The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

[foxes_rule1978]

1 hour ago, Danizen said:

 

Just seen this on Facebook. Was expecting to see a lot of complaints about us being up there with Leeds, Newcastle, Wednesday etc.. but there was none. In fact, a neutral even suggested we get moved up to massive. 

 

Now a SportBible Facebook post doesn't define how big we are but it's an interesting gauge on how big we're perceived to be by other fans.

Historically I can’t argue with this... but if you take the last 25 years... it would be very different and we may even now start to be moving into the massive category 

[OntarioFox]

20 minutes ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

Historically I can’t argue with this... but if you take the last 25 years... it would be very different and we may even now start to be moving into the massive category 

Hmmm, i'm not sure. I'd still say it's tricky to put us up there without sustained success. Let's see where we are in a few years - as much as these are golden days for us, it only takes a Tater Peeler and we could be back to yo-yo club territory or worse. I'd personally have baulked at Blackburn being in the "big" category with us in 2020, but they have as many EPL titles as us after all. On that basis of historic success and global reach, i'd say we're in a fair tier.

 

Maybe when the stadium expansion and training ground are done, if we match it with some more silverware and don't implode we could make a case, but I think 2015-16 skews our ranking somewhat.

[Stadt]

2 hours ago, Danizen said:

 

Just seen this on Facebook. Was expecting to see a lot of complaints about us being up there with Leeds, Newcastle, Wednesday etc.. but there was none. In fact, a neutral even suggested we get moved up to massive. 

 

Now a SportBible Facebook post doesn't define how big we are but it's an interesting gauge on how big we're perceived to be by other fans.

Most of these are deliberately controversial to drive social media engagement so it’s rare you’ll see a genuine one. There’s no logic to most of them, how Crewe, Accrington, Rotherham, Mansfield etc bigger than Birmingham City and Norwich ?

 

The boring reality is that there’s massive clubs, fairly big, medium sized clubs and small clubs. The majority of clubs in the top two tiers are medium sized clubs. Everybody’s definition is different and usually moulded on how it suits their own club. 
 

Forest fans are going to say it’s down to trophies, Newcastle attendances, we’re going to say it’s what you’ve done over the last 25 years, Arsenal are going to say fanbase. 
 

Club size is becoming an irrelevance now though because what good is a being a ‘bigger’ club if you’re much worse - Sunderland are by almost every measure bigger than Bournemouth but what does that actually prove?

 

(I didn’t mean this directly at you btw Danizen)

[Stadt]

One thing that sounds better than it actually is that we’ve won a major trophy in each of the last three decades (obviously not the 2020s). Without checking only Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and United have done that as well? 

[Yes]

7 hours ago, Danizen said:

 

Just seen this on Facebook. Was expecting to see a lot of complaints about us being up there with Leeds, Newcastle, Wednesday etc.. but there was none. In fact, a neutral even suggested we get moved up to massive. 

 

Now a SportBible Facebook post doesn't define how big we are but it's an interesting gauge on how big we're perceived to be by other fans.

I think the perception of us has definitely shifted, we don’t have the historical trophies of some clubs but we’re making up it by doing something in an era where a lot of “big clubs” can’t even get promoted, the only people who still think teams like Sheffield Wednesday are some massive club these days are those who spend too much time on Wikipedia. quite like how Derby are always below us on these as well this time 2 tiers below, the 11 point season destroyed their reputation.
 

Some horrific shouts in the tier list though first 3-4 aren’t bad but they’ve got Birmingham, WBA 1 tier below Accrington Stanley and Cov 2 tiers below 

Edited 26 May 2020 by Yes

[Nalis]

7 hours ago, Danizen said:

 

Just seen this on Facebook. Was expecting to see a lot of complaints about us being up there with Leeds, Newcastle, Wednesday etc.. but there was none. In fact, a neutral even suggested we get moved up to massive. 

 

Now a SportBible Facebook post doesn't define how big we are but it's an interesting gauge on how big we're perceived to be by other fans.

Admittedly havent clicked into it but from the picture they are surely trolling for a reaction.

 

Crewe and Gillingham bigger than Norwich and West Brom 

 

Colchester bigger than Charlton  

[StriderHiryu]

 

If you're bored during Lockdown (I know you are), this is worth a listen.

[Heathrow fox]

6 hours ago, Stadt said:

One thing that sounds better than it actually is that we’ve won a major trophy in each of the last three decades (obviously not the 2020s). Without checking only Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea and United have done that as well? 

6th most successful team of the PL era.If success translates as actually winning stuff.We are having a similar purple patch as the trees had in that Clough era.They were genuinely a brilliant club for a time and I never dreamed we could possibly ever overtake them.They were light years ahead.

