Jamie Vardy - best player outside of top 6... EVER

[Red Squirrel]

As per MOTD 

In the premier league era but probably since the invention of football in my opinion

Well done Wrighty for being objective rather than Shearer nakedly voting for his mates!

 

Can't wait to see him back on the pitch scoring his 100th premier league goal.

I'll be there when the statue is unveiled and along with Vichai we have the Jamie Vardy stand - he means so much to all of us

 

[Long Eaton Fox]

Best player inside the top six

[Finnegan]

How can a player with a Premier League winner's medal be a player from "outside the big six." 

 

They'll include Kane, Pogba and Ozil in "players from the big six" and they've won **** all. 

[joachim1965]

We are 3rd ffs.

[goody2028]

Outside the top 6. We currently sit 3rd and won the premier league 4 years ago. 

[Corky]

David Batty spent the majority of his career in the top six, this list is utter nonsense.

[Jimothy]

20 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

How can a player with a Premier League winner's medal be a player from "outside the big six." 

 

They'll include Kane, Pogba and Ozil in "players from the big six" and they've won **** all. 

Was saying as much on another thread. Speed played for Newcastle when they were title challengers. There'll be Spurs players from when they were shit 25 years ago who won't be on the list because they've had a decent few years. Ridiculous concept.

[StanSP]

25 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

How can a player with a Premier League winner's medal be a player from "outside the big six." 

 

They'll include Kane, Pogba and Ozil in "players from the big six" and they've won **** all. 

To be honest, just Kane out of those 3 that actually has won fvck all 

[Manwell Pablo]

The big six is a modern ideology of six big clubs that have historically consistently done well since the start of the PL era,  more so this century, and definitely even for more so in the last 10 years, we all know this ffs.  
 

Don’t get club status mixed up with individual achievements, United may have several players without a PL medal but they have also only failed to finish outside of the top six once in about 30 years, Arsenal have about 25 consecutive seasons in the top six, Manchester City have about 11 straight since the money from their take over took effect, with four league titles. Liverpool 16 out of the last 19 and they’ve blatantly won this won to make it 17 out of 20, Chelsea have missed out once in about 20 years. Even fcking spurs have have probably got over 10 in the last 15. 
 

They are considered the current big six because they tend to finish in the top six quite a lot.

 

You’ve also got three teams in there that have won the CL this century, another one that’s won a domestic treble, and even the other two can claim a CL final appearance.

 

 

[Guest]

There's a type of person that buys into the media created "big 6" idea and then there are normal football fans who would never be confused about who a good player is or isn't simply because of the team that they played for.

[Finnegan]

6 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

The big six is a modern ideology of six big clubs that have historically consistently done well since the start of the PL era

 

It's a Sky Sports concept used to sell. You know this. 

 

Neither Tottenham or Man City have "consistently done well since the start of the PL" they're both late comers that made the four a six when it was convenient for the media. 

 

It's a silly concept. Yes we all know what it means and yes obviously I was being facetious. But equally, indulging the notion and acting like its anything other than a catchphrase? Come on. 

[Webbo]

It was a compliment on a meaningless TV show. Is it worth being offended by? 

[Jimothy]

6 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

The big six is a modern ideology of six big clubs that have historically consistently done well since the start of the PL era,  more so this century, and definitely even for more so in the last 10 years, we all know this ffs.  
 

Don’t get club status mixed up with individual achievements, United may have several players without a PL medal but they have also only failed to finish outside of the top six once in about 30 years, Arsenal have about 25 consecutive seasons in the top six, Manchester City have about 11 straight since the money from their take over took effect, with four league titles. Liverpool 16 out of the last 19 and they’ve blatantly won this won to make it 17 out of 20, Chelsea have missed out once in about 20 years. Even fcking spurs have have probably got over 10 in the last 15. 
 

They are considered the current big six because they tend to finish in the top six quite a lot.

 

You’ve also got three teams in there that have won the CL this century, another one that’s won a domestic treble, and even the other two can claim a CL final appearance.

 

 

But this list covered nearly 30 years of football. I have no problem with Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool and maybe Chelsea on it, but Spurs and Man City is a push. Because they are looking right back to 1992.

 

Let's say Man City and Newcastle have swapped. Newcastle were a regular top 4 team and title challenger in the 90's and mid 2000's, Man City were relegated and never really challenged. Last 12 years or so, that's completely swapped over. Players like Speed, Batty, Shearer, Lee etc were considered for this list despite playing for Newcastle during an era where they regularly challenged at the top. This is based basically on the Mike Ashley era where they've dropped away massively. Any Man City player from prior to the recent hugely expensively assembled team, including someone like Kasper Schmeichel, would not be considered for this list despite never playing for this incarnation of Man City.

 

You can't look at 30 years of something and base it on the half that time period. Batty is a ridiculous inclusion, I don't think he ever played outside a side that was challenging at the top end of the table, he just never played for one of the six that have recent been a group together.

