Who will win the Premier League?

Is this going to be the best title race of all time?

Man City - Always up there.
Liverpool - VVD back
Man United - Ronaldo
Chelsea - Lukaku and Saul are fantastic signings.
Arsenal - Takehiro Tomiyasu

Hard to see anyone but Man United winning it this season

Man City

Probably Man City, possibly Chelsea. I think they have the most balanced teams, even if City lacks a proper striker.

I think its going to be between Manchester teams and Chelsea in a long time.

Chelsea

United bought a huge booster to that that so Im touting them to take it now

City.....Pep is a League Legend. His overthinking usually does not cost him the League.

I think Chelsea as well

City - strikerless, will bite them in the long run
United - can be contendors
Liverpool - aging and deteriorating squad, Klopp ran them into the ground with overreliance on the starting XI

A strengthened Chelsea in Lukaku, will propel to the title i think

Manchester united

I see no one is commenting on RealGunner sneaking Arsenal into the conversation

Chelsea won't win the league

It's City or Liverpool.

Going for Liverpool.

Going with Chelsea. Going to dominate the small games, have goal scorers from everywhere and have so many options in general.

Big games, very adaptable, can win playing in transitions, set pieces or being the protagonist.

City, play with too small margin for error and Utd have Ole. Cant find any reason to go against Pool really, but going to need to watch them more often.

Liverpool: VVD back

Take us out of this thread man, spare us.

Nishankly wrote:Liverpool: VVD back

Take us out of this thread man, spare us.

That was exactly my feeling when i saw this :d

Myesyats wrote:Man City

never in freaking doubt

thinking chelsea would win

Nothing wrong with predicting that Chelsea might win it. They don't have City's squad depth or Liverpool's overall quality, but they have a very balanced team and they've invested a lot into strengthening areas that needed improvement. There's still half a season left, plenty of things can change.

City is a pretty safe bet. Not only do they have a very good starting 11, but they have a substantial, almost unfair advantage in their squad depth. It's more fun to bet on Chelsea. I don't necessarily think it's fitting to consider them underdogs after they spent so much on new players, but I'd rather see them win than Man City.

It's gone under the radar maybe but Chelsea spent more on transfers in the last 5 years .

880m compared to City's 853m

Myesyats wrote:It's gone under the radar maybe but Chelsea spent more on transfers in the last 5 years .

880m compared to City's 853m

I imagine they've sold a lot more than City, as well. I don't remember the details, but from what I recall, Pep has pretty much been able to play FIFA team builder with his squad, thanks to the club successfully getting away with exploiting loopholes in the joke that is financial fair play.

Thimmy wrote:

Myesyats wrote:It's gone under the radar maybe but Chelsea spent more on transfers in the last 5 years .

880m compared to City's  853m

I imagine they've sold a lot more than City, as well. I don't remember the details, but from what I recall, Pep has pretty much been able to play FIFA team builder with his squad, thanks to the club successfully getting away with exploiting loopholes in the joke that is financial fair play.

Them selling is irrelevant, as they barely lose key players, it usually deadweight, like they got 30m or something for Tammy, before that they got 50m for Oscar and 50m for Luiz I mean even right now they're bench has Kante, Saul, Kepa Hakim, Kai while Silva, Chilwell and Werner are out injured. City depth isn't all that great they're using Jesus who is equal to Greenwood/Sancho or Werner/Hakim, they use Zinchenko as they're option for full back, as well as there youth product in Foden. People only speak about they're depth because they see Cancelo or Walker on the bench due to Zinchenko starting or Jesus and Foden with Sterling and Mahrez being on the bench. Pep is just using his depth better and has gotten them to perform at a higher level the fact he can go from Cancelo/Walker to Zinchenko a midfielder converted to a full back and City rarely drop off isn't just down to quality.

City best XI would look like this

Sterling-KdB-Mahrez
Gundo-Rodri-B.Silva
Cancelo-Laporte-Dias-Walker

They're bench XI

Grealish-Jesus-Kayky (???)
Foden-Fernandinho-Palmer (???)
Zinchenko-Ake-Stones-???
Steffen

That is not better then what United or Chelsea have, its just more of a functioning team rather then quality being better.

I don't know why you're nitpicking. Them selling more players is not irrelevant in the context of them recuperating some of the money they spend on players, as you just demonstrated. That doesn't even include the money they got from selling Courtois and Hazard. Call City's bench more functioning if you will, it functions better than the depth that Chelsea and Man United have at their disposal, and that difference is not irrelevant either.

Myesyats wrote:It's gone under the radar maybe but Chelsea spent more on transfers in the last 5 years .

880m compared to City's  853m

Injuries and Covid hit us hard.

Kante been in and out a lot, Kovacic missed a bunch, Werner, Lukaku, Jorginho is playing hurt, Chillwill out for the year huge loss, l could go on and on.

I’d go for Man U, they’ve just signed the Greatest of All Time

Thimmy wrote:I don't know why you're nitpicking. Them selling more players is not irrelevant in the context of them recuperating some of the money they spend on players, as you just demonstrated. That doesn't even include the money they got from selling Courtois and Hazard. Call City's bench more functioning if you will, it functions better than the depth that Chelsea and Man United have at their disposal, and that difference is not irrelevant either.

Am I nitpicking or providing context? @Myesyats provided to you that Chelsea have spent as much if not more then City in a similar time frame, you counter it with saying how they sell players to recoup money. I provided context in saying how most there sales are from deadweights in the squad outside of as you said Hazard and Thibu, therefor despite they're sales they're barely losing quality and spending money to add even more quality to the team with already a lot of quality in the team. That's why how much they recoup is a nonfactor to me. It would be the same with City or PSG if they were better at selling deadweights.

Above you made a comment literally saying Chelsea don't have depth of City...they have two strikers one that cost 100m and another that cost 60-80m, they have Pulisic on the bench who cost around 60m, they rotate between Kante 40m, Jorginho 60m, Kova 40m in midfield they have a keeper on their bench that cost 70m and another attacker in Hakim who cost 30-40m...in what world do they not have depth but City having Zinc, Jesus, Grealish, Stones, Ake on the bench means they have this insane and unfair squad depth ahead of Chelsea?

Here is the cost of their bench according to transfermkt.

City: Jesus (£28.80m), Stones (£50.04m), Steffen (£6.14m), Ake (£40.77m), Grealish (£105.75m), Fernandinho (£36.00m), Foden (Youth)
Total: £267.5m
United: Sancho (£76.50m), Van De Beek (£35.10m), Telles (£13.50m), Martial (£54.00m), Matic (£40.23m), Lindelöf (£31.50m), Bailly (£34.20m)
Total: £284.83M
Chelsea: Werner (£47.70m), Ziyech (£36.00m), Pulisic (£57.60m), Kepa (£72.00m), Alonso (£20.70m), Barkley (£15.12m) Mount (Youth)
Total: £249.12

But but City depth...