[Ric Flair]

On 22/05/2020 at 19:31, peach0000 said:

I surely can’t be the only one that can’t understand the hype with the Liverpool full backs. Robertson always seems pretty good but Alexander-Arnold to me always seems to have a mistake in him. I just don’t see how they are the best in the world.

Might be something to do with being part of a defence that concedes the fewest and provide a lot of goals and assists as full backs

[Aus Fox]

18 hours ago, Danizen said:

 

Just seen this on Facebook. Was expecting to see a lot of complaints about us being up there with Leeds, Newcastle, Wednesday etc.. but there was none. In fact, a neutral even suggested we get moved up to massive. 

 

Now a SportBible Facebook post doesn't define how big we are but it's an interesting gauge on how big we're perceived to be by other fans.

Looking at the positions of Villa, Birmingham, Wolves and WBA this was clearly made by a Villa fan.

 

[CosbehFox]

11 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

 

If you're bored during Lockdown (I know you are), this is worth a listen.

Ironic given the thing about big clubs a few posts up because a neutral makes an excellent point about why would move as a Leicester player? 

[Guest Cujek]

found on the Derby forums

 

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/34896-is-wayne-rooney-off-to-leicester-city/

[moseeds]

22 hours ago, Captain... said:

Here's my hot take on Celtic vs Leicester:

 

We are a bigger club right now, but historically they have always been bigger and could will be the bigger club again in the future if we make a Peter Taylor style appointment after Brodgers.

 

What I think is interesting is the argument about we are only bigger now because of the league we are in. If Celtic were dropped into the PL next season they would probably be relegated, they don't have the money or draw to compete. If they had joined in 1992 at the start of the premier league era I could see them being top 6 for a good chunk of it with a few cups to their name. They would have ups and downs, but what has left them behind the likes of us and Everton and West Ham is that we have had access to the premier league (and championship) money which massively outstrips anything the SPL can offer.

 

With the support and stature they had in 92 they would easily have been able to compete against the likes of Luton, Coventry, Oldham, QPR the first PL was nothing like it is today with many weak teams. They are too far behind now to ever be able to compete with an EPL club and would struggle to be competitive in the championship.

 

Yes and no. Celtic & Rangers, with their hisotry and support base would easily be a 'top 6' side with access to the finance of the Premier League. Considering their relative successes in Europe in recent history even in a poorer league suggests they would out-muscle most English Premier League/Championship teams. The only thing against Celtic/Rangers would be remoteness and weather if they were in the Premier League. If they ever did end up in top tier English football, they would definitely improve the 'Premier League product'.

[Steven]

1 hour ago, moseeds said:

 

Yes and no. Celtic & Rangers, with their hisotry and support base would easily be a 'top 6' side with access to the finance of the Premier League. Considering their relative successes in Europe in recent history even in a poorer league suggests they would out-muscle most English Premier League/Championship teams. The only thing against Celtic/Rangers would be remoteness and weather if they were in the Premier League. If they ever did end up in top tier English football, they would definitely improve the 'Premier League product'.

Er no not at all. The only beneficiaries would be Celtic and Rangers. I will say it again, if clubs from outside England will join the PL why not a top notch european side rather than second rate sides from north of the border?

[nnickn]

1 hour ago, moseeds said:

English football, they would definitely improve the 'Premier League product'.

yep, all the bigotry and nastiness between the 2 would really improve the PL.

Can you imagine the mayhem with 5000 fans from north of the border down KP twice a year.

[Heathrow fox]

On 26/05/2020 at 14:00, Captain... said:

Here's my hot take on Celtic vs Leicester:

 

We are a bigger club right now, but historically they have always been bigger and could will be the bigger club again in the future if we make a Peter Taylor style appointment after Brodgers.

 

What I think is interesting is the argument about we are only bigger now because of the league we are in. If Celtic were dropped into the PL next season they would probably be relegated, they don't have the money or draw to compete. If they had joined in 1992 at the start of the premier league era I could see them being top 6 for a good chunk of it with a few cups to their name. They would have ups and downs, but what has left them behind the likes of us and Everton and West Ham is that we have had access to the premier league (and championship) money which massively outstrips anything the SPL can offer.

 

With the support and stature they had in 92 they would easily have been able to compete against the likes of Luton, Coventry, Oldham, QPR the first PL was nothing like it is today with many weak teams. They are too far behind now to ever be able to compete with an EPL club and would struggle to be competitive in the championship.

If Celtic had joined at the start?Highly likely they would’ve won the thing at least once.Same goes for the other lot.Which team had the biggest contingent in arguably England’s 2nd best ever squad for the 1990 World Cup?Glasgow Rangers.

