Listening to TalkSport or Sky in the aftermath of 'Survival Sunday' last weekend you would think we had just witnessed the greatest season in Premier League history. But does an exciting relegation battle really equate to a good season?
I have to say I was as enthralled as anyone by the final day drama. The bottom three seemed to change by the minute as the goals went in all over the country but don't kid yourself it meant the league was better as a result. In fact I would argue quiet the opposite is in fact true.
In a 'normal' season the relegation battle will come down to two teams fighting over one place in the last week. The fact that this year saw five teams challenging to avoid two places on the final day simply means there were more poor teams in the league than usual.
The pundits would have you believe that the gap from top to bottom has shrunk - as Wolves could beat Manchester United and West Bromwich Albion could beat Arsenal for example - but in truth it merely meant the top teams were not as strong.
Take the previous years' Champions Chelsea. They scored over 100 Premier League goals in the 2009-10 season as they won the double. Were they as strong this season? No. An average Manchester United side, certainly in terms of their great sides of the recent past, won the title by nine points and lost just four games yet they looked far from inspiring for much of the campaign. In the end they were able to win games when it mattered but do not kid yourself they are a great side, as we found out when Barcelona taught them a lesson at Wembley this weekend.
Manchester City won the FA Cup and finished 3rd, but with their squad and resources you have to say they under-achieved, while Arsenal and Spurs both dropped down a place to fourth and fifth respectively. Hardly an improvement.
Further down the table sides like Everton and Aston Villa were nowhere near as strong as in the past while Liverpool needed a strong finish to end up in the top six, having been in the bottom three at one stage. So no, the gap is not closing, the top sides have just got worse.
Meanwhile, at the bottom, any one of eight or nine teams could have gone down the standard was so poor. West Ham United ended with the stigma of finishing bottom of a bad bunch while the likes of Wigan Athletic, Blackburn Rovers, Wolves and Stoke City all survived despite being no better than average Championship sides at best.
But while the quality was certainly lacking it did lead to one of the most exciting seasons for many a year. Mistakes led to more goals, there seemed to be a thrilling late comeback almost every week, while 4-4 and 3-3 draws were not out of place. Similar to most local pub leagues then...
But what makes a for strong league anyway? The fact we had three teams in the last 8 of the Champions League and one in the final for the fifth year out of the last six? Possibly, but I would argue the strength of the bottom sides determines how good a league is, and when the likes of Stoke and Sunderland finish in mid-table it can only mean one thing. The league is nowhere near good as Sky and TalkSport think it is. Exciting? Yes. Competitive? Certainly. But until we can produce sides capable of playing the type of football we saw from Barcelona at Wembley on Saturday evening we can forget all about being the best in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment