You are an idiot if you think you can only spend massive and stay up, or spend little, and go down.Its stupid man, think about what you are saying.Can you not spend frugally, but wisely, and stay up? Can you not have a medium spend and stay up because you have an astute management team. There are loads of options you sportswashed knacker
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Would this team beat the Mags?
- Thread starter Mackem Mad
- Start date
HebburnMackem
Striker
100% yes
I would agree Everton are crap but they have been circling the relegation drain for a while now so it is not new or specific to this season is it? It is normal that the teams around the bottom do not look good that is why they are where they are just like every season. The only big change this season is Chelsea dropping off so badly despite spending a much more than anyone else. Citeh, Arsenal, Man U and Lpool remain good teams, Spurs are normal for Spurs and now NUFC, Brighton, Villa, Brentford and Fulham all have good teams so this argument the the PL is the poorest ever just does not really stand up. It is more competitive now that ever before with more teams who are capable of getting points of each other. I think the ONLY reason people here say the PL is poor this season is because we are 3rd, if it was Brighton in our position you would not be saying this.
If you think Sunderland would be OK without significant investment than is up to you. I can't see that to be honest as you don't really have a strong squad in terms of quality, depth or experience. You best player is on loan (so quite possible needs to be purchased or returned to Man U) you only have 1 real striker as far as I am aware and he seems to be injured more often than he plays. Hence my view significant investment would be needed.
I never said you would go down if you didn't spend big but it is much more likely. Yes having a great management team and a clear long term plan are indeed key. As stated above though I can't see how Sunderland can expect to survive without significant investment simply due to your lack of strikers (the most expensive position on the pitch to fill) and general lack of quality and depth in the squad (especially if the loanees go back to their clubs)
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 1169
Guest
"It is more competitive now that ever before with more teams who are capable of getting points of each other.
You are confusing quality with competitivemess. The general level is lower. The championship is very competitive but that doesn't make it better than the Prem.
Eddie Howe transformed a Steve Bruce side with the addition of Trippier last season and the bulk of the Bruce players and Bruno added gradually. That side could be mid table before other additions. i don't watch you enough to know but in the cold light of day are any knowledgeable NUFC fans sticking any of the current side in their all time best 11's? Bearing in mind the current size has one less win that the side that finished 2nd in '97. Surely the majority should be in?
You are confusing quality with competitivemess. The general level is lower. The championship is very competitive but that doesn't make it better than the Prem.
Eddie Howe transformed a Steve Bruce side with the addition of Trippier last season and the bulk of the Bruce players and Bruno added gradually. That side could be mid table before other additions. i don't watch you enough to know but in the cold light of day are any knowledgeable NUFC fans sticking any of the current side in their all time best 11's? Bearing in mind the current size has one less win that the side that finished 2nd in '97. Surely the majority should be in?
KathyBatesHammer
Midfield
You make some good points there, especially the if Brighton were 3rd we wouldnt be saying its a poor PL.
However to say we need significant investment to stay up is wrong (IMO). Although i appreciate im probably in the minority.
I think our best 11 on paper could certainly have a go at it. If we were to get Diallo back in (on loan) and sign 3 or 4 astute signings we could definitly do it, or even better.
Theres a lot to be said for momentum. Its hardly unheard of for 'poor' teams to go up and have a cracking first season.
A fair an balanced reply. I would agree your first 11 if everyone is fit and it includes Diallo (which is possible but far from guaranteed) is not bad but you certainly would still need additional striking options and having a strong 11 simply isn't enough because injuries and suspensions always occur over the course of the season.
There is nothing there that supports your theory that the level of quality in the PL is lower than in the past. Do you have anything which actually backs this up.
I do agree that the signing of Tripps and others last season combined with having a good manager who has made the most out of players already at the club began our transformation which has continued since. Would it be fair to say then that the quality of NUFCs team has improved in the last two years?
In terms of all time 11 I would not say any of them qualify yet but they are doing a good job so far.
