The "do they mean us?" thread pt 3

[peach0000]

3 minutes ago, Sly said:

The big 6 thing is stupid and just needs to end. 

Agreed. It's so artificial. Club size is a sliding scale and so subjective, there's not a 'big six'. In my mind Everton and Villa are closer in size to Spurs than Spurs are to Man Utd and Liverpool for example. 

[Sly]

4 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

Agreed. It's so artificial. Club size is a sliding scale and so subjective, there's not a 'big six'. In my mind Everton and Villa are closer in size to Spurs than Spurs are to Man Utd and Liverpool for example. 

Exactly, 

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, peach0000 said:

Others have done it with Bilbao. Lazio, Marseille and Espanyol weren't exactly successful. Also Argentina. Can't speak for his time managing in Argentina as I don't have a clue but looking at stats it doesn't look amazing. Chile, Leeds and Bilbao are his only successes. Not exactly amazing for a manager who has been around for the best part of 3 decades.

He took Bilbao to their first European final since 1977. In process bringing through players such as Laporte, Ander and Javi Martinez. 
 

Lazio he was there for two days. The club promised him certain players and delivered on none of them. Therefore he left the club in the same position - don’t really see how that makes him a failure or poor. 
 

Marseille left with a 50% win record. He finished 4th in 2015, which has only been bettered by Villas-Boas last season with 2nd. 
 

Espanyol he left to manage his country, which was understandable. The squad he assembled still recovered to finish 7th - they currently find themselves in Spanish second tier. 

Won titles at two unfashionable Argentine clubs. In the case of Newell Old Boys, taking them to their second Libertadories final. 
 

His time in Mexico is patchy. 
 

This is not the career of failure 

 

 

 

[OhYesNdidi]

12 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

Agreed. It's so artificial. Club size is a sliding scale and so subjective, there's not a 'big six'. In my mind Everton and Villa are closer in size to Spurs than Spurs are to Man Utd and Liverpool for example. 

The Sky 6

[peach0000]

3 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

He took Bilbao to their first European final since 1977. In process bringing through players such as Laporte, Ander and Javi Martinez. 
 

Lazio he was there for two days. The club promised him certain players and delivered on none of them. Therefore he left the club in the same position - don’t really see how that makes him a failure or poor. 
 

Marseille left with a 50% win record. He finished 4th in 2015, which has only been bettered by Villas-Boas last season with 2nd. 
 

Espanyol he left to manage his country, which was understandable. The squad he assembled still recovered to finish 7th - they currently find themselves in Spanish second tier. 

Won titles at two unfashionable Argentine clubs. In the case of Newell Old Boys, taking them to their second Libertadories final. 
 

His time in Mexico is patchy. 
 

This is not the career of failure 

 

 

 

I still maintain if he is as amazing as you're making out he wouldn't have ended up managing Leeds. 

[Sly]

1 minute ago, OhYesNdidi said:

The Sky 6

This is actually a much better description. 

[Oxfordfox83]

On 25/02/2021 at 15:22, deep blue said:

Nothing to get over, I was merely pointing out the error in your contribution.

Wasn’t my contribution pal, but thanks anyway

[Aus Fox]

The top 6/Sky 6/ big 6 is ridiculous. In all honesty Spurs are way closer in size to a mid table Southampton or Wolves than they are to Manchester United or Liverpool.

Anyway you look at it those 2 are the two biggest clubs in England and two of the biggest globally.

Arsenal are third and Chelsea are fourth but there is a gap.

Man City for all the money they throw at it, will never be as big globally as Man Utd or Liverpool and over a long period of time will struggle to keep up.

Spurs I have no idea how they are considered as a massive club, they’re big on an Everton, Villa level and are having a decent period in their history right now, but really they are not even close by any value you could measure club size.

We are having a great period in our history right now, and with the training ground in place we are moving away from the other East Midlands teams, but we’re still in that third run of teams with Southampton, Wolves, West Ham etc.

[Sly]

32 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

The top 6/Sky 6/ big 6 is ridiculous. In all honesty Spurs are way closer in size to a mid table Southampton or Wolves than they are to Manchester United or Liverpool.

Anyway you look at it those 2 are the two biggest clubs in England and two of the biggest globally.

Arsenal are third and Chelsea are fourth but there is a gap.

Man City for all the money they throw at it, will never be as big globally as Man Utd or Liverpool and over a long period of time will struggle to keep up.

Spurs I have no idea how they are considered as a massive club, they’re big on an Everton, Villa level and are having a decent period in their history right now, but really they are not even close by any value you could measure club size.

We are having a great period in our history right now, and with the training ground in place we are moving away from the other East Midlands teams, but we’re still in that third run of teams with Southampton, Wolves, West Ham etc.

That’s how I sort of see it. 
 

It’s based on global reputation, fan base and history. 
 

