Brighton and Palace became competitive teams in the 70s with attendances over 20,000. Watford were runners-up to Liverpool in the 1980s. Oldham, Wimbledon, Notts and Luton are perrenial 3rd and 4th division teams who struggled to pull in more than 10,000 home fans even while in the top-flight. Brighton struggled when they went 14 years without a home ground and ended up playing at a track and field stadium with a capacity of 8,850.
Brighton were still playing at the Goldstone Ground the season they almost got relegated from the Football League. It wasn't until 3 years later they moved to Withdean, so they were actually on the way back from their nadir by then. They only played four seasons in the top flight before their most recent stint. So calling them "competitve" is a big stretch. Luton Town played al lot more seasons at the top level - 1 in the 70's and 9 in the 80's - than Brighton did. Ditto Wimbledon. Oldham played the same number. Crystal Palace have been a classic yo-yo team for half a century.
Other than the literal decreasing number of diff teams to have played in the EPL in the last 20 to 10 to 5yrs combined with the drastically reduced number of EPL debutantes So yeah if you ignore the literal pool of teams shrinking then you can live in your fantasy land
Another day, and still no evidence of this purported decrease in the number of teams capable of reaching the Premier League. To whit, a reminder that 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.
I lost interest in this bun fight a while ago, but you’re using a decrease in teams that have never been in Premier League, over time, as an argument? The pool is naturally going to be lower each successive decade because the number of teams that could qualify is finite and has relatively little expansion (i.e. it’s limited to the number of teams that have made it to the Football League) and it would be at the maximum at the start.
Mmmm, the soon to be relegated upstarts Leicester beat up the money loaden ManCity. Must be fake news.
What is the overlap of decade 1's 33 teams, decade 2's 35 teams, decade 3's 36 teams? I'm guessing in the past 10 years there's the big 4, the other 2 guys that think it's a big 6, and about 6 more that live for various shots at glory in a cup competition. My guess is that in the first decade, coaching and player selection had more impact on moving up/down, and that now you need a cash influx as well. Whereas in the US system, no amount of cash put into infrastructure/staff/players will get you to the first division, it's only when you're allowed to put money into the stock of the 1st division's marketing company. Potayto, Tomahto....
San Jose won despite being in last place. They should really be looking to secure that awesome draft pick in the super relevant MLS Draft.
Yeah, Jasonma brought this up, and I addressed it. It is a SUPPLEMENT to the broader point of the total number of teams playing in the EPL having decreased from the last 20, to 10, and 5yrs. It also addresses one of the "fairy tale" points that pro/rel championing folk love to toss about which is that "anyone" can reach the top. Well, that's not happening and it is happening drastically less. YES it is a naturally dwindling pool. With the glory of pro/rel and anything being able to happen and all the investment it brings in and whatnot that we're told surely we'd be seeing a much more linear data set of EPL debutantes (even if dropping) and not a smaller rotating pool of total clubs, but a pretty steady one. Unchanged clubs: 6 Since the start 7 Since 2002 9 since 2012 12 since 2016 and 14 clubs have played the last 3 EPL seasons 11 clubs have played 22 or more EPL seasons
So another day and still no evidence that the number of teams capable of reaching the Premier League has decreased... As a reminder, 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.
How is this relevant to the claim that the number of teams capable of reaching the Premier League has diminished? If that were the case, then we would see a decreasing number of different teams playing in the league as the same - smaller - set of teams get repeatedly relegated and re-promoted. However, that's not been the case at all - we saw as many different teams in the most recent decade of the Premier League as we did in the first. Of course, with pro/rel you do still actually have to achieve promotion on the field of play as opposed to getting your cartel membership fee accepted. "Odd' you overlooked that.
Mmmm, Fulham got trounced again Mmmm, Sheffield United still hasn't scored Mmmm, West Brom has given up 11 goals already LOL, K ... I've show that already and the numbers decrease from 20yrs ago to 10yrs ago to the last 5 yrs. For someone that talks about a lack of logic ... ... if there's a huge overlap of teams (like say 10 clubs having played 24 seasons or more in the EPL or say 16 clubs having played half or more of the EPL seasons) then those "different" teams each decade aren't exactly different are they? 17 clubs land in all three decades.
