Adrien Rabiot

[DonAndres]

Again, [MENTION=19661]Jair Ventura[/MENTION], what does that matter when none of those players play there?

The upwards mobility in Ligue 1 is disgustingly poor compared to La Liga, the bottom teams pretty much exclusively stay there whereas in La Liga lower table teams routinely move up and historically successful/rich/midtable or higher teams can often have very poor seasons in the lower parts of the table. That shows that the bottom teams have the means to compete with those above their level in La Liga, whereas in Ligue 1 they are forever entrenched in their mediocrity. Seriously, Lille and Nice are like the ONLY examples in this decade of a successful Ligue 1 team getting pushed out of the top 10/ a bottom 10 team pushing its way to the top. And even that happened over a period over years whereas in La Liga a clubs fortunes can change much more drastically and this kind of thing happens every single season.

You'd think if those bottom Ligue 1 teams were talent factories and keeping them all, they'd be able to break into the top 10 at some point right? But it doesn't happen. So you can't keep banging on the "but Kante is from Ligue 2" as your ENTIRE argument why Ligue 1 is comparable to the other leagues.

 

[Jair Ventura]

Again, [MENTION=19661]Jair Ventura[/MENTION], what does that matter when none of those players play there?

N'Dombele plays for Lyon. Kanté left at 24 after 100+ matches between France's first and second division, and Thomas Lemar won a league title as well as had European success with Monaco. So I'd say it matters a lot. Never mind the fact that more talents will be reveled this season, as they have every season throughout the decade.

That's the beauty of awesome academies and a deep talent pool. There's always more players.

The upwards mobility in Ligue 1 is disgustingly poor compared to La Liga, the bottom teams pretty much exclusively stay there whereas in La Liga lower table teams routinely move up and historically successful/rich/midtable or higher teams can often have very poor seasons in the lower parts of the table. That shows that the bottom teams have the means to compete with those above their level in La Liga, whereas in Ligue 1 they are forever entrenched in their mediocrity. Seriously, Lille and Nice are like the ONLY examples in this decade of a successful Ligue 1 team getting pushed out of the top 10/ a bottom 10 team pushing its way to the top. And even that happened over a period over years whereas in La Liga a clubs fortunes can change much more drastically and this kind of thing happens every single season.

You mean like Monaco moving from France's 2nd division to being the leagues second strongest club in only a few seasons? Does Spain have any examples that are comparable?

You'd think if those bottom Ligue 1 teams were talent factories and keeping them all, they'd be able to break into the top 10 at some point right? But it doesn't happen. So you can't keep banging on the "but Kante is from Ligue 2" as your ENTIRE argument why Ligue 1 is comparable to the other leagues.

Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.

 

[DonAndres]

N'Dombele plays for Lyon. Kanté left at 24 after 100+ matches between France's first and second division, and Thomas Lemar won a league title as well as had European success with Monaco. So, I'd say it matters a lot. Never mind the fact that more talents will be reveled this season, as they have every season throughout the decade.

That's the beauty of awesome academies and a deep talent pool. There's always more players.



You mean like Monaco moving from France's 2nd division to being the leagues second best team in only a few seasons? Does Spain have any examples that are comparable?



Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.

Lol, Kante played a whopping 1 season in Ligue 1 and finished 13th with Caen after which they've as usual been entrenched in the bottom 10 and the bottom 5. Really resounding argument about the ability of bottom Ligue 1 teams to compete with the top ones, eh? N'Dombele and Lemar also left tiny Ligue 1 clubs to strengthen the top ones, further increasing the divide between the top and bottom. Also proving my point about how the bottom clubs are nothing but feeders and have pretty much NO hope whatsoever of rising up the table.

And using Monaco as an argument is hilarious, they literally got a billionaire investor and had some transfer windows as one of Europe's top spenders before they ever got near the league title or European success. Is PSG getting invested in by Qatar also evidence of Ligue 1's bottom clubs having the mobility to make it to the top?

Is Manchester City an EPL success story about how a small time club from the 3rd division can work its way up to EPL champions less than a decade later? We should be comparing them to Leicester, right?