In fairness, Chelsea weren’t exactly massive, however they’ve grown as a club with the money pumped into them. I’m sure Manchester City will in time, as the “plastic” fans latch on and generations of family support them. 

[CosbehFox]

10 hours ago, peach0000 said:

I still maintain if he is as amazing as you're making out he wouldn't have ended up managing Leeds. 

I was disputing the point of you calling him a manager of failure. He’s a good manager, not amazing but a good solid manager who likes to take on challenging roles. 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

That’s how I sort of see it. 
 

It’s based on global reputation, fan base and history. 
 

In fairness, Chelsea weren’t exactly massive, however they’ve grown as a club with the money pumped into them. I’m sure Manchester City will in time, as the “plastic” fans latch on and generations of family support them. 

It’s simply based on the six biggest clubs with the largest media audience. 
 

It’s all about attracting the broadcaster satisfying their largest audience. 
 

[st albans fox]

The sky six, big six (whatever you want to call them ) is based on many things but essentially it’s financial - the difference between 6th and 7th on turnover is almost £200m !!

 

that’s also the difference between 1st and 6th which shows how tough it is for Spurs to hang onto Man U 

[peach0000]

33 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

I was disputing the point of you calling him a manager of failure. He’s a good manager, not amazing but a good solid manager who likes to take on challenging roles. 

I would call him a failure in club management (not international management) has consistently not been successful too many time for me. I feel we’ll never agree on this point

[Fox92]

14 hours ago, Ashley said:

Oh and the Bielsa love in and get in the bin as well. 

 

Hes won four. Yes FOUR trophies in his managerial career. 

 

Oh if you want add the gold medal at the Olympics too. Is he really that good...

Agreed. I'd imagine Sky wanted to turn the cameras off yesterday as soon as Villa scored so early.

 

I was so proud of Brendan when he called them out after we beat them at Elland Road. The pre match questions of "how do you stop Leeds/Bielsa" painted it as if we we're back 20 years and they were superior to us.

 

I wouldn't worry about Leeds "raiding" us. They've spent the last 15 years in the Championship, 3 or 4 of those years were in the third tier ffs. We are currently better than them and nobody is gonna leave us to go there.

[Fox92]

4 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

The top 6/Sky 6/ big 6 is ridiculous. In all honesty Spurs are way closer in size to a mid table Southampton or Wolves than they are to Manchester United or Liverpool.

Anyway you look at it those 2 are the two biggest clubs in England and two of the biggest globally.

Arsenal are third and Chelsea are fourth but there is a gap.

Man City for all the money they throw at it, will never be as big globally as Man Utd or Liverpool and over a long period of time will struggle to keep up.

Spurs I have no idea how they are considered as a massive club, they’re big on an Everton, Villa level and are having a decent period in their history right now, but really they are not even close by any value you could measure club size.

We are having a great period in our history right now, and with the training ground in place we are moving away from the other East Midlands teams, but we’re still in that third run of teams with Southampton, Wolves, West Ham etc.

Nobody touches Manchester United or Liverpool in this Country. Biggest clubs in the Country. Man City can throw all the money they want at it but they'll never be as big as Man Utd and Man Utd will never hate Man City the way they hate Liverpool. Fergie was right when he called Man City "noisy neighbours". However Man City have always been a mid to big club. They've only played in the third tier once and spent most of their history in the top flight. They were never as small as some of these football twitter wierdos pretend.

 

Spurs are big, and much bigger than the likes of Southampton and Wolves, but they aren't at Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal/Chelsea level. Spurs have only won two top fight league titles. Two. There's clubs in the third tier that have won it more. Historically Spurs don't come close to Everton/Villa, and though in recent years they have grown and even the biggest hater of Spurs cannot deny that (under Poch they were consistently 2nd or 3rd and he also got them to a League Cup and Champions League final) but overall I don't think they are any bigger than Everton. Both clubs are underachievers currently, when you consider both haven't won a trophy in over a decade now but both have big fanbases, with great followings. Everton have got the edge historically. Same as Villa really but their relegation halted their reputation.

 

Currently I'd say we're bigger than Wolves and West Ham because of what we've won and how we're progressing in terms of league finishes under Rodgers. I don't think a player would choose to join West Ham over us nowadays which shows how we've grown. Southampton have never been as big as West Ham, consider Southampton have won virtually nothing in their history. Mind you, I'd say West Ham are the biggest ever underachivers in the Country considering they've produced players such as Bobby Moore, Martin Peters, Geoff Hirst, Frank Lampard, Rio Ferdinand, Michael Carrick.. Off the top of my head I'd say their 2002/03 team was probably the best ever to be relegated from the PL.

 

It's all relative though isn't it. At the end of the day it's about what is happening now. I'm not really arsed Sky don't include us in their "top 6" graphics. We know what we're doing, management, staff and owners are all behind it and that's good enough for me. Up the Foxes.