As a reminder, 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. If that were the case, then we would see a decreasing number of different teams playing in the league as the same - smaller - set of teams get repeatedly relegated and re-promoted. * One season less and the league started with 22 teams
Eh, I'm still not sure I see this adding up. No one denies that there are only a select number of clubs that are likely to be worthy of being in the top flight and that number is MUCH smaller than the total number that have played in the football league in that time. And given that there are only 3 spots per year, the odds of a team that's been in the league before returning becomes greater every season. So, I disagree, I wouldn't expect to see a linear set of debutantes. For each league, these are the total unique number of clubs that have played in them: Premier League: 49 Championship: 56 League 1: 71 League 2: 69 There's obviously going to be a lot of duplication between these numbers (e.g. numbers 6/7ths of the PL would have to also be included in the Championship's numbers, etc.) but access to the Prem doesn't seem too bad, honestly? If anything, it seems to be hard to get above League 1.
Someone with a better grasp of statistics and modeling would be appreciated but I have no qualms showing that "math is hard" Seems like if we take HTTK's numbers Unchanged clubs: 6 Since the start 7 Since 2002 9 since 2012 and subtract them from M's numbers 33-6 35-7 36-9 We get roughly 27/28. Whch makes sense to me, in any given 10 yr period there are probably about 27 teams that can "execute" and get one of the 20 spots. It'd be interesting to me to know like, was there some perennial 4th place Championship team in the 'Aughts that was always "right there" but never won the playoff/goal differential thing while some team went from lower middle third to the top. But I dn't care that much....cartel.
I don't think I overlooked it. Maybe buried the lede that more recently, cash has more influence on ability to get to the premier league than just coaching/player selection, while in the US, no amount of cash put into coaching/player selecton will get you to MLS. It seems pretty clear that lack of "relegation" from the UCL is a problem. You go out in the group stage every year but youre in a federation with 1 or 2 teams that even get invited, you pretty quickly can distance yourself from the rest of your domestic league. So you trounce the locals, stink up the joint, and get to stink up the joint the next year and be paid handsomely for it. I'd like to see the format flipped. The nth place team from the big 5, make them start at the prelim rounds in August. I gotta think a Sevilla & Chelsea match is gonna draw more interest than GoatHurlynn iFK vs Conflagrazin. The big teams are also better suited to slog through more rounds wrt to travel, roster depth, etc. I can dream...ponzi scheme...
Leicester city is a horrible choice to pick. I mean they actually won the league in 2015-16. They're not exactly relegation fodder. But you're obviously not savvy with regards to the english leagues.
Ahem. Leicester City is one of those clubs the anti P/R brigade in here deem to be relegation fodder as a promoted club 6 years ago iirc. How long have you been in this thread?
The total diff clubs accounts for the repeaters though. There's two data points. Diff or unique clubs in a decade AND debutantes to the EPL. The diff/unique clubs (even if they are repeaters) had dropped from 20yrs ago to 10yrs ago and from 10yrs ago to the the last 5yrs. The rate of debutantes has as well. If BOTH the rate of different/unique teams AND rate of debutantes is dropping then yeah, the "pool of teams able to reach the premier league" is clearly diminishing. Off, that's a pretty hard line there. Over the last 20yrs I'd bet it's very skewed as that parachute money etc has solidified in the Championship. It gets even smaller when you add in the fact that 17 clubs make an appearance in all three decades or that 8 clubs have played 3 or less seasons in the EPL. Hell, there's been 83 slots for promotion to the Premier League and 16 clubs account for 60 of 'em!!!!! That's 3.75 promotions a piece! not even one promotion slot per season left over after that. Citation? ...
No citation needed as it was a recently promoted club at the moment those relegation remarks were made as a general statement.
Ah, you're just applying what you'd like to in order to try and hammer on that one drum there. Also, as general statements at that time we were talking about money/investment and how LC wasn't all the story people wanted to believe due to their billions (you know, we pointed out a glaring fact that folks just didn't mention in order to keep the narrative alive). 8 clubs have gone straight back down since they year LC were promoted, and Huddersfield lasted two seasons. That's literally half of the promoted clubs in that time span.