Spontaneous cash injection is the stupidest argument I've ever heard for how the bottom teams in a league can keep up with the top ones. Using an argument that desperate actually shows that you have none.

Ligue 1's bottom 10 is clearly way poorer than La Liga's, it isn't even close.

 

[Jair Ventura]

Lol, Kante played a whopping 1 season in Ligue 1 and finished 13th with Caen after which they've as usual been entrenched in the bottom 10 and the bottom 5.

You're only strengthening my point. A recently promoted team from France sold an already developed player to the EPL and that player became the best in England. Lower tier Spanish clubs aren't developing players of that level.

Really resounding argument about the ability of bottom Ligue 1 teams to compete with the top ones, eh? N'Dombele and Lemar also left tiny Ligue 1 clubs to strengthen the top ones, further increasing the divide between the top and bottom. Also proving my point about how the bottom clubs are nothing but feeders and have pretty much NO hope whatsoever of rising up the table.

- Dijon and Nîmes are atop the league table as we speak, tied with PSG. Proving yet again that you have no clue what you're talking about.

- Smaller Spanish clubs also lose their best talents to larger Spanish clubs. Their talents just aren't as good and come less frequently.

And using Monaco as an argument is hilarious, they literally got a billionaire investor and had some transfer windows as one of Europe's top spenders before they ever got near the league title or European success. Is PSG getting invested in by Qatar also evidence of Ligue 1's bottom clubs having the mobility to make it to the top?

Doesn't Malaga have a billionaire owner? Are they successful as Monaco? Why not?

Is Manchester City an EPL success story about how a small time club from the 3rd division can work its way up to EPL champions less than a decade later? We should be comparing them to Leicester, right?

Yes, Man City is an EPL success story. If they weren't at the level they are that league would viewed very differently, Liverpool being its only saving grace.

Ligue 1's bottom 10 is clearly way poorer than La Liga's

You wouldn't know one way or the other because you don't watch Ligue 1.

 

[xXKonan]

According to rac1 Rabiot won't come this summer as it seems pointless at this time.

 

[George_Costanza]

According to rac1 Rabiot won't come this summer as it seems pointless at this time.

the best news I heard in this week.

 

[DonAndres]

You're only strengthening my point. A recently promoted team from France sold an already developed player to the EPL and that player became the best in England. That isn't happening in Spain.



- Dijon and Nîmes are atop the league table as we speak, tied with PSG. Proving yet again that you have no clue what you're talking about.

- Smaller Spanish clubs also lose their best talents to larger Spanish clubs. Their talents just aren't as good, and aren't developed as often.




Doesn't Malaga have a billionaire owner? Are they successful as Monaco? Why not?



Yes, Man City is an EPL success story. If they weren't at the level they are that league would viewed very differently, Liverpool being its only saving grace.



You wouldn't know one way or the other because you don't watch Ligue 1.

You've brought up Kante like 100 times with no relevance at all. Tell me plainly. What does Kante coming from Ligue 1 have to do with the strength of bottom Ligue 1 teams? Not "but they produce talent that goes elsewhere", their ACTUAL success in the league. Does the fact that Kante went on to kill it in the EPL make Caen some superteam? Does it raise their perpetually pathetic position in the table? Tell me, what does Kante have to do with that team's success and the success of small teams in Ligue 1?

Dijon and Nimes tied with PSG prove that Ligue 1 is competitive? After 2 games? Hilarious, desperate. Sevilla is in first place and Levante is ahead of Real Madrid right now, guess that means they broke the oligopoly that Barca/RM/Atletico have!!! See how wildly stupid that sounds? Honestly you should try to pretend you never said that, it's pretty outrageous.

Malaga did have a billionaire owner and at their height went to the CL quarter finals, guess that makes them as good as PSG eh? Lmfao. Their owner pretty much cut ties with the team like a season or two after that. Hell, his unwillingness to commit to their project actually ended up screwing them over in a couple of different ways.

City is a success story for how oil money making a club one of the richest in Europe can propel them to success. Well done. Leicester/Tottenham/Everton are the ACTUAL EPL success stories of small teams being able to compete above their means and grow organically. You seem to think that is the same as having some oil rich Arab company throw money at a team until they win.

