Premier League 2022/23

[DavidMarrio]

44 minutes ago, Colly said:

I just can't see the "established big 6" keeping up the pace any more than them, Spurs and Chelsea are in disarray and while I'd fancy Liverpool to improve Brighton are still in pole position. I see the top 4 basically staying as is, with 5th and 6th being 1 of the "big 6" and one of the interlopers.

That said it wouldn't surprise me if Spurs got a weird result against Man Utd in midweek.

It's one of them games where you go "surely they can't be as bad they was on sunday" so I wouldn't be shocked. United having played a full 90 + extra time may help as well. 

[Szumi]

United haven't been playing particularly well though either. They've at least got some victories over the bottom sides and out of form Brentford, but they got embarrassed by Sevilla (who have been atrocious this season) and Newcastle (just not like Spurs 😉), and were lucky to get to penalties against Brighton, in my opinion.

They've had a great season, don't get me wrong, but they're wildly inconsistent and playing with a patched up backline. They're still vulnerable every week.

[METALMAN]

3 hours ago, Colly said:

I just can't see the "established big 6" keeping up the pace any more than them, Spurs and Chelsea are in disarray and while I'd fancy Liverpool to improve Brighton are still in pole position. I see the top 4 basically staying as is, with 5th and 6th being 1 of the "big 6" and one of the interlopers.

That said it wouldn't surprise me if Spurs got a weird result against Man Utd in midweek.

When was the last time this big six concept was actually relevant to what is actually happening? The title implies that there should be some form of parity between the members but that’s not really been the case for a while now. I’d argue that at the very least a prerequisite for membership of any “top” tier should entail having won something beyond the league cup this century.
 

It carries as much weight as France’s claim that there is a “big five” of European leagues and they’re in it, even though they’ve had fewer European finalists in the last 20 years than the Scottish league.

[Colly]

I put it in quotes for a reason, it's bollocks. The sheer idea Spurs should be involved is a nonsense, and while you can justify the other 5 to an extent they've all been successful in different periods with Man City a step above and the only team to be consistently good for the last decade or so. It's basically been a Big 2 for most of it, with the second of the two varying between Leicester, Chelsea, Liverpool then Arsenal this year.

You'd rather be a Leicester fan than half of them recently...

Edited April 24, 2023 by Colly
Messy

[The Lusophone]

The Big 6 has never existed, just like how there's never been the "big 5" European leagues. At least one or two of the Big 6 has been consistently crap in any particular season and snuck into finishing 6th (or not even done so) right at the end.

[stokeriño]

The 'Big 6' as a concept is just a lazy echo of the Big 4, coined by football pundits to try and use shorthand for something that no longer makes much sense. The 'Big 4' made sense, back in the mid-to-late 2000s, for two reasons: 1) it applied quite consistently that Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool would be the top four in some combination, and 2) it aligned with Champions League money, which served to strengthen those four and widen the gap to those who didn't get CL money.

Conversely, there is far less financial benefit to consistently finishing 6th over that of finishing 7th, so there is little positive reinforcement of a gap between all of the six and those slightly below. The more recent massive increase in Premier League money spread all the way down the table undermined the gap further still. And the fact that Man City (and sometimes Spurs...or Leicester) usurped spots in the top four added more of a churn to the so-called 'big' clubs' funding and there were several less-reliable rebuild projects in turn, making the whole model a lot less stable.

Nowadays the idea of a 'Big 6' means little except really in terms of fanbase and marketability. It's replaced the 'Big 4' as more of a conversational crutch, but now it seems to mainly get used in the context of "oh hey wow some of the Big 6 aren't doing so well right now"...which kind of proves its own invalidation, really.

 

[gunnar hendershow]

Surely they'll have to start calling it the Big Eight between Newcastle and whoever the Qatari people eventually buy (unless it's, of course, Man Utd or someone already in that group). Then once the next wave of major investment happens it'll be the Big Ten and so forth. 

Feels like there's a tendency to take what is seen in other leagues where there's essentially the same 2 or 3 contending clubs (or in the case of Italy in recent years 6) every year. But with how much money the PL clubs tend to have, it doesn't correlate at all. The 14th placed club in England might not be better than the 5th placed team in Germany but they likely have just as many resources. Part of the reason the Super League got conceived was to cut off those clubs from threatening the hegemony, which should tell you everything you need to know about whether a "Big Six" actually exists.

[Naitch]

I'm curious what the discourse is on what constitutes the 'big' clubs in other leagues, beyond our predominantly English perceptions. Certain clubs obviously have good runs of form but that doesn't typically extend to a consistent group of teams at the same time.

Italy, France, and Germany have all had one dominant team for a while, but even they've had breaks in form and the other teams around them haven't been anywhere near the same level.

Celtic/Rangers is the only really obvious established one I can think of, and even then it hasn't exactly been a factor for most of the last decade. I guess Spain is quite consistent with its top 3 still being somewhat competitive between them (and Sevilla being consistently 4th but fairly solid in Europe), as well.

