5 or 6 of them, in fact, as opposed to 2 teams in Spain. Every year, 2 or 3 of those teams end up being title contenders, yes, but taken from a larger (and thus more competitive) pool.

Do you understand this? Am I communicating in clear enough English for you, (since you did once tell me that you are ESL)?

And why are you going to back 1999, by the way? What does the fact that once upon a time there was more competition in Spain have to do with the fact that there has been so precious little of it for the last 10+ years? You're not cherry-picking a period which suits your statistics, are you?

Can you find me a player who is still playing today who was playing in, say, 2000? That's in itself a generation (or two) ago, so why is it relevant to the current landscape?

Did you know that since Valencia last won the title, in 2004 (which if you recall was the date that I chose, since it marked the last time La Liga was truly competitive beyond the Big 2), that Real and Barca have occupied precisely 92% (or 22 out of 24) possible 1st or 2nd places?

In fact, didn't I give you an infographic before, which showed exactly what I am talking about? Here it is again:

Do you notice how there are 6 different teams in there for the PL, and only 3 for Spain?

C'mon, sir. Be reasonable in how much you're willing to stretch and manipulate statistics (especially when you're leaving out the most relevant one: how many different teams are in the mix?). Why can't you simply just admit that the Premier League is more competitive than La Liga? I've never understood why it's so hard for you to admit being wrong, even when it's demonstrated to you beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Sad to see. :/

Also, Dynast, I think you've forgotten that when people say there are 5 or 6 teams who can vie for the title, they are talking about 5 or 6 POTENTIAL teams, who have the quality to become part of that title race, if well-managed. At the start of the season, you can expect eventual title contenders to come from a much larger pool of teams. 5 or 6 of them, in fact, as opposed to 2 teams in Spain. Every year, 2 or 3 of those teams end up being title contenders, yes, but taken from a larger (and thus more competitive) pool.

Do you understand this? Am I communicating in clear enough English for you, (since you did once tell me that you are ESL)?

And why are you going to back 1999, by the way? What does the fact that once upon a time there was more competition in Spain have to do with the fact that there has been so precious little of it for the last 10+ years? You're not cherry-picking a period which suits your statistics, are you?

Can you find me a player who is still playing today who was playing in, say, 2000? That's in itself a generation (or two) ago, so why is it relevant to the current landscape?

Did you know that since Valencia last won the title, in 2004 (which if you recall was the date that I chose, since it marked the last time La Liga was truly competitive beyond the Big 2, aside from 2014), that Real and Barca have occupied precisely 92% (or 22 out of 24) possible 1st or 2nd places?

In fact, didn't I give you an infographic before, which showed exactly what I am talking about? Here it is again:

Do you notice how there are 6 different teams in there for the PL, and only 3 for Spain?

C'mon, sir. Be reasonable in how much you're willing to stretch and manipulate statistics (especially when you're leaving out the most relevant one: how many different teams are in the mix?). Why can't you simply just admit that the Premier League is more competitive than La Liga? I've never understood why it's so hard for you to admit being wrong, even when it's demonstrated to you beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Sad to see. :/