Comments on: La Liga is Tough-But is it the best?

By: Elisa

Elisa — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 05:46:16 +0000

Corey and Inara great posts, I couldn’t say it better myself. La Liga hands down best league in the world, with balance parity, skill, technic, intelligence and jogo bonito . Look no further.

By: Corey

Corey — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:33:02 +0000

Well I think Getafe have anough about them to get the result agaisnt Bayern. Their midfield was impressive enough and they rarely looked troubled with Toni. Does that mean that our 12th position team is as good as Germany’s best (or one of the best)? I think it does.

By: john

john — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:25:49 +0000

Well, in fact, little Geta beat Tottenham in the Uefa cup, so it’d be pretty hard for anyone to tell you that. And if the stars prove unlucky for Bayern Munich on Thursday…

By: jake

jake — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:35:10 +0000

If teams like Madrid or Barca can lose or draw with bottom teams, then that clearly shows parity in the competition. La Liga often has the “big teams” lose to those who are considered to be poor. How many times does Man U or Chelsea lose to Derby or Fulham?

The fact that teams like Valencia and Zaragoza can be great one season, then struggling against relegation the next, really shows how even the league is (Zaragoza is actually in the relegation zone, but finished 6th last season). Real Sociedad came runners up in the 02-03 season, but then got relegated at the end of last season. This is yet another example as to why the Spanish league is the best in the world due to it’s parity.

Also, as Corey said, I think la liga’s bottom teams can give the mid teams a run for their money. Tell me Getafe, currently in 12th in Spain, couldn’t get a result from a team like Everton, Portsmouth or Aston Villa.

By: Corey

Corey — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:38:58 +0000

Its fairly simple Greg, if my weakest teams are as good as your mid-table teams, then my league is obviously better then yours. Its pointless to compare top teams, because they can all beat one another on any given day, its called the Champions League.

By: Inara

Inara — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:15:28 +0000

Greg, how the bottom clubs do is just as important as how the top clubs do. A league is made up of 20 teams (in most cases), not just the top four. If a league has stronger relegation candidates, it shows that there is a spread of talent/inspired coaching throughout the league despite a lack of money that keeps the ones floating at the top.

For example, France has the most parity of the big five leagues and very strong bottom clubs, though in terms of prestige, it has the least considering that there is only one “big” team. So they are two different standards in which to judge a league. For an exciting championship, you need a bit of both, parity and lots of quality. Spain simpky seems to have the best of both worlds.

By: Inara

Inara — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:05:54 +0000

What makes a strong league is what a person considers the most important. Parity, amount of talent, financial resources, the production and spread of talent, etc, are all different factors, and each of these make a league strong in different ways.

I would say that the EPL is the most top heavy league, where there is a huge amount of talent amassed at the top. Which is why they do so well in Europe, always reaching the later stages of the Champions League. So the strength of their top teams is pretty clear. But their midtable and bottom sides are pretty poor compared to Italy and especially to Spain.

So for me, the EPL is the most successful league despite it not being a balanced one. Despite having very little parity, poor youth development, and the fact that their bottom table teams are crap, the EPL has lots of money and huge fan bases, even the teams that are going down. Their methods are suspect, and no one would ever call the EPL fair or exciting, but it works both in a financial and in a sporting sense in that they have more than their fair share of very strong teams (counterbalanced by very weak ones, but there you go).

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:22:00 +0000

Oh and please no “only as strong as the weakest link” throw away junk line cliches. They aren’t going to justify or further anything…

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:19:46 +0000

Corey, I agree with your assessment. The interesting thing here is that we actually are comparing the leagues and their “strength” by saying which leagues’ “lower level” teams would beat the other. Therefore aren’t we saying, in essence, our lowest common denominator is better than yours? If so, why judge an entity based on its weakest parts? I’m not saying I’m talking myself out of agreeing with you, but how can we rectify the fact that we’re judging a league’s “prestige” or “overall strength” by comparing its worst teams?

By: Kxevin

Kxevin — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:17:48 +0000

Very cool post/comparison. La Liga definitely has the most parity, if we’re defining it as strong teams not only through the first but also the second division. Almeria, newly promoted, sits 9th in the standings. Pretty stout, I’d say.

The fundamental problem with the EPL is that it’s an arms race. The top four have so much money and so much television presence that it’s difficult for lesser teams to get players of any real quality. That isn’t going to change. We’ve seen the top four over there cock up this season, but not with the reliability of the top two in La Liga.

I also think the style of football has a lot to do with it. It’s more open in La Liga, which can contribute to the crazy counterattack that suddenly makes a game (and subsequent season) seem topsy-turvy. The talent with the ball in La Liga is astounding, something that also isn’t true in the other leagues.

I would finally point to the fact that a side will need around 40 points to stay up. Using points-only comparisons, that’s pretty much mid-table in England and Italy.

munichsoul’s ratings are spot on.