[Colly]

Portugal has a fairly obvious long term big 3.

[Naitch]

I totally forgot about that one. Looking it up also led me to discover Wikipedia pages for the following:

Belgian Big Three (Brugge, Anderlecht, Standard Liege)

Costa Rican Big Three (Saprissa, Alajuelence, Herediano)

Greek Big Three (AEK, Olympiacos, Panathanaikos)

Dutch Big Three (Ajax, Feyenoord, PSV)

Peruvian Big Three (Alianza Lima, Sporting Cristal, Universitario)

Swedish Big Three (AIK, Goteborg, Malmo)

Turkish Big Three (Besiktas, Fenerbache, Galatasaray)

Mexican Big Four (Club America, Cruz Azul, Guadalajara, Pumas)

Argentine Big Five (River Plate, Boca Juniors, Independiente, Racing Club, San Lorenzo)

Brazilian Big Twelve (Atlético Mineiro, Botafogo, Corinthians, Cruzeiro, Flamengo, Fluminense, Grêmio, Internacional, Palmeiras, Santos, São Paulo, Vasco da Gama)

[Bobfoc]

I think I see the "big" however many teams as the ones that you can more or less guarantee won't come close to relegation in the near future. Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs are all having bad seasons by their own standards, but they're still comfortably above any kind of danger. Meanwhile, Leicester and West Ham could earn top six finishes in the last few years, but have been involved in relegation battles this season.

There are a certain few clubs that have a safety net that realistically keeps them above water, be it through financial might or reputational pulling power. Most Premier League clubs can lose a few good players to bigger clubs and then be in the mire.

[gunnar hendershow]

1 hour ago, Colly said:

Portugal has a fairly obvious long term big 3.

Even then it's been Porto/Benfica winning the league almost every year since the 80s. Sporting's been a firm number 3.

[Colly]

Brazil are taking the piss there.

[The Lusophone]

3 hours ago, Naitch said:

I'm curious what the discourse is on what constitutes the 'big' clubs in other leagues, beyond our predominantly English perceptions. Certain clubs obviously have good runs of form but that doesn't typically extend to a consistent group of teams at the same time.

Stadium size and whether you were moderately successful/good at a time where the majority of pundits were playing/relevant.

Hence why Newcastle are big despite not having won anything in any of our lifetimes.

[stokeriño]

At least usually when the media refers to 'big' clubs of some number, it's as part of some other point they're trying to make and it passes by fairly harmlessly. Sure it's lazy language, but whatever.

What I absolutely cannot stand though are the "X is a big/small club" debates among fans. It's taking an arbitrary word (big) and then vehemently disagreeing about what that word means, round and round until the end of time. Bores me to fucking tears.

[Colly]

8 minutes ago, FestiveJack said:

Stadium size and whether you were moderately successful/good at a time where the majority of pundits were playing/relevant.

Hence why Newcastle are big despite not having won anything in any of our lifetimes.

I'd disagree with that and say it's far more related to recent/sustained success, no one would consider Newcastle part of the "big 6". Though we are getting into the semantics of "big x" in a league, and "big clubs" which Stoker has summed up perfectly above. There was a lot of talk of Newcastle making it a "big 7" earlier this season which can fuck right off even more, if we finish 4th and Brighton end up above any two of Chelsea/Liverpool/Spurs the entire "big 6" concept can go in the bin.

Also

 

[Naitch]

Apparently Reece James and Mason Mount are out for the rest of the season? I don't think that's a bad thing, given that Chelsea don't have anything left to play for at this point. Let them rest up and give some younger players the minutes. I want to see Datro Fofana, Chukwuemeka, Hutchinson, and Hall getting some first-team experience.

I'm also hopeful not to see Aubameyeng, Felix, Zakaria or Ziyech put on a blue shirt again.

[stokeriño]

Mount has barely featured lately even as a substitute, so that doesn't change a great deal. I did wonder if something was up with him, though, and I guess that's confirmed now that he's had some surgery done. I bet James' absence will see us playing a back four with Chalobah at RB a lot.

Agreed about DD Fofana and Chukwuemeka. Although it sounds like at least in the case of the latter (and also Madueke), Lamps is not especially eager to give him minutes.

I don't think Zakaria has been (or had the opportunity to be) particularly bad, but with a bloated squad I do think there's zero point wasting playing time on loan players atm.

 

[King Ellis]

Got a sinking feeling the entire time Jamie Vardy was warming up with the way the commentators were saying how he hasn't scored in 19. Like clockwork...

And then he nearly gets a second if not for an offside flag. Will be lucky to get out of this with the point at this rate...

[METALMAN]

10 hours ago, damhausen said:

Surely they'll have to start calling it the Big Eight 

Given Man City’s recent and probably future form I think a Big One is probably going to be more realistic