Last edited:
The level of quality is definitely lower
D
Deleted member 1169
Guest
Using an economic concept - concentration ratio - when NUFC finished 2nd in 1997 the top 10 accounted for 59% of the points, this year they have accounted for 65%. The bottom of the table is gash. The top has got better with the top 6 accounting for 42% compared to 39% in 1997. In the first year of the PL the top 10 only accounted for 55% of points and the top 4 36% of points. HHI comes to the same conclusion that over time the PL has become more concentrated in the top 10. This isn't an anti NUFC message but hopefully reinforces the fact that a SAFC side that may scrape up essentially has to compete in a 10 team league of sides that are not as strong as they were in the 1990's.
There's nowt wrong with optimism Mr.Bone. That said we couldn't beat Sheffield Wednesday. Peterborough humped them. Ergo........
Can't argue with any of this.
A handful have gotten much stronger. The rest are very much a group of ordinary, with the odd sprinkling of shite amongst them.
Last edited:
Roker Magic
Central Defender
They would do the double on us, no problem, unfortunately mate. 1-3 at home and possible 5 nowt away.
Hank Scorpio
Striker
I love the optimism on this thread, but we’d need to invest to be competitive.
Now I’m not saying we need to do a forest and spunk £100m on shite, but we’d need to spend a fair wedge.
For example, I wouldn’t mind us taking a risk on Gyökeres but I can’t see us getting any change from £25m. If we moved for Henderson, he’d still want around £100k a week.
Now I’m not saying we need to do a forest and spunk £100m on shite, but we’d need to spend a fair wedge.
For example, I wouldn’t mind us taking a risk on Gyökeres but I can’t see us getting any change from £25m. If we moved for Henderson, he’d still want around £100k a week.
Comparisons to the 90s are totally irrelevant as there were less top clubs then weren't there? At any given point in the 90s there was only really 2 or 3 capable of competing at the top so surely it is normal that the distribution of points is very different now.
In terms of the bottom teams are you saying it is easier or harder for you to compete with them should you be promoted than it would have been 23 years ago or more?
Last edited:
Freddie the Greek
Striker
Home, away, neutral ground, Saudi Arabia, we'd wallop them anywhere
Please demonstrate how this is true.
D
Deleted member 1169
Guest
The data is showing this. The teams in the top, whether defined as top 4, top 6 and top 10 are getting stronger and earning more points. But that means that by definition the bottom is earning fewer points. The bottom 6 this season have just 15% of the available points. Whereas back in 1992 that was 26%. "Quality" is naturally subjective but in terms of the ability to earn points in the premier league the bottom 6 are progressively earning relatively fewer points. Essentially you can be pretty poor and stay up. If you have an alternative take on the data then lets have it and stop with the subjective views. If we go up staying in the league is not as big as it once was. Look at the potential relegated sides:
- Southampton - promoted 2012
- Leicester - promoted 2014
- Everton - years ago
- Leeds being the exception as promoted in 2020.
Last edited by a moderator:
But that does not mean that the overall quality of the league is declining does it? If anything it backs what I said all along that the league is harder at the top and saying the PL is weak (which many people here do) simply because NUFC are doing well is not a rational argument.
If it is true as you say that the bottom teams are progressively earning less points why do Derby County still hold the record lowest points and why is Sunderland still 2nd and 3rd in that statistic?
Why is no one in the media saying this is a poor season in terms of competiveness and/or quality? Why are fans all other teams not saying this?
Last edited:
I don't have to demonstrate you berk. I go off what I see, it's definitely worse.
D
Deleted member 1169
Guest
The top is stronger, the bottom is weaker. It is a great achievement for NUFC to make top 4 as there are more strong sides than there were in the 90's but equally the bottom 6 is statistical weaker - not just one team (i.e. DCFC) but as a collective they are weaker. The average quality is likely higher (i.e. top increased more than bottom has declined) but since all we are discussing is SAFC staying up all we are interested in is finishing 4th bottom of a ten team league.
I will leave you think about the data rather than you coming back with kneejerk reactions and making it all about NUFC bias.
