Couple of questions from someone new to the game(long)

i won't get into a rate the leagues pissing contest but i prefer the EPL with spain and germany right there.

my shitbird favorite club has run all sorts of formations due to our shitbox squad not being worth a frick. one week it's 3-5-2, next week a sven goran eriksson 4-1-2-1-2 diamond, 4-4-2, 4-5-1, it doesn't matter when your players suck moose cock. i do like the 3-5-2 with proper wing backs and width and a guy who can run shite in the middle.

psg and monaco have always been decent clubs but they have extra cash now. just hope some loaded sheikh from dubai takes over your club.

you are following sunderland right? i have always liked the black cats. kevin phillips and niall quinn FTW

quote:

---

First, how would you simply rate the major European leagues if you had to list them according to overall strength?

---

Probably the most important thing is to realize that the 4 you mention are simply the top 4 leagues.

There's a ton of debate about the strongest but the highest quality soccer is played in all 4. The more interesting thing is noticing the different styles of football played in each one (and therefore it's also interesting to see the teams in certain leagues that go against the grain style-wise).


EPL: Very straightforward style that traditionally values pace and power more than technical skills on the ball and passing through tight spaces on the ground. Officiated to alloy very physical play compared to other top leagues, which also plays into the pace and power. There's a lot more back and forth open field running than tactically nuanced buildup play.

(Arsenal, current Man City are very notable exceptions. The "English" style in my opinion can be great when talented sides like the current Liverpool or recent Man U employ it but often excruciating to watch the mid to lower table sides. )



Serie A: The old insult is that Serie A is "chess on grass" because play is often characterized by very nuanced tactics to exploit specific match ups. There's usually a strong emphasis on always maintaining good defensive position and play is given to extreme ups and down of "action". Very high level of technically skilled players ("the backheel league" is another nickname) often at the expense of faster, strong ones. It's the league that historically produces the best managers.

(AS Roma, Fiorentina, Napoli are the most notable exceptions to this though there's been so many exceptions the past couple of seasons that the stereotype is beginning to change)


La Liga: Like Serie A, La Liga is filled with very technical domestic and South American players all the way down to the lower table clubs. The style though is more open with an emphasis on playing "beautiful" attacking, buildup oriented football but often to the detriment of solid defense. Fouls called very tightly to promote this type of play.

(Atletico Madrid is a notable exception these days as they play an old school Italian type style of tough nose defense and always maintaining great defensive shape that you don't even see in Serie A right now)


Bundesliga: other people watch more than I do here obviously but the stereotype is an athletic league with some great, usually younger, technically skilled players. The style is usually higher defensive pressing and very attacking styles but often with some pretty porous defense. Leads to some very open entertaining matches all the way down the table.

quote:

---

Second, are the two giant Spanish clubs THAT much more prestigious than any other?

---

Barca and Real will always be prestigious and have their choice of top players but you'll see a lot of ups and downs if you continue to follow. AC Milan and Inter would have been in your list a few years ago, for example.

quote:

---

What is YOUR favorite formation and what does your favorite team run?

---

4-6-0 Champaign Football

Here's a pretty cool write up from Zonal Marking on it. Rudi Garcia at Roma has actually gone back to it whenever Totti plays this season. There's nothing quite like the constant interchanging of one touch passes and backheel flicks (more important than even winning to Roma fans).

https://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/05/teams-of-the-decade-5-roma-2007/

quote:

---

have any teams recently risen from the ranks of being smaller clubs to "big clubs"?

---

While PSG, Man City, Chelsea were never small clubs their fast rise to among the elites on the pocketbooks of Third World Oligarchs is a recent phenomenon. Historically, big clubs have stayed big the old fashioned way: political stiff-arming to slant the playing field.

quote:

---

Last, have any teams recently risen from the ranks of being smaller clubs to "big clubs"?

---

quote:

---

Chelsea

---

quote:

---

Founded in 1905, they play in the Premier League and have spent most of their history in the top tier of English football. Their home ground is the 41,837-seat Stamford Bridge stadium, where they have played since their establishment. Chelsea had their first major success in 1955, when they won the league championship, and won various cup competitions during the 1960s, 1970s, 1990s and 2000s.

---

No.

Chelsea were shite for most of the 80s (and 90s), but they've never been a "small" club.