[shailen]

I agree with the validity of this list. Spurs aren't a side that apart from one or two seasons have been genuine title contenders. Man City have only been a big club in the last decade and Chelsea before that only when Abrahmovic came in. It used to be called the big 4 anyway with Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle/Chelsea. Spurs and Man City back then were nothing more than a mid table team. 

 

This big 6 thing in the Premier league that these 6 clubs are far and above everyone else is ridiculous. We've broken the mould twice and clubs like Arsenal are really in danger of being overtaken by clubs like us and Wolves. Maybe in 3 or 4 years us and Wolves will be the big 6 and maybe Arsenal and Spurs will drop out the equation. 

[49er]

Why was Southgate in the list. Would he have been included if he was not the current England Manager? 

[davieG]

Perhaps the riches 6 would be more appropriate although that could change soon and the question should have been players that have not won the PL.

[Danizen]

44 minutes ago, 49er said:

Why was Southgate in the list. Would he have been included if he was not the current England Manager? 

I remember him being consistently good in decent Boro team when he was playing. I think Fergie tried to buy him a couple of times.

 

He's definitely on the list of best CBs outside the top 6.

[Bayfox]

To be fair didn't gary, say something about the so called big 6 as an introduction.

 

It's not worth getting hung up on, it's just a $ky invented phrase. 

 

Let's be honest what's more worrying is, they had southgate on the list at all, and Alan had Vardy at 3

 

[Spudulike]

Everton are one of the top six when based on all time Premier League performance. Probably also richer than Tottnum ?

 

All time Premier League table

[Ian Nacho]

“On the next episode of MOTD Top 10, we look at the top 10 players who have never had a ham sandwich.”

[Fox92]

9 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Was saying as much on another thread. Speed played for Newcastle when they were title challengers. There'll be Spurs players from when they were shit 25 years ago who won't be on the list because they've had a decent few years. Ridiculous concept.

Speed won the league with Leeds didn't he? And I'm sure Batty was at Blackburn when they won it.

 

I haven't seen the full list, as I didn't watch it.

[Manwell Pablo]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's a Sky Sports concept used to sell. You know this. 

 

Neither Tottenham or Man City have "consistently done well since the start of the PL" they're both late comers that made the four a six when it was convenient for the media. 

 

It's a silly concept. Yes we all know what it means and yes obviously I was being facetious. But equally, indulging the notion and acting like its anything other than a catchphrase? Come on. 

No they haven’t precisely why I’ve gone on to say more specifically this century and even more so this decade and Instead not bothering quoting that part I’d I like to think your intelligent enough to to grasp the basics of the point I’m making without having to waste my time fully illustrating them. But yes entirely it was more of a classic top four with Manchester City and Spurs being added later, but they’ve been part of that consideration for  over a decade now and much as the media may like to use it to sell the league, it is also, patently and undeniably an accurate way of looking at those six clubs given how often they have finished in the top six in a reasonable period of modern history, and with the exception of Spurs it is extremely difficult to see any of them spending more than a short period of time outside of the top six. It’s not about winning things, it’s about being in the top six and achieving regular qualification for Europe.

 

Now @Facecloths point about the dragging Batty into the equation is a good one given it was before even Arsenal got going as a major force and he did play for teams near the top of the table for a long period, and using a base of teams have been dominant more recently and applying it to the entirety of PL history is a little odd. They might of been better of it doing it from 2000 if they were going to do it that way, but there’s probably a degree of laziness in there as it makes finding examples of players much easier. But they probably just should be cut some slack as they are probably climbing over themselves trying to find content to publish after six odd weeks of no sport.

 

 

 

[Charl91]

Also worth pointing out that they purposely made Shearer ineligible for this, otherwise he would have undoubtedly won. 

 

Like others said, it's not worth getting hung on on it - I presume they just wanted an opportunity to talk about other players for once rather than the same "big names" over and over again.

[Bayfox]

42 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Speed won the league with Leeds didn't he? And I'm sure Batty was at Blackburn when they won it.

 

I haven't seen the full list, as I didn't watch it.

They mentioned the fact that Batty won it and was challenging at Newcastle as well.

 

As for speed. It is unfortunately always PL era. Leeds won the last Div1 title. So again a bit like vardy and batty despite winning the top flight they aren't considered a big 6. Think people have to get past the term, it was 4 once now it's 6. Sure it will stretch to 7 if we stick around long enough

[Fox92]

43 minutes ago, Bayfox said:

They mentioned the fact that Batty won it and was challenging at Newcastle as well.

 

As for speed. It is unfortunately always PL era. Leeds won the last Div1 title. So again a bit like vardy and batty despite winning the top flight they aren't considered a big 6. Think people have to get past the term, it was 4 once now it's 6. Sure it will stretch to 7 if we stick around long enough

Probably will. Stretch it to 8 when Wolves stick around and that's not to mention Everton should be decent again. I remember when it was top 4 and then they stretched it to 6 because Everton and Villa always used to nearly break the 4.