Aside from the big four which do you think are the top five leagues in Europe. My picks in order are: 1.Holland 2.Portugal 3.France 4.Greece 5.Belgium These are just my picks... Ive taken into consideration performances of teams in the Champions league and UEFA cup. ie; France now has no teams left in either competition whereas Portugal has 2 in the UEFA cup.
1. French 2. Dutch 3. Portuguese 4. Greek 5. Turkish 6. Belgian Don't know enough about the Russian and Swiss leagues, but they'd probably be below the Greeks as well.
Current UEFA co-effiecents as of last night 1. Spain 72.289 2. England 57.674 3. Italy 56.740 4. Germany 50.561 5. France 43.468 6. Greece 36.449 7. Netherlands 32.832 8. Portugal 32.333 9. Turkey 28.991 10. Belgium 28.500 11. Scotland 28.375 12. Czech 27.950 13. Switzerland 25.500 14. Ukraine 24.583 15. Israel 23.999 16. Austria 23.375 17. Poland 21.625 18. Russia 21.041 19. Yugo 19.831 20. Norway 19.575
I'm willing to bet that the English first division is stronger than some of those leagues, I wonder how it'd rate...
I don't even know why Holland made it onto the list. They barely have enough teams to make a league and most of them are minnows. Only one or two of the "great" Dutch national team play for a dutch club because the league is too small and not competitive enough for them to compete in. The only two leagues worth mentioning on that list are the French and Portuguese.
And you left off the Ukranian league! Although that is just me dreaming. I'd say the French, just because they have had more than 3 teams capable of winning it in the last 10 years.
Barely have enough teams to make a league? Last time I checked we still had 36 professional football teams. Although the Dutch league isn't as competitive as it should be, the level of play is higher here than it is in Portugal, Belgium, Greece or Scotland. Pretty sure about that.
It seems to me both Dutch and Scottish leagues are kinda lopsided: Dutch league has Feye, PSV, and AJAX killing everyone, and in the Scottish Prem. you have the Old Firm. Now I'm not saying the major leagues aren't lopsided, too (they are) but it just seems like the big boys in Holland and Scotland are just so much better than the rest in their leagues.
True, although the differences aren't always THAT big. Almost every year there's at least one team that gets good results against the big three, and there is always a number of teams that are able to beat them. NAC for instance actually should have beaten PSV (away) and feyenoord (away) a few weeks ago. The only reason they didn't is because on both occasions they were denied a clear penalty. It's not as easy going as some seem to think.
This is the reason why I didnt include Scotland in the list. They have two big teams (Rangers, Celtic) but everyone els in the league might as well be in a second division. At the moment Celtic is 2nd and 25 pts clear of their nearest rival, thats an emormous gap. Although Holland do have PSV, AJAX and Feyenoord dominating, their league is far more competitive by comparison. Portugal have their big four (Porto, Benfica, Sporting Lisbon, and Boavista) which also dominate, but again, not like in the Scotish. In fact at the moment Boavista is only 9th on the table (while still in the UEFA cup finals). France on the other hand have a very Competitive league, with any number of teams able to win the title, but having said that their top teams are probably just fractionally lesser in caliber when compared to the likes of the giants from say Holland, Portugal or Greece.
A thing you have to bear in mind is that Scotland has a much smaller league size, which results in big gaps between teams in the league. If the SPL was an 18 or 20 team league, the gap between 2nd and 3rd would be large, but not this large.
Think about it. Take the 3rd place team - Hearts this year - as an example. They have to play 8 games against Rangers or Celtic out of a 38 game schedule. Hearts (so far) have lost every match they have played against Rangers and Celtic this season. If, however, the league was made up of 20 teams, Hearts would only play Rangers or Celtic 4 times. The other 4 matches against Rangers or Celtic - which they have gained no points from - would be replaced by 4 matches against weaker opponents from the 1st division (say, Inverness and Clyde). You would expect Hearts to win maybe 10 points out of these matches. Hearts would also play fewer matches against the other better teams, such as Dunfermline, Dundee and Kilmarnock. (who have all taken some points off them this season) This would result in a benefit of maybe 5 points - 15 in total. Meanwhile, Rangers and Celtic gain very little from playing more weaker opponents, since they are winning practically every week anyway. Their only benefit from losing those games against tougher opponents is that they only play each other twice, saving maybe 5 points. So this means that the gap is cut by 10 points, simply by having a larger league. It wouldn't necessarily be any more competitive, but it would give the better wee teams a greater chance, since they wouldn't face Rangers or Celtic so often.
All true and well, but it doesn't actually close the gap between Celtic, Rangers and the rest. Besides... what Scottish Div1 teams would stand a chance against the majority of the SPL?
Falkirk would definitely stand a good chance. They beat Hearts 4-0 in the SFA Cup, and have some of the better young players in the country. There are three other teams (including my own) who would be reasonably competitive, but would be struggling near the bottom of the league.
Re: Current UEFA co-effiecents as of last night OK, would anyone care to speculate where the Western Hemisphere would fit in this group? MLS, MPL, Argentina, etc?
Not at all... ...seeing as they can't get any points because they don't play in the UEFA Cup or the Champion's League.