 

[Bulgroz]

[MENTION=12906]DonAndres[/MENTION] post is very good. He's saying the bottom half of Ligue 1 ends with similar amount of points to La Liga.

With these coefficient's below we can see La Liga's clubs who play in Europe are ranked comfortably higher than Ligue 1's clubs in Europe.

So La Liga's bottom sides are gathering the same amount of points in a season as Ligue 1 does but their top 10 (9 for Ligue 1) teams have better rankings than Ligue 1s.

To go into more detail you would have to see how many of those points were gained against the top teams... but this does paint some of the picture.

(Images showing up small, not sure why)

You do realize it's a very inaccurate way of telling a team's strenght, right ?

My whole point wasn't even to say that Dijon is superior to Las Palmas. My whole point was:

1) The best way to know the actual level of a league is to watch is. If you never watch it, you have absolutely no business saying if it's a farmer's league.

2) Even by watching it, it's quite hard to compare bottom-tier teams. I'm fairly sure spanish teams are slightly better than french ones (talking about lesser teams here, because obviously big spanish team are superior, no question here). I'm not even completely sure of that though, and I watch a lot of ligue 1 and La Liga. I wouldn't make such an assumption on EPL, because I don't watch it as much. But even for someone who watches a lot of those leagues, it's still hard to say. Which brings me to my final and most important point:

3) If spanish lower teams are better than french lower teams, it's by a margin. It's not like a Levante would destroy Angers 4-0, in my opinion. So yes, you can totally compare a player stats in Ligue 1 and in La Liga, for me. Because playing in a league is mostly about playing against average/bad teams of that league. And since the general level of those average/bad teams is pretty similar in la liga and in ligue 1, stats can be compared. I mean, if that's your thing. I'm not a huge fan myself, but I guess that's a good way of trying to see what a player is all about if you don't want/have time to actually watch his games.

 

[DonAndres]

You do realize it's a very inaccurate way of telling a team's strenght, right ?

My whole point wasn't even to say that Dijon is superior to Las Palmas. My whole point was:

1) The best way to know the actual level of a league is to watch is. If you never watch it, you have absolutely no business saying if it's a farmer's league.

2) Even by watching it, it's quite hard to compare bottom-tier teams. I'm fairly sure spanish teams are slightly better than french ones (talking about lesser teams here, because obviously big spanish team are superior, no question here). I'm not even completely sure of that though, and I watch a lot of ligue 1 and La Liga. I wouldn't make such an assumption on EPL, because I don't watch it as much. But even for someone who watches a lot of those leagues, it's still hard to say. Which brings me to my final and most important point:

3) If spanish lower teams are better than french lower teams, it's by a margin. It's not like a Levante would destroy Angers 4-0, in my opinion. So yes, you can totally compare a player stats in Ligue 1 and in La Liga, for me. Because playing in a league is mostly about playing against average/bad teams of that league. And since the general level of those average/bad teams is pretty similar in la liga and in ligue 1, stats can be compared. I mean, if that's your thing. I'm not a huge fan myself, but I guess that's a good way of trying to see what a player is all about if you don't want/have time to actually watch his games.

Your way is actually far more inaccurate, it is completely unstandardized.

I've been watching all of Ajax's games this season. The quality of football they play relative to their competition puts even Barca and City to shame. The information I gain purely from watching them is that they play better football than pretty much anyone. Does that mean they'd beat Barca head to head? Fuck no, they'd probably get wrecked.

You MUST have a reference to compare to, otherwise all the evidence from "watching a league" is worthless.

Numbers and statistics are impartial and all-inclusive, unlike the handful of games you happen to watch of Ligue 1 which is filled with subjectivity and bias and has no reference of comparison.

The UEFA coefficient should always be the initial go-to. It's the only hard reference out there. You can use that to extrapolate other things, like how the point distribution in La Liga/EPL/Ligue 1 compare to each other. Also looking at how lower table teams tend to perform season by season. If they're ALWAYS stuck at the bottom and the richer clubs are ALWAYS at the top (I'm talking outside of the top 4 btw) then what other conclusion is there than those bottom teams are only in Ligue 1 because there must be 20 teams minimum. Not because they have consistently solid chances of outdoing the clubs in the top 10 and are actually worthy of competing with them.

