-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
It's not just based on attendances, there are 6 factors involved, including trophies and league finishes.So because Liverpool haven't yet upped their stadium size (which they will soon) they are smaller than Woolwich.
Though I agree attendances are given tooo large a weighting.
Though I remember arguing in a pub once with someone who claimed Toon were bigger than us, and he came to that ridiculous conclusion basically because of attendances and what he perceived to be the case that Toon had a bigger global fanbase.
For me, the top 5 are the right clubs but Woolwich should be 3rd and Liverpool 2nd.
was just about to post that. great minds. great, homophobic, minds.
Could anyone screenshot any of the article please? I refuse to click on any links that give any advertising revenue to the Daily (Hate) Mail...
No probs, it's pretty much the figures I was thinking of. For quite a while we were 2nd to Man U, but then Liverpool's greater capacity saw them overtake us. (again IIRC)
According to that 100% scientific chart, our "player quality" is better than Chelsea's or City's!
Newcastle were featured prominently in the film Goal: Living the dream. What have Forest done recently that compares with this public relations coup?
Of course most/all of the criteria are open to debate. But the player quality involves a historical element, and as such I think it's not unreasonable to judge that in our history we've had better players than Chelsea or City. Though IIRC, a lot/all of the weighting is derived from English players, which is obviously totally skewed if true.According to that 100% scientific chart, our "player quality" is better than Chelsea's or City's!
But forgetting that, whether you look at English players that have played for the three teams, or all players, it may well be the case ours has been the best. And tonight we added another proud Englishman to our very own Quality Street
You can always argue about these lists for sure. For example, to me we are not bigger than Chelsea historically now. That changed without doubt IMO when they became the first London club, indeed the first Southern club to win the CL/EC. Coupled with the the facts that they have won more trophies than us, including more of the 'big 2' trophies, means they are now bigger than us both in terms of the present and overall history.
City is a more difficult matter, but the fact that they have won three titles since we last won the title (including one in 68) means they now just edge it for me. I look at all of history, but give more weighting to the present and recent past than the remote football past in making my judgement calls on this issue. So, for me, City are now part of the 'historical big 5' as well as the current big 5, but I can easily see that people can validly argue against that. Chelsea I don't see how people can, but they probably will, such is the nature of these lists.
Also I don't agree we are part of a 'traditional big 5'. Professional football has been going for about 125 years in this country, for the majority of that time we haven't been part of the top 5 clubs. I would say maximum we've been part of a top 5/'big 5' for 40% of that time and more realistically only about 35%.
Post-war (since 1945) we were part of the top 5 for most of the time, but there was an awful lot of football history in this country prior to then.
I think this list is more accurate than one that most fans would come up with. Indeed if you put Villa joint 6th along with us and Everton it's remarkably accurate regarding the biggest 7 clubs in England, with the obvious anomaly that Pool should be 2nd and Woolwich 3rd. Though it is funny to see a bit of media bias against Liverpool for once
Last edited:
Chelsea who used to have 11K attendances back in the days are a big 5 club by your mark because of a 10 years spell but by your method we judge a club based on 125 years and that's why we're not? Dementia struck a bit early with you because your logic fails .You can always argue about these lists for sure. For example, to me we are not bigger than Chelsea historically now. That changed without doubt IMO when they became the first London club, indeed the first Southern club to win the CL/EC. Coupled with the the facts that they have won more trophies than us, including more of the 'big 2' trophies, means they are now bigger than us both in terms of the present and overall history.
City is a more difficult matter, but the fact that they have won three titles since we last won the title (including one in 68) means they now just edge it for me. I look at all of history, but give more weighting to the present and recent past than the remote football past in making my judgement calls on this issue. So, for me, City are now part of the 'historical big 5' as well as the current big 5, but I can easily see that people can validly argue against that. Chelsea I don't see how people can, but they probably will, such is the nature of these lists.
Also I don't agree we are part of a 'traditional big 5'. Professional football has been going for about 125 years in this country, for the majority of that time we haven't been part of the top 5 clubs. I would say maximum we've been part of a top 5/'big 5' for 40% of that time and more realistically only about 35%.
Post-war (since 1945) we were part of the top 5 for most of the time, but there was an awful lot of football history in this country prior to then.
I think this list is more accurate than one that most fans would come up with. Indeed if you put Villa joint 6th along with us and Everton it's remarkably accurate regarding the biggest 7 clubs in England, with the obvious anomaly that Pool should be 2nd and Woolwich 3rd. Though it is funny to see a bit of media bias against Liverpool for once
Basically: pre WWI history means shite, interwar period is decorative but not very significant, we judge clubs by their size after WWII when football became more professional.
Normally when people are rude to me, I just put them straight on ignore but as you are wrong about Chelsea and I am right, I can't resist replying before I do so
You say we judge clubs by their size after WWII, well since during that time period Chelsea have won 20 trophies to our 15, how wrong are you, very
(Shortly to be 21 when Chelsea win yet another Prem to our 15)http://www.krysstal.com/trophies.html
Furthermore of the 'big 2' trophies (Champions and CL/EC) Chelsea have won 5 (shortly to be 6) we have won 2, so how wrong are you now??? Very!
I won't comment on our respective faculties, just who understands more about post-WWII football. Clearly, from this exchange, it's me.
Oh, and as Jim Royle would say, 'Dementia, my arse!!'
Last edited:
Greaves357_bestever
You would fail any introduction to logic course and what you did is a straw man reply. In what way did I state that I measure the post-war magnitude by the number of trophies won? It's easier as a wealthy club to win trophy nowadays than it was for a big club (even a dominating one) to win as many back in the days.
I also pointed to the time span, you said you judge size by how the club fared for 125 years but than went on raving about Chelsea when most of their trophies came in a short term of 10 dirty money years. Can't you see the inner contradiction here? suppose club X won a quadruple 5 years running and than went into oblivion since 1905, by you weird spectra they're massive.
I'm just not gonna reply to you now, I went over your latest replies and you seem a chav\gooner
Normally when people are rude to me, I just put them straight on ignore but as you are wrong about Chelsea and I am right, I can't resist replying before I do so
You say we judge clubs by their size after WWII, well since during that time period Chelsea have won 20 trophies to our 15, how wrong are you, very
http://www.krysstal.com/trophies.html
Furthermore of the 'big 2' trophies (Champions and CL/EC) Chelsea have won 5 (shortly to be 6) we have won 2, so how wrong are you now??? Very!
I won't comment on our respective faculties, just who understands more about post-WWII football. Clearly, from this exchange, it's me.
Oh, and as Jim Royle would say, 'Dementia, my arse!!'
Your life must be a barrel of laughs.