I can see it, it seems though that others refuse to! Some people don't seem able to do the maths and expect the league's to look completely different every year! When someone claims it's not like it used to be based on a period of half a dozen seasons or so it makes me laugh! Apparently pro/rel doesn't work because Man City have been a top team fior seven years! :-D. It also makes me laugh when people constantly bring up money and have claimed it's only because of 'the money' for about FIFTY different clubs now! :-D.
Your idiotic posts aren't any better when you lie like this. This is the 19th straight season Man City has been in the EPL and they've finished in the top 5 for 11 straight seasons. Since 1966 they've spent all but 9 seasons in the top flight.
Aside from their being a top team for 10 or 11 years, his post was accurate. Some "interesting" selective posting in your post too that removed the context for raising Man City in relation to pro/rel. By removing that context, yours is the idiotic post, not Crawleybus'.
What context did I remove? He used an inaccurate fact in a misleading way. He picked a team that has been in the top flight more than all but 5 teams and tried to suggest that they recently became "good". By any standard being the 6th team in most seasons in the top flight out of 65 teams (so in the top 10%) means they've been good for a lot longer than the 7 years he claimed. Yeah, they've now gone from good to elite over the last 11 (not 7) years but every team in the "big 6" are in the top 10 all time in top level seasons. They've all been good for a very long time which was the point he was attempting to refute with his inaccurate statement. Now they're just increasing their distance from the rest of the field.
So I did some number crunching on this. In the first nine* seasons of the PL, 33 different teams competed. In the second ten seasons, 35 competed. In the most recent 10 years, 36 competed. So no evidence that the pool of teams able to reach the Premier League has diminished. * One season less and the league started with 22 teams.
Bayern Munich's quest to avoid relegation is off to a good start. I hope they can pull it off, but either way I get to experience the Essence of Football as I follow them throughout the season.
In terms of the Premier League, Man City really did become good relatively recently. Relegated twice, the first time after barely escaping the prior two seasons, one season at the third level. That's a crap record, regardless of how many years they've played in the top flight. The fact is it was only after their second promotion and subsequent money came rolling in that they became "good", now elite in the Premier League. Aside from saying 7 years instead of 11, crawleybus was right on this.
This Wikipedia article suggests that City are the 5th most successful English team of all time (since 1888) based on all honors won and 4th based on domestic honors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ngland_by_competitive_honours_won?wprov=sfla1 The top ten domestics look familiar: Manchester United Liverpool Arsenal Manchester City Chelsea Everton Tottenham Hotspur Aston Villa Wolverhampton Wanderers Newcastle United
So presumably Wolves and Villa won't get relegated from the Premier League. Cool! Oh wait, they already have been.
I'd rank English clubs like this based on over 50 years of watching English soccer. Group 1: Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal. 2: Manchester City, Spurs, Everton, Chelsea, Aston Villa. 3: Leeds, Wolves, Newcastle, West Ham, Sheffield Wednesday. 4: Leicester, Derby, Bolton, Blackburn, Burnley, Stoke, West Brom, Birmingham City, NF, Sunderland, Sheffield United, Middlesbrough, Southampton, Portsmouth. English Football's All-Time League Table [Live Graphic] https://noobnorm.com/all-time-football-league-table/ via @noob_norm https://public.flourish.studio/visu...e=showcase&utm_campaign=visualisation/1165875
Thats all very well but they don't take into account that some clubs have 40 years longer history to collect their points! Because of this its a pointless table (which is a shame) Aston Villas total is certainly helped by the fact they were one of the original football league clubs! The table would mean something if they used a points per game average.
I can only find ppg for the EPL, not for all- time. The problem is that ppg ignores the seasons spent outside the EPL. You would have to do an all-time table by total number of points divided total number of games played since the club became post of the FL. Or you could take the youngest team out of the top 25 or 30 teams , which I think is Leeds United, and do a table for all clubs since they were founded.
Not sure what use any of this is anyway. Clearly 3 of the teams in the "all time" list aren't remotely a top team in recent history - Wolves, Villa and Newcastle have all been relegated, Newcastle twice.
I think that list is intended as a measure of popularity, not necessarily performance (although the top group is both). Sunderland seems too low, though.
I think one begats the other. I should probably split the last group into two and add Crystal Palace.
Complete history of all English league clubs here:- https://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm for example Aston Villa have 120 year history starting 1889 (doesn't include suspended leagues due to wars) whereas Chelsea have 103 years, its true though that the big city clubs tend to be more popular (historically) and therefore found success easier to come by. Interesting to see though that Chelsea were the first club to attract an average of over 30'000 spectators for home games (1908) and were the first club to attract an average over 40'000 spectators (1920) yet still found sustained success hard to come by, so popularity is not the 'be all and end all'.
I'm a broken record on this, but again--England is 'ground zero' for pro/rel. It's one of the few countries where I think pro/rel is essential to the continuation of the sport. The status of pro/rel in many other soccer nations is much more relevant to considering the pros & cons of pro/rel in the USA.
I did show the math, literally. It is closing. And yes, it started with the advent of the EPL and the real money coming in with TV. NOPE ... I already did this ... it is clearly shrinking:
Let's do it a different way since you're still having trouble keeping up: Of the 27 clubs to have entered the EPL since it's inception (since there were 22 already there) we saw 14 enter in the first ten years (HALF of the clubs that have debuted in the Prem since it's inception), 9 enter in the second ten years, and 4 enter in the last 10. Now combine that with the numbers I already displayed that ALSO showed a shrinking base of teams: in the last decade 35 clubs have played in the EPL and only FOUR of them had never been there. In the 20yrs prior 23 other clubs (debutantes) had managed to to get a dip in the EPL. Last season's Championship table (not including the 3 promoted teams, which had all already been in the EPL) saw 6 of the 10 remaining best clubs as EPL priors. Yes, the gap is closing ...