La Liga on the other hand you have this sort of thing consistently. Teams like Eibar with literally no resources pushing their way to the top 10. Rubbish teams like Girona, Levante, Getafe, etc. ending up higher than Valencia or Real Sociedad or Athletic Bilbao. It happens every year. The bottom clubs are actually capable of competing above their means.

 

[Vilarrubi]

You do realize it's a very inaccurate way of telling a team's strenght, right ?

My whole point wasn't even to say that Dijon is superior to Las Palmas. My whole point was:

1) The best way to know the actual level of a league is to watch is. If you never watch it, you have absolutely no business saying if it's a farmer's league.

2) Even by watching it, it's quite hard to compare bottom-tier teams. I'm fairly sure spanish teams are slightly better than french ones (talking about lesser teams here, because obviously big spanish team are superior, no question here). I'm not even completely sure of that though, and I watch a lot of ligue 1 and La Liga. I wouldn't make such an assumption on EPL, because I don't watch it as much. But even for someone who watches a lot of those leagues, it's still hard to say. Which brings me to my final and most important point:

3) If spanish lower teams are better than french lower teams, it's by a margin. It's not like a Levante would destroy Angers 4-0, in my opinion. So yes, you can totally compare a player stats in Ligue 1 and in La Liga, for me. Because playing in a league is mostly about playing against average/bad teams of that league. And since the general level of those average/bad teams is pretty similar in la liga and in ligue 1, stats can be compared. I mean, if that's your thing. I'm not a huge fan myself, but I guess that's a good way of trying to see what a player is all about if you don't want/have time to actually watch his games.

Couldn't say it any better than [MENTION=12906]DonAndres[/MENTION] just has.

If the bottom half of Ligue 1 accumulates the same amount of points as the bottom half of La Liga in a league where the top half's (9 European teams) coefficient's are substantially lower, that indicates the quality of the lower half is less than La Liga's. Because La Liga's bottom half is winning the same amount of points with 10 European teams with a higher coefficient.

I'm not for one minute saying Levante would destroy Angers 4-0, but if you swapped the bottom half of Ligue 1 with La Liga.. you can almost guarantee the Ligue 1's in La Liga would end up with less points.

 

[Jair Ventura]

I think it's weird that people who don't watch a league think their opinions about it matter. That's some next level arrogance.

 

[ronniecro]

- Dijon and Nîmes are atop the league table as we speak, tied with PSG. Proving yet again that you have no clue what you're talking about.

stopped reading after this

 

[Bulgroz]

Your way is actually far more inaccurate, it is completely unstandardized.

I've been watching all of Ajax's games this season. The quality of football they play relative to their competition puts even Barca and City to shame. The information I gain purely from watching them is that they play better football than pretty much anyone. Does that mean they'd beat Barca head to head? Fuck no, they'd probably get wrecked.

You MUST have a reference to compare to, otherwise all the evidence from "watching a league" is worthless.

Numbers and statistics are impartial and all-inclusive, unlike the handful of games you happen to watch of Ligue 1 which is filled with subjectivity and bias and has no reference of comparison.

The UEFA coefficient should always be the initial go-to. It's the only hard reference out there. You can use that to extrapolate other things, like how the point distribution in La Liga/EPL/Ligue 1 compare to each other. Also looking at how lower table teams tend to perform season by season. If they're ALWAYS stuck at the bottom and the richer clubs are ALWAYS at the top (I'm talking outside of the top 4 btw) then what other conclusion is there than those bottom teams are only in Ligue 1 because there must be 20 teams minimum. Not because they have consistently solid chances of outdoing the clubs in the top 10 and are actually worthy of competing with them.

La Liga on the other hand you have this sort of thing consistently. Teams like Eibar with literally no resources pushing their way to the top 10. Rubbish teams like Girona, Levante, Getafe, etc. ending up higher than Valencia or Real Sociedad or Athletic Bilbao. It happens every year. The bottom clubs are actually capable of competing above their means.

You're telling me you have no way of knowing if a team is good or not, besides judging from its direct opposition ? Like, you're watchung sunday league football, one team's doing good, and you're instantly thinking "thos guys should be pros !". Alright, stick to your numbers then, it's probably for the best.

