The Fifth Best League in the World?

[NunoPeixinho]

hhaa, yeah really if it was not for Jose and Inter last year, Italian football would have fallen off the face of the planet, Roma are useless this year, Ac Milan are **** (just a little better now with Robinho and Zlatan) Juventus are ****, its boring football week in week out, their philosophy is "if we dont concede goals, we cannot lose"
​

Raikan dont be like that, Im sure Manchester United is more ***** than AC Milan, and Italian football is not boring .. I agree with the part about Mourinho, but the rest you are talking nonsense

 

[dasty]

Raikan dont be like that, Im sure Manchester United is more ***** than AC Milan, and Italian football is not boring .. I agree with the part about Mourinho, but the rest you are talking nonsense

7-2, just last season. What?

 

[Sempra]

The french one.

 

[Nixon]

Granted, it is a small indicator, but seriously, I don't understand how anyone can argue this case without actually watching the league...

Well European games are the only way to compare the quality of the respective leagues. Because dutch teams are poor in Europe, then I'd say it's a valid point to claim that the standard of the league is worse. What are you using to measure the quality of the leagues? Your own judgement of the style of football?

Another point is that the Dutch league, to me, appears to be dominated by 4/5 sides (Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, Twente and possibly Alkmaar), whereas Ligue 1, for example has been won by far more teams and is generally more competitive throughout. Being dominated by few teams means that the European representatives actually give an unusually high coefficient for the league as it does not reflect the lower quality of the other teams (a prime example being Scotland, where Rangers and Celtic go some way to disguising the horribly poor teams that make up the SPL). I think that the teams in Ligue 1 are of a higher quality than those in the Eredivisie on average, and I'd guess that the average wage and quality of the individuals will also be higher.

Whatever happens in dutch football doesn't seem to be great considering the quality (or lack of quality) in the sides that represent the league in Europe.

PS. Regarding the Championship, competitiveness does not cover up the obvious gulf in class between it and the top flights of other major footballing nations.

 

[Eds]

Well European games are the only way to compare the quality of the respective leagues. Because dutch teams are poor in Europe, then I'd say it's a valid point to claim that the standard of the league is worse. What are you using to measure the quality of the leagues? Your own judgement of the style of football?

Another point is that the Dutch league, to me, appears to be dominated by 4/5 sides (Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, Twente and possibly Alkmaar), whereas Ligue 1, for example has been won by far more teams and is generally more competitive throughout. Being dominated by few teams means that the European representatives actually give an unusually high coefficient for the league as it does not reflect the lower quality of the other teams (a prime example being Scotland, where Rangers and Celtic go some way to disguising the horribly poor teams that make up the SPL). I think that the teams in Ligue 1 are of a higher quality than those in the Eredivisie on average, and I'd guess that the average wage and quality of the individuals will also be higher.

Whatever happens in dutch football doesn't seem to be great considering the quality (or lack of quality) in the sides that represent the league in Europe.

So Europe is the only way to judge the quality of an entire league? Oh, and if you looked, I did acknowledge it was a valid point, albeit a slightly unneccassery one. Out of interest, do you watch the Dutch league? Do you watch the French league?

I doesn't work that way. The Bundesliga, for example, is wide open between seven, eight or even nine teams, in extreme cases. Yet, it is still rated third, a whole six co-efficient points above Serie A. There are glaring faults with the co-efficient system.

You say the average quality is higher. I assume you watch both leagues fairly regularly then? I assume not...

 

[fuelledbypassion]

On the other hand, it shows penatrative, well-drilled attacks.

But if the BEST french team(s) are better than the BEST dutch team(s) (proved in european competitions), and the french league is weaker, wouldn't teams like Lyon be scoring 6 + goals a game regularly? (which happens more often in the dutch league)

 

[Nixon]

So Europe is the only way to judge the quality of an entire league?

Did I say it was the only way to judge the quality of an entire league? No I didn't, so stop putting words in my mouth. I said it was the only way to COMPARE different leagues in Europe, seeing as all other ways involve assumptions. French teams (and many teams of other nationalities) performed far better than Dutch teams in European football, so that would imply that the league is of a higher quality than the Eredivisie.

Oh, and if you looked, I did acknowledge it was a valid point, albeit a slightly unneccassery one. Out of interest, do you watch the Dutch league? Do you watch the French league?

I doesn't work that way. The Bundesliga, for example, is wide open between seven, eight or even nine teams, in extreme cases. Yet, it is still rated third, a whole six co-efficient points above Serie A. There are glaring faults with the co-efficient system.

Unnecessary*. I don't see how your opinion from watching the games (if you do) can be anywhere near as accurate as the coefficient system. All you have to back your opinion up is your thoughts of the quality of football being played.

I don't see what your point is about the Bundesliga? It is in third place because the majority of its representatives in Europe perform well. Because it has had many different teams play in European competition, it would be implied that there is a lot of depth to the league. My previous point was that clubs like Ajax and PSV continually represent the Netherlands, and disguise a difference between the top teams, and the rest of the division.

You say the average quality is higher. I assume you watch both leagues fairly regularly then? I assume not...

No I don't particularly watch either, but occasionally tune into games. Also, I only said that I thought and assumed that the average quality was higher, I did not claim to be 100% correct or accurate unlike how you've interpreted my statement... I made my assumption because the wages and transfer fees are, on average, higher in French football that in Dutch leagues. From this information I (again assumed) that more money would normally entice a player of more quality to the club. Based on this, it looks likely that Ligue 1 has players of a higher standard than the Eredivisie.

 

[The Bath Manager]

SPL
Hands down, case close, finished.
My opinion, the only opinion in my opinion!

