Standards slipping

[Super_Ally 0]

Every year since at least Big Eck's teams we hear that whichever side wins the League will be the worst ever. The Old Firm are getting weaker and the rest are catching up. Though the arguement is we are getting worse faster than the rest are catching up.

 

A quick look at the stats reveals:

 

08/09 League Winner 83 points (minimum)

07/08 89 points

06/07 84 points

05/06 91 points

04/05 93 points

03/04 98 points

02/03 97 points

 

A definite general trend from 5/6 years ago of points totals in the high 90s to mid 80s.

 

Are people right? Is the standard, at the top of the league at least, diminishing?

[Norris Cole 0]

Interesting the scum only got 84 points in 06/07. Our turmoil deflected most eyes away from how poor they were as well. There was actually a feature in FourFourTwo magazine a few months ago about the Top 10 'worst champions ever', and the filth's tainted title of 2007/08 was in it.

 

Whatever the reasons though, financial or otherwise, your main point about declining standards is absolutely correct. It was around 2004 that both teams lost their genuine European class players (Larsson, De Boer etc.), and you can see that from the stats above.

[UCF2008 0]

The stats may well suggest the standards are slipping ...and yet over the same period, the OF have reached the last 16 of the Champions League on 3 occasions and 2 UEFA Cup Finals. Does that suggest the standards in European cup competitions are slipping?

[UCF2008 0]

IMO it's more likely that the standard of the rest of the SPL is improving, which can only be good for the Scottish game. OF Fans may well expect their team to win every game, but at the end of the day the game is better off if they don't.

[Super_Ally 0]

The stats may well suggest the standards are slipping ...and yet over the same period, the OF have reached the last 16 of the Champions League on 3 occasions and 2 UEFA Cup Finals. Does that suggest the standards in European cup competitions are slipping?

 

Very good point. Whilst many bemoan not just the results of domestic games but also the quality of football, these' "inferior" footballers have achieved better results in Europe. Is that due to a greater knowledge and experience of what is required against European opposition?

 

I'm not sure there is a definitive argument either way. Are we getting worse or are the rest getting better? Difficuly to prove conclusively.

[Super_Ally 0]

Interesting the scum only got 84 points in 06/07. Our turmoil deflected most eyes away from how poor they were as well. There was actually a feature in FourFourTwo magazine a few months ago about the Top 10 'worst champions ever', and the filth's tainted title of 2007/08 was in it.

 

I too read that 4-4-2 article and was difficult to argue with their reasoning (though the history books will merely document who did win it )

[calscot 0]

It's an incredibly inaccurate way of measuring the ability of the champions. The opposition is not the same every year and there are other circumstances.

 

At the turn of the century was a time when many non-Old Firm teams were cutting costs and ridding themselves of expensive players. A few went into administration. At the same time we had some great players due to spending 70M more that we could afford and Celtic were at their highest spending ever.

 

It was a bit of a false time especially for Rangers and not one we can ever really compare to. Imagine Gretna survived but went down a few divisions, would it be valid for their fans to say standards had slipped and moan about it for the rest of time as they would never reach the same heights?

 

Other factors could include refereeing, and if we had TV replays as part of it, we'd have had at least 6 points more and if we win tomorrow that could have been 92 points.

 

If you look at Rangers in isolation we're also massively improved in points total over the last couple of seasons which goes against the theory.

 

However, I do think the standard of player has dropped, not spending 70M more than you can afford is a factor as is paying back some of the debt, but the TV money in England is the biggest factor for me - as well as them not being banned from Europe and having massively reduced the hooligan element which turned so many off.

 

At our best in recent history coincided with a time when English football was at a terrible low, now it's at its biggest high in its history, and so it's no surprise that we're suffering.

 

The standard of player we can attract now is much lower than the late 80's and the 90's although it's still far better than the early 80's.

 

The standard of the rest of the league has also dropped but not by as much. Our players can no longer take the piss out of the lower teams, and that includes former CL winners such as Mendes.

 

However, I don't think being extremely unhappy because your team doesn't give out a thrashing every week is all that healthy.

 

Perhaps we need to relearn to watch a football game as more of a "match" and get used to a bit more healthy competition.

[craig 5,199]

I thought you liked statistics cal ? :fish:

[Super_Ally 0]

It's an incredibly inaccurate way of measuring the ability of the champions. The opposition is not the same every year and there are other circumstances.

 

At the turn of the century was a time when many non-Old Firm teams were cutting costs and ridding themselves of expensive players. A few went into administration. At the same time we had some great players due to spending 70M more that we could afford and Celtic were at their highest spending ever.

 

It was a bit of a false time especially for Rangers and not one we can ever really compare to. Imagine Gretna survived but went down a few divisions, would it be valid for their fans to say standards had slipped and moan about it for the rest of time as they would never reach the same heights?

 

Other factors could include refereeing, and if we had TV replays as part of it, we'd have had at least 6 points more and if we win tomorrow that could have been 92 points.

 

If you look at Rangers in isolation we're also massively improved in points total over the last couple of seasons which goes against the theory.

 

However, I do think the standard of player has dropped, not spending 70M more than you can afford is a factor as is paying back some of the debt, but the TV money in England is the biggest factor for me - as well as them not being banned from Europe and having massively reduced the hooligan element which turned so many off.

 

At our best in recent history coincided with a time when English football was at a terrible low, now it's at its biggest high in its history, and so it's no surprise that we're suffering.

 

The standard of player we can attract now is much lower than the late 80's and the 90's although it's still far better than the early 80's.

 

The standard of the rest of the league has also dropped but not by as much. Our players can no longer take the piss out of the lower teams, and that includes former CL winners such as Mendes.

 

However, I don't think being extremely unhappy because your team doesn't give out a thrashing every week is all that healthy.

 

Perhaps we need to relearn to watch a football game as more of a "match" and get used to a bit more healthy competition.

 

Before I respond, I had meant to put a question mark in the thread title.

 

And I hope that my OP (original post) came across as more of an open question than an arguement either way.

 

I did consider putting in the points totals of the league runners up each year (as part of my question was the OF v the rest) but if truth be told was too lazy. So your arguement about the fact that our own points totals recently have improved is a valid one.

 

I was hoping by only providing some view points and facts that points such as your own would be provided and make this a lively debate.

 

However, I was not intending to delve quite as far back as NIAR and the silly money years as the arguements I heard often talk of the quality dropping even from the years of Advocaat, De Boer and Albertz. Having said that, that is no reason not to look back that far and consider the implications of that era and how perhaps the shockwaves of that era have taken time to settle.

 

Certainly there are many, many points to be debated in a thread that is opened up in such a manner.

 

No one can deny that we cannot compete for the same quality of player in the transfer market. Not the quality we could attract under Advocaat (due to money) and certainly not the quality we brought in under Souness and Smith when England were banned from Europe. So how do you explain the (on average) better results in Europe from Rangers and even the Tims?

[Gribz 979]

You probably only need to compare both OF squads to what they were in the past 15 years to conclude both teams are far poorer.

 

Opposition teams in the last 5 years have came to Ibrox and Parkhead and had a go rather than played 10 behind the ball.

 

Id like to see some sort of stat about the points other clubs have taken off the OF in Glasgow over the last few years. Id guess its increased a bit.