Spain vs. Spain

With so many Spanish footballers now plying their trade in other countries as La Liga clubs are forced to sell off their crown jewels, it seems fair to ask which is the better side - an all La Liga selección  or one composed of Spanish expatriate players?

With no further ado, here are my team sheets. I choose to play a 4-4-3 in both cases.

Spanish players currently outside La Liga

---------Juan Mata-------------------Fernando Torres------------------David Silva-----

---------Santi Cazorla-------------Javi Garcia--------------Mikel Arteta-----------------

Nacho Monreal------Javi Martinez--------Carlos Cuellar-------Cesar Azpilicueta--------

-------------------------------------Pepe Reina------------------------------------------

Substitutes:  David De Gea, Alvaro Dominguez, Michu, Chico Flores


Spanish players currently in La Liga


---------Iniesta--------------------David Villa------------------------Fabregas-----------

--------------Isco-------------------Xavi-------------------Xabi Alonso-----------------

Jordi Alba----------Carles Puyol-----------Gerard Pique---------Sergio Ramos----------

-------------------------------------Iker Casillas------------------------------------------

Substitutes: Victor Valdes, Jesus Navas, Benat, Pedro, Alvaro Arbeloa


The "outside" squad obviously has less consistent quality, since it is forced to use the dinosaur-like Carlos Cuellar and what's left of Fernando Torres. Its depth is not fantastic either, as I could bring myself to name four substitutes (though they at least cover four different positions). Pablo Hernandez and Esteban Granero are next up should they recover form and sharpness. There is no lack of Spanish expatriate footballers, even if the rest seem to be misfits and squad players (Jordi Gomez, Angel Rangel, David Fuster, Marc Crosas, Bojan Krcic, to name a few).

But the "outside" squad is not bad! Many of its members can and do start for the (combined) national team. Some might even say the squad could be stronger with Mata and Silva flip-flopped (both like to cut in from the right on their left foot, but Mata is more lethal of late) and the in-form Michu in place of Torres. These are valid arguments.

For the "inside" squad, there is no real drop in quality compared to the regular combined side. Certainly Isco is not yet a regular national team starter but the squad could always be rebalanced to accomodate the more experienced Jesus Navas or Pedro instead.

This exercise illustrates the depth of Spanish football at the moment. Both teams would be competitive on the world stage and I have a feeling the "inside" squad could still win a major tournament even without the "outside" talent. I don't think this exercise would generate two teams of such caliber for any other country. Brazil and Argentina  probably come closest, but their "inside" teams are noticeably weaker than the "outside" ones.

Is Spanish Football a Liga de Mierda?

During the last summer break, Sevilla president Jose Maria del Nido made waves when he called Spain a “liga de mierda.” He was referring to the fact that Barcelona or Madrid inevitably win the title and that an increasing distance separates those two from the third-place team. 

Spain has always been top-heavy, with Real Madrid and Barcelona winning a combined 63% of the league titles, reflecting the natural edge of big-market teams in a league without comprehensive revenue sharing agreements or salary caps. The question is whether La Liga is more top-heavy now than ever.

I crunched some numbers and the results were even more conclusive than I thought they would be. From 2000-2009, no title-winning team had more than 87 points. In 2010 through 2012, however, both Barcelona and Real Madrid each amassed more than 90. The gap between second and third place has grown to 25 in the last three years, on average, from 5 in the ten years prior. No team other than Barcelona and Madrid has finished in first or second in the last three years, a feat that used to be relatively frequent (it happened 4 times from 2000-2009). 

So it’s clear that Real Madrid and Barcelona have mutated into superheroes, but at the expense of the top teams or the worst ones? Is it the case that the big two are simply beating up more on the worst teams or are they getting less of a fight from the top of the table?

Here was the big surprise. The average points total of every league position from 4^th-17^th has decreased from 2000-2009 to 2010-2012. Each place has gotten a little worse. The sixth place finisher used to expect about 60 points; now they get 57. Twelfth place used to get 47 and now gets 45.

The clubs at the top have suffered more than the clubs at the bottom. As you go down the table, the general trend is for the drop in points total to narrow. In fact, the relegation places are performing slightly better than before! This is probably a reflection of their fielding the same quality sides they’ve always fielded against weakening opposition.

The head-to-head results yield a similar insight. The eventual champion has always had a great head-to-head result against the teams who finish in the relegation places (though those wins may now be by a wider margin) but was more evenly matched against the European places. In 2004-2005, when Barcelona and Madrid finished first and second, they were a combined 6-6-4 (win-draw-lose) against the teams that finished in third, fourth, fifth, and sixth places. Those games accounted for about a third of the points each team dropped all season. In 2011-2012, by comparison, Madrid and Barcelona were a combined 12-3-1 against the European teams. A greater share of the points they dropped were 'fluke' slips-ups against lower-table teams!

To those who believe Atletico Madrid or Malaga are capable of a long term title challenge, I say, “Please.” Malaga do have some of the needed quality including startling youth products like Isco, Ignacio Camacho, and Francisco Portillo but recent sales of Diego Buonanotte and Nacho Monreal show that the club is being run pragmatically. They are built to reach the Champions League and generate a consistent financial return, a la Arsenal. (ESPN Soccernet writers have made this argument as well.) And Atlético is a good club on a great run. They play with cohesiveness and fearlessness, but who knows if this will continue, especially when Falcao is inevitably sold on. Valencia, in my opinion, are the one team who would have been capable of a title challenge had they not got carried away with building a new stadium and been forced to sell so many great players.

Is it good to have a Liga de Mierda? I guess this is a question La Liga adminstrators will ask themselves as they consider falling TV audiences and gate receipts, but also consistent Champions League success for Madrid and Barcelona as well as a bigger following for the big two abroad.