La Liga 2019–2020 Teams Worth Backing as Favourites or Underdogs

For many regular bettors, La Liga 2019–2020 became a season of learning which teams were trustworthy when laying goals and which were better kept on the underdog side of the handicap. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Atlético Madrid and Sevilla did not offer the same risk–reward profile in every role, and mid‑table teams like Granada, Real Sociedad and Getafe often turned out to be safer plus‑goal options than their reputations suggested. Thinking in terms of “who to back as the stronger side” and “who to respect getting a head start” is more precise than just labelling clubs as good or bad.

What “good to back” and “good to take the handicap” really mean

Before assigning teams to either category, it helps to clarify what it means to be a side you want to “follow” or “receive” on the handicap. A team worth backing as the stronger side typically wins more often than odds imply and converts control into multi‑goal margins frequently enough to justify minus lines. A team worth backing with a plus handicap tends to stay competitive even when priced as an outsider, losing by small margins or turning apparent mismatches into draws and surprise wins. La Liga 2019–2020’s final table and performance stats show that these roles did not always align neatly with club size.

Teams that made sense to follow as the stronger side

The final standings make clear which clubs consistently turned superiority into results, creating the basic foundation for trusting them in “favourite” roles. Real Madrid finished first with 26 wins, 9 draws and 3 losses, scoring 70 and conceding just 25, which translated into a +45 goal difference and a reliable ability to keep matches under control. Barcelona ended on 25‑7‑6 with 86 scored and 38 conceded (+48), especially dominant at home, where they took 50 points from 19 matches and maintained a long unbeaten run. Sevilla, with 19‑13‑6 and a +20 goal difference (54:34), also delivered a high floor in performance even if they drew more than ideal for minus handicaps.

From a bettor’s view, the cause–effect link is that these clubs generally justified minus‑goal positions in the right contexts. Madrid’s defensive strength meant that laying small handicaps against clearly weaker sides often matched real‑world margins, particularly away where their underlying numbers remained strong. Barcelona at Camp Nou frequently combined high win probability with multi‑goal scorelines, supporting conviction on minus 1 or minus 1.5 lines against mid‑table visitors. Sevilla’s balance made them more suitable for modest minus handicaps or draw‑no‑bet positions rather than aggressive spreads, yet they still formed a core group of teams you could rationally “follow” when prices were fair.

Sides that made better sense with a plus handicap

Several clubs in the upper and middle parts of the table repeatedly proved awkward opponents, making them more attractive as underdogs than as sides to lay goals with. Granada, newly promoted, finished seventh with 16 wins, 8 draws and 14 losses, scoring 52 and conceding 45, a +7 goal difference and 56 points that belied pre‑season expectations of a relegation battle. Getafe closed eighth on 14‑12‑12, with 43 scored and 37 conceded (+6), reflecting a compact, defensively sound approach. Osasuna and Athletic Club both combined stubborn defending with enough attacking threat to draw or upset stronger opposition in one‑off games.

As underdogs, these teams repeatedly turned handicap lines into value opportunities. Taking Granada or Getafe with a +0.5 or +1 handicap in home matches against big names often meant your bet could still land if the game was drawn, aligning with their tendency to keep contests close. Athletic Club’s performances against top sides, particularly at San Mamés, also made them effective plus‑goal candidates when odds priced them as clear outsiders. Here the logic is that solid organisation and physicality shrink the favourite’s edge, so positive handicaps often underestimate their real chances of avoiding a multi‑goal defeat.

Representative favourites and underdogs from 2019–2020

Placing some standout examples side by side highlights how differently they served bettors in “strong side” and “handicap” roles.

Role in 2019–2020	Team	W–D–L	Goal Difference	Betting‑relevant trait
Often trustworthy as strong side	Real Madrid	26–9–3	+45 (70–25)	Controlled wins, low loss count, strong home and away.
Often trustworthy as strong side	Barcelona	25–7–6	+48 (86–38)	Very dominant at home, frequent multi‑goal wins.
Safer on modest minus or DNB than big spreads	Sevilla	19–13–6	+20 (54–34)	High draw count but rarely outplayed.​
Better used with plus handicap	Granada	16–8–14	+7 (52–45)	Newly promoted yet competitive in most matches.​
Better used with plus handicap	Getafe	14–12–12	+6 (43–37)	Compact, physical, keeps games tight, useful as dog.​

This view shows that the teams to “play on” and “take the start with” were not static labels; they depended on whether you were backing them to impose themselves or simply to avoid being overrun.

