Competitiveness of top clubs

 I was going to write another screed about “the end of the end of history”, but it seems that I've already done that once before. So this time, what I write will be different. The events of 1989 were widely seen as vindication that the Cold War would have a victor, the “free world” would win, and a new era of peace and prosperity would be open to all. It would be an era of freedom and opportunity, and a good life for all.

It seemed to be that way, and it was something that was reflected in the world of football. Football – until quite recently – was still a game where a relatively poor country like Brazil could be the champions. There were clubs like Arsenal which proved that clubs that were well run could prove the difference between success and failure. Even when you had johnny come latelys, it seemed that having a rich sugar daddy would bankroll your success for a few seasons, and then things would go back to normal. Thus, the temporary good fortunes of clubs like Blackburn, Newcastle, Chelsea, Middlesborough and Leeds would be even welcomed, because we loved the spectacle of some minor club turning up at the top to enjoy their day in the sun every now and then. That's why Man City's first premier league trophy was such a joyous affair, even though now we see it as the ominous sign that football was going to be an ogilopoly.

All through the first decade of the 2000s, there has been the stranglehold of the “big four”, who were Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal. Actually, from 1996 onwards, it seemed as though Man U would maintain a stranglehold on the English Premier League. They had seen off one club with a rich benefactor (Blackburn Rovers, who curiously imploded barely moments after claiming their first and so far only EPL title). And they had barely just seen off another (Newcastle United). And they were barely started, because they somehow managed to have an incredible youth setup that produced that famous “class of 92”, which meant that their success was almost assured for the next few years. (That group would practically ensure that they were in the title races all the way until 2001).

Then Arsene Wenger came in and shook up Arsenal Football Club. They would be a duopoly until 2004. And around the same time, the places for the Champions' League kept on expanding, until there were 4. There would thus be a big four, and those four big clubs would achieve success, and use their monetary success to buy the best players and the best system, and thus perpetuate that success.

In some way, the big four back then were acceptable: Chelsea was the only one which was run by a plutocrats. Ominously, they won two premier league titles in a row, and they won them so convincingly that it seemed that they would win it every year. Fortunately for the rest of the EPL, they were managed by a guy (Mourinho) who had a habit of falling out with his players after the third season, and at the same time, Alex Ferguson was gearing up his last great team. After a few years in the wilderness, all the gears finally clicked. They had a team with Rooney, Ronaldo, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra, Carrick, Nani, Tevez. Saha and Hargreaves were pretty good when not injured.

Later on, Man City became one of the best bankrolled club ever. Initially they spent money on Robinho, and it didn't work out. But quickly they got their man in – Roberto Mancini, and he led them to a premier league title in the most dramatic fashion in 2012. Then he failed to retain the title and got sacked. During the Pellegrini years, he failed to dominate the league. And for a while, it became fun to watch Chelsea and Leicester swap the titles between each other.

But when Guardiola came in, there began an era where Liverpool and Man City dominated the league. Chelsea turned into a club which had a very enviable youth system. Liverpool and City became sides that could reach upwards of 95 points a season. They did it with more advanced tactics than everybody else, and in the case of Man City, they had better players: or at least they managed to get a very good but not world beating player in every position. The players were not obviously more technically gifted, or stronger or faster. But they managed to fit into Guardiola's scheme of things, and they were just brainier and hence became unplayable.

So now you have a big three at the top, and they have the best techniques, they either have the best scouts or the best youth system. What about the other 3 clubs which are pretending to be the top 6? Man United managed a second placed finish and they have, on paper, a great squad with glittering names. But there doesn't seem to be a system about the whole thing and the team is less than the sum of its parts. And they've finally sacked Solskjaer after a bad start to this season. Arsenal have made a few bad decisions. One big regret, and possibly the final nail in the coffin for Arsene Wenger's career, is that they allowed Leicester to win the league, in a year when most of their competitors were busy rebuilding and consolidating. They had finally started to spend money, and they got Alexis Sanchez and Ozil for a large sum of money. They were brilliant in fits and starts, but eventually they faded away and had to leave. There was one point, during the Unai Emery years, when they had a larger wage bill than a club their size should have had, and they're starting to reconstruct their team. Tottenham were trying to rebuild the team after the one by Mauricio Pochettino reached the end of its natural cycle, but unexpectedly Daniel Levy decided to sack Pochettino. Mourinho was brought in, and he did what he always did, which was try to squeeze a little bit more out of the team that he already had. It worked for a couple of months, until the wheels came off again. And rather foolishly, he did not have a coach lined up. He had to go through 4 months of Nuno Espirito Santo, and 4 or 5 coaches declaring they didn't want the job, before they finally got their man in Antonio Conte.

These 3 laggards are different from each other, but what they have in common is organisation problems. It's too soon to tell if Arsenal will finally make the breakthrough and become the last member of a big 4. Man U's problem has been a lack of organisation, such that coaches that have done well elsewhere – Moyes, Van Gaal and Mourinho – have found it hard to prosper there. In particular, Mourinho may have been one of the best coaches in the world when he was at Porto, Chelsea, Inter Milan and Real Madrid, but his coaching seems to be more reactive, and he may not have an answer to the way that football is played in this current era, which is a lot of high tempo and a lot of pressing. I can't think of a reason why they stuck with Solskjaer for so long other than that having a mediocre manager at the helm would distract from a lot of problems taking place elsewhere on the pitch.

In many ways, this top 3 seems even more entrenched than the top 4 ever was, because these days, in order to get to those levels of performance, you need not only the best coaches, but also the best backroom staff, the best board, the best youth system and the best scouts. These things are even harder to replicate. They can be bought with money, and perhaps clubs are discovering that money may be well spent on the best players, but even better would be to use the money to overhaul various aspects of the system.

I think that maybe this is just a symptom that in the technologically advanced world that we live in today, the gap between the best and the rest would be ever widening because good performing organisations with the know how have an advantage which is difficult to maintain and replicate. There is a chance that small clubs (most recently West Ham and Leicester City) can knock on the door of the big club's club with better players and organisation.