Seriously though, I'm all for using stats if you really want to, but as a real deal then. Not some half assed calculus based on a couple seasons, and on numbers that cannot be compared, not taking into account a lot of different factors. This mostly sounds like a 5th grader trying to prove relativity by using a rule of three.

This whole thread is mostly tedious. I seriously can't understand how people who never watch a league can pretend they know anything about it. It's as simple as that.

 

[DonAndres]

I think it's weird that people who don't watch a league think their opinions about it matter. That's some next level arrogance.

You know what is arrogance? Thinking that just because you "watch a league" more than someone else you are the only authority capable of making arguments about it and completely above a metric like the UEFA coefficient designed by people who's careers revolve around football which basically accounts for ALL European results and not just the ones you watched here or there and maybe happen to remember. Seriously, it's not even like a Whoscored/Squawka rating which at least has a subjective valuation system that can be completely criticized. It's literally just an accumulation of results.

Even assuming you watch every single Barca game (which you very likely don't considering a lot of your statements) I watch a LOT more of La liga than you do. That doesn't mean I think of myself as above you in any argument you make about la liga or spout the horseshit of "why don't you just shut up? I watch more La Liga than you do" basically every single post as a central argument.

Nor do I reject a standardized comparison out of fear, I submit La Liga to the exact same standards as I use for Ligue 1 when I compare them. Whereas you want to hide away from these objective comparisons and pretend like they are meaningless in the face of your grand personal knowledge of Ligue 1.

You're telling me you have no way of knowing if a team is good or not, besides judging from its direct opposition ? Like, you're watchung sunday league football, one team's doing good, and you're instantly thinking "thos guys should be pros !". Alright, stick to your numbers then, it's probably for the best.

Seriously though, I'm all for using stats if you really want to, but as a real deal then. Not some half assed calculus based on a couple seasons, and on numbers that cannot be compared, not taking into account a lot of different factors. This mostly sounds like a 5th grader trying to prove relativity by using a rule of three.

This whole thread is mostly tedious. I seriously can't understand how people who never watch a league can pretend they know anything about it. It's as simple as that.

Same as the above, your entire argument revolves around "I watch it more than you do so shut up". You actually think I've never watched Ligue 1?

It's no half assed calculus and it's not just a couple of seasons, but you can try to belittle it to that if you wish. The UEFA coefficient, the point distrubion argument, and the mobility of the bottom clubs is something I looked into all the way back to around 2012/13 which is pretty much all that's relevant for current discussion. It is also FAR more of an attempt at an objective argument than either you or Jair Ventura have attempted to make.

You've unilaterally asserted that the bottom 10 in Ligue 1 is more or less equal to that of La Liga because you think so and I should take your word on it. Why? That's complete rubbish. I've outlined several reasons to the contrary, whereas you have yet to come up with one outside of "but do you watch as much Ligue 1 as I do??".

You make a big talk about "5th grader trying to prove relativity" and roundabout bullshit of "failing to account for several factors". What factors? I'd love to see you actually dive into a line of thinking rather than just skirt about and avoid the debate altogether fearfully. I don't have respect when someone talks a lot of shit and insults and then provides nothing of their own volition to back up claims.

 

[BBZ8800]

The midtable teams in la liga is inarguably FAR ahead of Ligue 1 for the reasons DonAK has listed and a few more (like how lower table teams seem to routinely knock RM out of CDR, even if RM aren't trying as hard that still shows strength in those lower teams). And I'm completely discounting PSG/Barca/Madrid/Atletico/Monaco here, just talking about teams like Sevilla/Valencia/Athletic/Villarreal who have had success in Europe far beyond the 'equivalent' French teams.

On the other hand, sure, you can't really separate the bottom 10 in any of the top leagues from each other. One relatively crude method I can think of is comparing bottom 10 to top 10 across leagues. It is an inarguable given that La Liga and EPL are superior to Ligue 1. So let's start with that assumption and look at the point distribution of the league tables from 17/18.