Where favourites were dangerous to follow blindly

2019–2020 also featured sides that looked like logical favourites in many fixtures but carried hidden risks when you laid goals with them. Atlético Madrid, with an 18‑16‑4 record and a +24 goal difference (51:27), appeared strong on paper, yet their 16 draws meant that a large share of games ended without them covering minus lines or even winning outright. Valencia, tipped by some pre‑season previews as a top‑four contender, finished ninth with 14‑11‑13 and a −7 goal difference (46:53), mixing good wins with heavy losses and inconsistent performances. Both examples show that table position and name recognition alone did not guarantee favourite‑side safety.

The cause–outcome sequence is clear. Atlético’s defensive solidity made them excellent at avoiding defeat but less reliable at turning control into multi‑goal margins, which meant minus handicaps often carried more risk than the odds suggested, while plus handicaps on opponents occasionally held quiet value. Valencia’s volatility meant that prices assuming “European‑level” stability often overshot their real level, punishing those who backed them to win by more than a goal against organised mid‑table teams. Treating these clubs as automatic “lay‑goal” candidates therefore undermined long‑term returns, even though they remained strong football sides.

How recreational users tended to perceive these roles

From the perspective of regular users, forum and tipster commentary around the 2019–2020 season often grouped teams into informal buckets: trusted favourites, dangerous favourites, live underdogs and hopeless outsiders. Real Madrid and Barcelona typically sat in the first bucket, but with caveats—Barcelona especially were often described as “home banker, away maybe lay the handicap” because of their split between Camp Nou dominance and away vulnerability. Granada, Getafe and Osasuna gradually moved from “relegation candidates” to “teams you can take with a start” as the season unfolded, driven by repeated experiences of them covering plus lines against bigger names. Meanwhile, clubs in the relegation zone, like Mallorca and Espanyol, became shorthand for sides you would rather oppose than take, even with generous handicaps.

These perceptions came from repeated betting outcomes, not just from tables. If a team like Granada covered handicaps in a series of televised games, more users began to see them as a safe underdog option, even before the raw numbers were widely discussed. Conversely, every time Atlético killed a coupon as a short favourite by drawing 1–1 in a game they should have won on the balance of play, their reputation as a “trap favourite” grew. This lived experience often aligned with what a statistical review would later confirm: the teams that felt better to back in certain roles usually had numbers to justify that feeling.

Using these patterns in practice through UFABET

The real benefit of classifying teams into “better to lay goals with” and “better to take goals with” comes when you move from reviewing 2019–2020 to placing fresh bets. Once you recognise how Madrid, Barcelona, Granada, Getafe and others behaved in these roles, you can approach a modern sports betting service and view @ufabet168 as an execution layer: you log in already knowing which current teams resemble 2019–2020 Madrid‑style favourites or Granada‑style handicapped underdogs, then filter odds through that lens instead of letting the interface push you toward every short price. By insisting that any favourite you back must have Madrid‑ or peak Barcelona‑style conversion of dominance into wins, and that any underdog you take must resemble Granada or Getafe in resilience rather than a relegation candidate, you anchor each slip to historical patterns that actually protected users’ bankrolls.

How favourite/underdog thinking carries into the wider casino online context

Working systematically with favourites and underdogs in La Liga also changes how you interpret risk when you encounter other forms of gambling on the same account. In football, you can justify backing certain teams in strong or handicap roles because you have evidence—win rates, goal differences, draw frequencies—that they behave differently from the average; “good to back” and “good to take with a start” are grounded in data and repeated experience. In a broader casino online environment, many games lack that kind of exploitable structure, relying instead on fixed house edges, which means there is no equivalent of a Granada‑style underdog whose true chances are quietly better than the price. Recognising that difference helps you keep value‑driven thinking where it belongs—long leagues with measurable performance—while treating other products as entertainment rather than as extensions of your favourite/underdog strategy.

Summary

La Liga 2019–2020 showed that the teams worth backing as favourites and those worth protecting with handicaps were defined less by brand and more by how they converted performances into results. Real Madrid and, in many home fixtures, Barcelona justified the “follow” label when prices were reasonable, while Granada, Getafe, Athletic Club and others repaid trust more often when given a head start rather than asked to dominate. Conversely, draw‑heavy Atlético and volatile Valencia highlighted the dangers of treating all high‑status clubs as reliable minus‑goal options. For bettors, turning these lessons into habits—deciding first whether a team is better as the strong side or the handicapped side before even looking at the odds—offers a more grounded approach than simply backing whoever looks biggest on the coupon.