 

[Calum]

1. La Liga
2. Premier League
3. Serie A
4. Bundesliga
5. Ligue 1

 

[KA5A8IAN]

lol at all the Championship suggestions, not only is the qualityy of the league poorer than the Dutch/French leagues, but if we're going by closeness and unpredictability, most second flight leagues in Europe have this, and if thats how we judge a league, then the Scottish First divison is hands down the best league in Europe. Imo :

La Liga
EPL
Bundesliga
Serie A
Ligue 1

 

[Eds]

Did I say it was the only way to judge the quality of an entire league? No I didn't, so stop putting words in my mouth. I said it was the only way to COMPARE different leagues in Europe, seeing as all other ways involve assumptions. French teams (and many teams of other nationalities) performed far better than Dutch teams in European football, so that would imply that the league is of a higher quality than the Eredivisie.

The Congan Premier League doesn't play in Europe, so we obviously can't compare that to the English Premier League. There is an element of common sense involved, and if you watched the Dutch league regularly, you would know that the standard of football is actually suprisingly high. No wonder some absolute greats have come out of it over the past couple of years.

Unnecessary*. I don't see how your opinion from watching the games (if you do) can be anywhere near as accurate as the coefficient system. All you have to back your opinion up is your thoughts of the quality of football being played.

I don't see what your point is about the Bundesliga? It is in third place because the majority of its representatives in Europe perform well. Because it has had many different teams play in European competition, it would be implied that there is a lot of depth to the league. My previous point was that clubs like Ajax and PSV continually represent the Netherlands, and disguise a difference between the top teams, and the rest of the division.

Haha, never been a fan of that word.

The coefficient system is shockingly poor as proved by my Bundesliga/Serie A example. Over the past five years, have German teams really performed better in Europe than Italian teams? No. Definately not.

No I don't particularly watch either, but occasionally tune into games. Also, I only said that I thought and assumed that the average quality was higher, I did not claim to be 100% correct or accurate unlike how you've interpreted my statement... I made my assumption because the wages and transfer fees are, on average, higher in French football that in Dutch leagues. From this information I (again assumed) that more money would normally entice a player of more quality to the club. Based on this, it looks likely that Ligue 1 has players of a higher standard than the Eredivisie.

Then why are you arguing with me? Your argument is based on assumptions, you hardly even watch the sodding games. The overall standard of football is higher in a game of Dutch league football than French league football.

Oh, and if you're using that money is always directly proportional to how good a club/league is then I guess Al-Ahli are the best in the world, and the UAE leagues are the same.




I just find this astonishing how people can argue how high the quality of a league is without actually watching it.

 

[Ben]

The overall standard of football is higher in a game of Dutch league football than French league football.

You insist you watch the Eredivise regularly, yet, I assume you don't watch Ligue 1?

Lyon>Ajax
Marseille>PSV
Bordeaux>FC Twente
PSG>AZ
Lille>Feyernoord
AS Monaco>Utrecht
AJ Auxerre>SC Heerenveen
Rennes>FC Groningen
St Ettiene>Roda JC

I could go on throughout the league. This is based on the quality of player, and the quality of player determines how strong a league is. Look at La Liga Vs Premier League. The likes of Ronaldo, Alonso etc moved there and La Liga is now overall, better than the Premier League. I imagine if Fabregas moved there it would become even stronger (than the Premier League). Even if you look at the weaker teams in Holland and France, the likes of Valenciennes and SC Caen are stronger than VVV and De Graafschap.

 

[wunzigan]

Are we talking best leagues in the world or just Europe?

In either case, what is there to judge? Competitiveness? Unpredictability? Success in Continental tournaments? Quality in their players?

I would say that normally, Bundesliga, Campeonato Brasileiro, and Argentine Primera Division are quite unpredictable. Its true, that Bayern Munich usually is within the 4 top of the league, but there are always 7-8 teams aiming to fight for the title. In Brazil, you have always big teams, big names and Champions rarely repeat. In Argentina its even worse, the big teams are struggling a lot, and teams like Lanus, Banfield, Estudiantes and Argentinos Jrs claimed recently the title.

Ligue 1? Just recently has it changed. Nobody remembers the 7 titles in a row from O. Lyonnais? In Europe they always struggle. I believe last years Lyon was their best finish in CL in the past 5-6 years.

Dutch League? It used to be always between Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord. Now, some other teams have joined the battle, Alkmaar, Utrecht, etc...Still quite predictable.

As for the Premier League. True, its always between 2-3 teams, but the games are great in general. And anyone can win. The fight for the European spots are more interesting than the one for the title.

La Liga? Arguably has the best players. Still the league is always between RM and Barcelona. The rest, fights for different objectives throughout the season. Valencia, Villarreal, Sevilla, ATM had great starts, but com on, who are they kidding, as soon as they face the "Batman &Robin" they are finished.... like always.

 

[Triv]

a poll would settle this...​

 

[Blynd1]

Portuguese..

 

[wunzigan]

A poll would still lead to debate. Its like debating who was the best english player ever, or what was the best World Cup ever...etc.... Everyone is different and entitled to his opinion.

 

[Mason*]

La Liga
Premier League
Serie A
Bundesliga
Ligue 1
SPL

 

[Triv]

A poll would still lead to debate. Its like debating who was the best english player ever, or what was the best World Cup ever...etc.... Everyone is different and entitled to his opinion.

yes i don't want to stop the debate, i just think a poll would give everybody an idea what the majority think - i think i'm the only one who said brazil...

 

[Irish Scouse]

Since your go to theory is if someone doesnt watch the league reguarly, they don't have reasoning.

So, in my opinon it is the Irish league, come back to me when you watch it reguarly.

Ligue 1 fo reals though.

 

[ravenie]

Just read that link on the first page. Scottish football is worse than Romanian? We are at a new low.

My opinion is that the 5th best league is easily the Eredivise.