The accumulated points by the bottom 10 in La Liga ranged from 20-50, which is more or less the same as Ligue 1's 26-51 range. EPL's is a much tighter distribution than both, ranging from 31-44. What this shows is that the difference in quality between the top 10 and bottom 10 in La Liga and Ligue 1 is relatively equal, while EPL's bottom 10 is closer to the top 10 than both leagues.

Given the (pretty much factual) assumption that La Liga is better than Ligue 1 and the difference between the top 10 and bottom 10 is roughly the same, that shows that La Liga's bottom 10 is correspondingly better than Ligue 1's bottom 10 based on how many points they were able to accumulate against the top 10's of the respective leagues. Whereas EPL's bottom 10 is better than both relative to their top 10, and EPL is clearly better than Ligue 1. So that also shows EPL's bottom 10 is also superior to Ligue 1. La Liga is slightly better than EPL but since EPL's bottom 10 is significantly closer to the top, there is a good argument to be made that EPL's bottom 10 is better than La Liga's.

That's a very rough, quick way of doing it. You could make way more detailed calculations, but it's one way of gauging the bad teams in each league.

Even Jair Ventura's criteria can be applied to show this. The bottom teams in France's Ligue 1 are extremely tiny clubs with no resources at all and tiny stadiums/shitty academies. Who finishes at the bottom in La Liga? Teams like Malaga, Rayo Vallecano, Granada, etc. who at various points in the past decade have been midtable sides. Athletic was a bottom tier side last year despite having multiple seasons in the top 5-4 in seasons past. Valencia, Sociedad, etc. have all had seasons in the lower end of the table sometimes excessively so.

Whereas in Ligue 1 the top 10 always tends to have the teams with at least acceptable resources (Lyon, Nice, Marseille, Bordeux, Rennes, etc.). The bottom 10 is always the minnow clubs like Caen, Metz, Amiens, Guingamp, etc. There is very little change in the makeup of the league table every year for the past 5+ years, unlike La Liga. Because the lower table clubs are extremely tiny with very little room to overtake those clubs with more resources. They are inherently extremely weak every single year without fail unlike La Liga's bottom 10 which routinely includes clubs that have rich history and consistently above average resources. Small clubs by nature vs small clubs by circumstance/performance.

I have read your post 3 times and I am still confused.

What number of points should bottom teams in France are supposed to win then, to prove that they are good, way higher than in La liga?
But then, points are in majority of cases spread in same patterns in all leagues with 20 teams.
For 100 seasons in a row, regardless if you have a one horse race, 2 horse race or 5 horse race.
Regardless if a league was very strong or weak in that season.

Ok, there are slight differences in points under some circumstances, but in general, numbers are quite similar in all countries.
Do you remember that saying from England: if you have more than 42 points, you are safe, something like that?
So, it is irrelevant how strong the league are. With 42 points, you will be safe in 90 or 95% of seasons.

Note: I think that La Liga is still better.
How much?
Hard to tell.
Are our teams placed 11-20 better than French teams? I have no idea.

On the other hand, you could add a different test, the same as in EPL: if there is a weaker difference between teams, that means that a league is more even, right?
Like in stats, it is often better to remove extremes which are ruining the test.
So, let's delete top5 teams and bottom 3 teams who are horrible.

Now, check teams from the 6th to 17th place in France and Spain over the last 5 years:
France:
2018:
6th: 55
17th: 38
= difference +17

2017:
6th: 59
17th: 37
= +22

2016:
6th: 58
17th: 40
= +18

2015:
6th: 63
17th: 42
= +21

2014:
6th: 60
17th: 42
= +18

Spain:
2018:
6th: 60
17th: 43
= difference +17 points

2017:
6th: 64
17th: 35
= difference= +29

2016:
6th: 60
17th: 39
= +21

2015:
6th: 60
17th: 35
= +25

2014:
6th: 59
17th: 40
= +19

France, total: 17, 22, 18, 21, 18=96/5=19,2
Spain, total: 17, 29, 21, 25, 19=111/5=22,1

As always with stats, you can draw several positive and negative conclusions.

