The importance of one week's rest

[Bilo]

Before Liverpool's surprise title tilt in 2013/14, I can't remember anyone really talking about being out of Europe as an especially big advantage in the league. Sure, there were some complaints about the thursday/sunday-setup through the Europa league, but it wasn't really talked about.

Fast forward a few years and a Leicester title later and no one talks about the title race without mentioning that Liverpool and Chelsea are out of Europe.

Obviously, a lot has changed. Top level football is more intense than ever and back when there was a given top 4, obviously they all played roughly the same number of games.

How much of a difference does it reasonably make, you think?

 

[GodsGift]

It's all about football periodisation. Just ask this guy...

 

[Skinner]

The quality of the league as a whole, aswell as there being more contenders at the top makes a difference in this aspect too, imo.

Back in the United/Arsenal days the league was poorer and the likes of Coventry/Wimbledon/Everton posed less of a threat to your three points as the likes of Stoke/Bournemouth/Southampton do now. Plus the Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea of now, plus City posed far less of a threat than they do now.

In the golden era, the top 4 could concentrate on Europe and not have too much of a headache the following weekend, as unless they were playing eachother then 3 points were fairly expected. Now a European week is followed by a 'big game' more frequently.

 

[johnnytodd]

Before Liverpool's surprise title tilt in 2013/14, I can't remember anyone really talking about being out of Europe as an especially big advantage in the league. Sure, there were some complaints about the thursday/sunday-setup through the Europa league, but it wasn't really talked about.

Fast forward a few years and a Leicester title later and no one talks about the title race without mentioning that Liverpool and Chelsea are out of Europe.

Obviously, a lot has changed. Top level football is more intense than ever and back when there was a given top 4, obviously they all played roughly the same number of games.

How much of a difference does it reasonably make, you think?

I can remember it being talked about 20 years ago, but that was before Istanbul and my guess is you didn't like football at all them days......am i right?

 

[Pagnell]

The quality of the league as a whole, aswell as there being more contenders at the top makes a difference in this aspect too, imo.

Back in the United/Arsenal days the league was poorer and the likes of Coventry/Wimbledon/Everton posed less of a threat to your three points as the likes of Stoke/Bournemouth/Southampton do now. Plus the Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea of now, plus City posed far less of a threat than they do now.

In the golden era, the top 4 could concentrate on Europe and not have too much of a headache the following weekend, as unless they were playing eachother then 3 points were fairly expected. Now a European week is followed by a 'big game' more frequently.

Was going to post but see you've pretty much covered it.

Things far better and more enjoyable now than when United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal were basically shoo ins for the top 4.

 

[G-Dragon]

It for sure helps teams like ourselves and Spurs.

 

[JimJams]

Well you get more time in training, more time to analyse your opposition and less chance of picking up injuries or have fatigue set in. So yeah, it's an advantage. However generally the sides that compete for the title are all in the same competitions and have spent an absolute shitload on players for their squad, so for those teams an extra competition should be no excuse. Man City last season for example often had 70million pounds worth of centrebacks on their bench.

 

[smat]

The quality of the league as a whole, aswell as there being more contenders at the top makes a difference in this aspect too, imo.

Back in the United/Arsenal days the league was poorer and the likes of Coventry/Wimbledon/Everton posed less of a threat to your three points as the likes of Stoke/Bournemouth/Southampton do now. Plus the Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea of now, plus City posed far less of a threat than they do now.

In the golden era, the top 4 could concentrate on Europe and not have too much of a headache the following weekend, as unless they were playing eachother then 3 points were fairly expected. Now a European week is followed by a 'big game' more frequently.

If it used to be such a piece of piss to beat your Coventrys etc in the early 38 game seasons, why did teams not need as many points as now to win the title?

1995-96 - United - 82 points
1996-97 - United - 75 points
1997-98 - Arsenal - 78 points
1998-99 - United - 79 points

2011-12 - City - 89 points
2012-13 - United - 89 points
2013-14 - City - 84 points
2014-15 - Chelsea - 87 points
2015-16 - Leicester - 81 points

Seems like it's become easier to accrue points, based on that?

 

[johnnytodd]

IN YOUR FACE SKINNER !!!!!

 

[Skinner]

Quite surprised by that tbf

 

[Bilo]

If it used to be such a piece of piss to beat your Coventrys etc in the early 38 game seasons, why did teams not need as many points as now to win the title?

1995-96 - United - 82 points
1996-97 - United - 75 points
1997-98 - Arsenal - 78 points
1998-99 - United - 79 points

2011-12 - City - 89 points
2012-13 - United - 89 points
2013-14 - City - 84 points
2014-15 - Chelsea - 87 points
2015-16 - Leicester - 81 points

Seems like it's become easier to accrue points, based on that?

That was surprising.

 

[merseyboyred]

The gap became starker with the growth of the CL & post-Abramovich. before that, even though United were dominant there wasn't really a group of 4, then a group of 6/7, who were clearly stronger than most of the rest of the league, and mid-table sides were almost interchangeable and more of a muchness.

I think the rest makes more difference with the Europa. The Thurs/Sun schedule always affords for one fewer recovery/training day & the vast sums more earned for the CL has allowed teams in that competition to have greater quality in depth than Europa teams have been able to accrue, so their rotated sides see much less of a dip. It took gross financial mismanagement by our previous owners to break the 'big 4' back as it were, but since then only three teams other than that 4 have made the CL, one being Manchester City after their investment (which kinda highlights Leicester's colossal achievement last season).

The sheer size of the domestic TV deals though now may well have served to dull the importance of the CL's financial advantage.

 

[Forthright]

Not having to play in Europe certainly helps those with perhaps weaker and smaller squads. Ultimately, however, quality will shine through. Hence why Man City beat Liverpool to the title a few seasons back.