[StriderHiryu]

1 hour ago, pmcla26 said:

I don’t like the comparison made of us to Everton in the mid 2000s, we’re a much better footballing side than they ever were. 

Yeah that was a really lazy comparison. That Everton team were attiritional and won games through physical battles. They were not the sort of team that could spank a team by 4 or 5 goals very often, whereas under Rodgers we have proven to be capable of it.

[ALC Fox]

7 hours ago, nnickn said:

yep, all the bigotry and nastiness between the 2 would really improve the PL.

Can you imagine the mayhem with 5000 fans from north of the border down KP twice a year.

I'd like us to beat Celtic home and away in the CL... other than that they and Rangers can do one.

[Paninistickers]

46 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Yeah that was a really lazy comparison. That Everton team were attiritional and won games through physical battles. They were not the sort of team that could spank a team by 4 or 5 goals very often, whereas under Rodgers we have proven to be capable of it.

I hate to mention that red filth on here, but the nearest equivalent is possibly Forest in the 80s. Or to, an extent, Newcastle in the 90s.

 

Other than that, our model is fairly unique

 

 

 

[Finnaldo]

There’s not many things in football I despise, downright fvcking hate more than Rangers and Celtic. How fvcking tragic is it that in 2020 you still have two sets of massive virgins LARPing the Troubles. Two absolute sh!thouse clubs. History and fanbase mean nothing when everyone thinks you’re a bunch of cvnts.

[Aus Fox]

On 26/05/2020 at 23:00, Captain... said:

Here's my hot take on Celtic vs Leicester:

 

We are a bigger club right now, but historically they have always been bigger and could will be the bigger club again in the future if we make a Peter Taylor style appointment after Brodgers.

 

What I think is interesting is the argument about we are only bigger now because of the league we are in. If Celtic were dropped into the PL next season they would probably be relegated, they don't have the money or draw to compete. If they had joined in 1992 at the start of the premier league era I could see them being top 6 for a good chunk of it with a few cups to their name. They would have ups and downs, but what has left them behind the likes of us and Everton and West Ham is that we have had access to the premier league (and championship) money which massively outstrips anything the SPL can offer.

 

With the support and stature they had in 92 they would easily have been able to compete against the likes of Luton, Coventry, Oldham, QPR the first PL was nothing like it is today with many weak teams. They are too far behind now to ever be able to compete with an EPL club and would struggle to be competitive in the championship.

 

18 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

If Celtic had joined at the start?Highly likely they would’ve won the thing at least once.Same goes for the other lot.Which team had the biggest contingent in arguably England’s 2nd best ever squad for the 1990 World Cup?Glasgow Rangers.

Celtic around the start of the Premier League were a terrible side, regularly finishing below Aberdeen and Motherwell, not qualifying for Europe every season. I think They finished as low as 5th and had a few seasons outside the top 2. Old Firm games aside regularly had attendance below 20,000.

 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Aus Fox said:

 

Celtic around the start of the Premier League were a terrible side, regularly finishing below Aberdeen and Motherwell, not qualifying for Europe every season. I think They finished as low as 5th and had a few seasons outside the top 2. Old Firm games aside regularly had attendance below 20,000.

 

But but they're a massive club!!!

 

Fair point they weren't the dominant force they are now, my point remains that there is no way they could catch up with even the smallest PL teams now, but if they had been brought into the PL a while ago and had decades of PL and even Championship money they would probably be up there challenging for Europe most seasons.  

 

Obviously ignoring any game changing financial irregularities/mismanagement/take overs. 

[Out Foxed]

22 hours ago, pmcla26 said:

I don’t like the comparison made of us to Everton in the mid 2000s, we’re a much better footballing side than they ever were. 

podcasts have given the annoying student/middle class twerps you'd usually have to endure in the pub a platform to navel gaze and bore people with their inane, i'm so smart and knowledgeable opinions. 

 

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, Out Foxed said:

podcasts have given the annoying student/middle class twerps you'd usually have to endure in the pub a platform to navel gaze and bore people with their inane, i'm so smart and knowledgeable opinions. 

 

To be fair, TIFO Football do offer some decent content, some interesting stuff on there.

Edited 28 May 2020 by Dahnsouff

[The People's Hero]

1 hour ago, Out Foxed said:

podcasts have given the annoying student/middle class twerps you'd usually have to endure in the pub a platform to navel gaze and bore people with their inane, i'm so smart and knowledgeable opinions. 

 

I agree to a point, but some of them do know their stuff. With some of them it is more style over substance and navel gazing, sure.