If you want to claim that Spain is way stronger, these stats could say:
1. the difference between 6th and 17th team in Spain is larger because top 6 teams in Spain are too good, and bottom table teams can't get any points.
While in France, there is only one big team, so bottom table teams have only 1 team against whom they will surely lose, so bottom table teams are winning more points.
The same argument could also be in favor of France:
= this proves how teams in France are way more equal in strength and there are no easy games where you can win 8:0.
All teams are good and there are no easy games.
A guy from France could claim: bottom table teams in Spain are not winning too many points NOT only because Barca and Real are too good, but because those bottom table teams are of a real poor quality.

You could add goals conceded in maths and say:
Bottom table Spanish teams are conceding more, but it can also work both ways:
Spanish guy could say: bottom table are conceding a lot, because Barca, Real and top teams are TOO GOOD and bottom table teams need to concede a lot of goals.
French guy could say: bottom table teams in Spain are conceding more goals because they suck and are of a weaker quality than French teams.

Again, I DO think that La Liga is better, but I don't think that French league is THAT bad so that we should call it a farmer's league.
Or that an assist in France doesn't mean anything.

Also, no offense, I still don't get your idea and what were French bottom teams supposed to do to prove in your example that they are better than Spanish teams, plus, if that is mathematically possible since patterns of points distribution is quite similar in any league with 20 teams :/

And as always, not to mention that stats can often be used in 2 ways.
Same numbers could back up lots of opposite theories.

La Liga on the other hand you have this sort of thing consistently. Teams like Eibar with literally no resources pushing their way to the top 10. Rubbish teams like Girona, Levante, Getafe, etc. ending up higher than Valencia or Real Sociedad or Athletic Bilbao. It happens every year. The bottom clubs are actually capable of competing above their means.

This will sound that I am arguing just for the sake of arguing, but imo, AGAIN, such numbers can back up 10s of opposite theories.

You say that Eibar with no resources playing well=proves how strong La liga is.
I could reply: No. That actually shows how crappy midtable La liga teams are if a club with no resources can outplay them easily.
And how that can never happen in France.

One more time, I DO think that La liga is better.
But these theories based on number of points and anecdotal stories about a single club...

I have checked Uefa's coefficients from the past now:
https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/index.html

My point is that these rankings are HEAVILY influenced by results of 2-3 top clubs, especially in recent 1-2-3 years.
Now, 2005:
https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2005.html

1. Spain
2. England
3. Italy
4. France
5. Germany

So, in this moment, Getafe was better than English bottom table teams.
And France was better than Germany, for example.

Then in 2008, England jumped on a place no1:
https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2008.html

So, Getafe is now in theory weaker than English bottom teams.
But, France still better than Germany.
And Italy on a number 3 even though they had Calciopolli and dropped a lot in their quality.
But, these coefficients are slow...

2010: Germany jumping to No4 infront of France.
2011: Germany jumping to no3 suddenly infront of Italy who finally lost points.
But has German league actually improved? Not that much, it all depended on Bayern's results.
2012: England still on top, even though we have Messi and CR7. France dropped from no4 to no6 in 4 years. Portugal is now 5th.
2013: Spain finally jumping to a place no1. France still 6th.
2016: Spain is the 1st, but Germany jumped to a place no2 and England dropped to a no3.
Now, a question: does anyone sane thinks that German league in total is better than EPL?
Or that top, midtable or bottomtable teams in Germany are better than EPL teams? No, of course.
Germany is all about Bayern. And some CL results from BVB, while EPL teams struggled in a CL and that's it.
But a quality of Bundesliga teams didn't raise suddenly.
Also, in 2008: Germany was 5th, behind Italy and France and in 2016 they were the 2nd.
Has anything changed in a quality of German teams outside of Bayern? No. The only difference: Bayern sucked in late 00's and thus Germany had poor coefficients. Now, when Bayern started to reach semis of a CL and won a title in 2013', Germany jumped to a 2nd place.
2017:
https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method4/crank2017.html

My point: you need 10s of different factors to estimate strength of a certain league.
Uefa's rankings are based on a few top teams in a CL mostly.
Number of points in league, from my example, can be explained in 10s of different theories.

I still think that we know very little about a strength of a bottom 10 teams in Epl, La Liga, Bundesliga, Seria A and Ligue 1.
We can estimate a strength of top teams to some extent.
But what is happening in a bottom of a table, more or less, nobody knows.