Premier League 2019/20 Teams Worth Backing as Favourites or Underdogs

From a bettor’s point of view, the most useful question about the 2019/20 Premier League is not only who was strong or weak, but which sides you generally wanted to be “on” as the favourite and which you preferred to support with a handicap as the underdog. The way Liverpool, Manchester City, Leicester, Wolves, Sheffield United and others behaved against both expectations and prices gives a template for separating teams you play minus goals with from those you prefer to back with a head start.

Why splitting teams into “back as favourite” and “back as underdog” is logical

The same club can be a bad bet when laying goals and a good bet when receiving them, depending on style, consistency, and how markets see them. In 2019/20, Liverpool’s title win and huge points gap made them reliable as favourites, while more volatile clubs around them sometimes disappointed at short odds despite strong underlying metrics. At the same time, several mid‑table or newly promoted teams were more trustworthy when given a handicap than when asked to dominate games, which meant that understanding their natural role—front‑runner or spoiler—was more important than just knowing their final league position.

Teams that were generally “worth playing on” as favourites

Across that season, Liverpool stand out as the clearest example of a side you could justify backing as the team “giving” the handicap in many fixtures. Their 99‑point total and A+ season grade reflected not just talent but an unusually high performance floor: they rarely lost focus, protected leads well, and converted late pressure into wins. Manchester City, despite their attacking power and 102 league goals, were less safe at very short prices because nine defeats showed that defensive lapses and occasional off‑days could undermine them as heavy favourites, so many bettors leaned toward picking their spots—especially in games against open opponents—rather than automatically playing them every week.

Teams that made more sense to support with a handicap

Lower down the table, some teams proved excellent when you were on their side as underdogs or level‑ball options instead of demanding outright dominance. Sheffield United came into the league priced pre‑season as a relegation favourite, yet their organisation and defensive record produced a top‑half finish and repeated results against stronger names, making them attractive with +0.5 or +1 lines. Burnley, graded highly for their steady 9th‑place campaign, similarly rewarded bettors who trusted their ability to keep games tight and win or draw from underdog positions, particularly away or against big‑six clubs whose prices were inflated by reputation.

Mechanism: what separates a “good favourite” from a “good underdog”

The mechanism is mostly about control versus chaos. Good favourites in 2019/20 combined consistent chance creation with solid game management, meaning that when they were expected to win, they often did so without giving much away, justifying minus‑goal handicaps. Good underdogs, by contrast, were teams whose structure made them hard to beat: compact defences, clear counter‑attacking plans, and resilience under pressure meant that when markets gave them a head start—particularly against overrated favourites—the probability of at least “not losing by much” was higher than the line assumed.

How public perception pushed some teams into “play against” status when laying goals

Because bettors and pundits expected big seasons from certain clubs, some teams drifted into the category of “names you more often faded than followed” when they were strong favourites. Pre‑season discussion and pricing framed Tottenham, Manchester United, and Chelsea as clear leaders of the chasing pack, yet Tottenham notably missed their betting‑market mark by a large margin, finishing well below the points total implied by those expectations. That gap meant that in many fixtures where Spurs or similarly hyped sides were giving a goal or more, bettors who took the other side with a handicap—trusting in the underdog’s defensive shape or motivation—often found more value than those who assumed the favourite would simply “bounce back.”

Illustrative table: teams you typically “played on” vs “took the goal with”

A simple way to fix this in your mind is to sketch broad 2019/20 categories rather than obsess over every result.

This table matters because it shows that your default stance can differ by club type. In 2019/20, being “with” Liverpool on the minus side and “with” Sheffield United or Burnley on the plus side made more structural sense than, say, backing Tottenham as a heavy favourite or laying goals against compact mid‑table outfits. The point is not that any team was auto‑profit, but that their style and market treatment pushed them naturally toward one role or the other in bettors’ eyes.

Where bettors preferred to side with underdogs instead of big names

User‑level stories and season reviews from that year often highlight how quickly some punters shifted away from backing certain big clubs on the handicap and toward supporting organised underdogs. Commentary after the campaign, for instance, notes that Tottenham underperformed compared to what markets priced in, missing by double‑digit points against betting expectations, which stung those who kept trusting them in “should win” spots. At the same time, analysts were openly bullish about Southampton’s improvement under Hasenhüttl and saw Leicester’s handicap position as one of the more tempting pre‑season bets, showing that bettors were already leaning toward newer, more dynamic sides when given generous goal starts or season‑long cushions.

How interaction with UFABET shapes who you “play on” or “take”

When you move from theory into actually placing bets, the layout and prompts of a sports betting service can nudge you toward favourites or underdogs. Logging in to ufabet168 on a packed Premier League weekend, many users will first see enhanced prices, multiples, and highlighted fixtures centred on the biggest clubs, which silently encourages them to “play on” those favourites regardless of whether 2019/20‑style patterns really justify it. If you instead start with your own classification—teams whose profile makes them better minus‑goal candidates versus those you prefer taking with a head start—you can use the interface only to find the exact lines and prices, not to decide which badge deserves your money in the first place. That small reversal is what turns past experience into a filter rather than letting promotional framing dictate your stance.

How a casino online context can blur the favourite/underdog logic

When football betting sits inside a broader gambling environment, it becomes easy to forget why you initially trusted some underdogs more than certain favourites in 2019/20. In a casino online setting with constant offers, quick‑hit games, and big‑payout combinations, the emotional pull is toward high‑profile teams and long‑shot accumulators, not toward the quieter edge of backing a compact mid‑table side +0.75 away at a volatile giant. That blur leads many users to default to “play on the big team” rather than asking whether the handicap and price reflect what actually happened in seasons like 2019/20, where less glamorous clubs repeatedly rewarded those who took them with a goal. Keeping a written list of “teams I trust as favourites” and “teams I trust as underdogs” based on that evidence can counteract the environmental push and keep you closer to your own logic.

Summary

Seen through the eyes of people who actually bet, the 2019/20 Premier League sorted teams into two practical groups: those you were usually happier laying goals with, and those you preferred to back with a head start. Liverpool’s consistent high floor, and to a lesser extent Manchester City’s attacking power, made them more natural favourites, whereas structurally sound but underrated sides like Sheffield United, Burnley, Leicester, and an improving Southampton earned trust on the underdog side of handicaps. Meanwhile, some reputation‑heavy clubs too often failed to justify their prices when laying goals, teaching bettors to be more selective. If you carry that habit into future seasons—classifying teams by how they behave against expectation rather than by name—you give yourself a clearer framework for deciding when to “play on” the strong side and when to take the supposedly weaker team with the line.

Right now, when you see a strong favourite, do you instinctively want to back them minus the handicap, or are you more interested in checking whether the underdog’s profile makes the plus‑side more attractive?