[Langston]

4 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Man City can throw all the money they want at it but they'll never be as big as Man Utd.

 

Not yet, no. Foolish to dismiss them generations down the line, though. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

7 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Nobody touches Manchester United or Liverpool in this Country. Biggest clubs in the Country. Man City can throw all the money they want at it but they'll never be as big as Man Utd and Man Utd will never hate Man City the way they hate Liverpool. Fergie was right when he called Man City "noisy neighbours". However Man City have always been a mid to big club. They've only played in the third tier once and spent most of their history in the top flight. They were never as small as some of these football twitter wierdos pretend.

 

Spurs are big, and much bigger than the likes of Southampton and Wolves, but they aren't at Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal/Chelsea level. Spurs have only won two top fight league titles. Two. There's clubs in the third tier that have won it more. Historically Spurs don't come close to Everton/Villa, and though in recent years they have grown and even the biggest hater of Spurs cannot deny that (under Poch they were consistently 2nd or 3rd and he also got them to a League Cup and Champions League final) but overall I don't think they are any bigger than Everton. Both clubs are underachievers currently, when you consider both haven't won a trophy in over a decade now but both have big fanbases, with great followings. Everton have got the edge historically. Same as Villa really but their relegation halted their reputation.

 

Currently I'd say we're bigger than Wolves and West Ham because of what we've won and how we're progressing in terms of league finishes under Rodgers. I don't think a player would choose to join West Ham over us nowadays which shows how we've grown. Southampton have never been as big as West Ham, consider Southampton have won virtually nothing in their history. Mind you, I'd say West Ham are the biggest ever underachivers in the Country considering they've produced players such as Bobby Moore, Martin Peters, Geoff Hirst, Frank Lampard, Rio Ferdinand, Michael Carrick.. Off the top of my head I'd say their 2002/03 team was probably the best ever to be relegated from the PL.

 

It's all relative though isn't it. At the end of the day it's about what is happening now. I'm not really arsed Sky don't include us in their "top 6" graphics. We know what we're doing, management, staff and owners are all behind it and that's good enough for me. Up the Foxes.

To say West ham have underachieved and list the talent they've produced in direct comparison to Southampton is a wierd direction to take it. Southampton have had some truly world class talent come through their academy. Shearer and Bale stand out. If Southampton had have kept hold of the players they brought through themselves and the great business they did with the likes of Van Dijk, Mane etc, they'd be bigger than us and west ham combined. Alas, ifs and buts. 

[Fox92]

8 minutes ago, Langston said:

 

Not yet, no. Foolish to dismiss them generations down the line, though. 

That is true. Can't predict the future. It's whether they can win stuff consistently though. At the minute, under Pep, they are one of the greatest PL sides I've ever seen and have the domestic honours to prove that. It'll be interesting to see what happens when Pep leaves though.

 

1 minute ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

To say West ham have underachieved and list the talent they've produced in direct comparison to Southampton is a wierd direction to take it. Southampton have had some truly world class talent come through their academy. Shearer and Bale stand out. If Southampton had have kept hold of the players they brought through themselves and the great business they did with the likes of Van Dijk, Mane etc, they'd be bigger than us and west ham combined. Alas, ifs and buts. 

Southampton have, I forgot about Shearer who was genuine World Class, I wouldn't say Southampton have produced players at the same level as West Ham. Bale obviously and Le Tissier too. Not when you consider Moore/Peters/Hirst were World Cup winners in 1966 and Lampard/Ferdinand/Carrick were among the finest players of their generation who won multiple honours domestically and in Europe. TBF it was a strange comparison from me but I didn't know how to compare because I do think West Ham are the biggest underachivers. Southampton are underachievers too, especially when they have been a top flight side most of their history and when even more so when you consider their biggest rivals in Portsmouth have won more historically.

 

Like I said though, it's all relevant, all opinions.

[Dahnsouff]

Was just reading a thread about Saka on Red Cafe, bear with me, and som Man Utd fan was saying that as Arsenal are in danger of being a mid table club under Arteta (not sure I agree but that’s not the point) that Saka should look to move. Someone suggested Leicester, which would be lovely, but someone responded with Arsenal are a much bigger club, and this is clearly true by any but the most recent partisan measures. This got me thinking, does it matter to Saka? To any player at a ‘big club’ if they are not in a comparable, contemporary, competitions?

 

So come to Leicester any play in, for example the Cl or EL, stay at big club and accept you get the kudos, but no CL or EL.

My questions is, why is this the case? For a player with a finite time at the top, why stay as big club A, why not to club B to play in Europe?

 

[foxes_rule1978]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Was just reading a thread about Saka on Red Cafe, bear with me, and som Man Utd fan was saying that as Arsenal are in danger of being a mid table club under Arteta (not sure I agree but that’s not the point) that Saka should look to move. Someone suggested Leicester, which would be lovely, but someone responded with Arsenal are a much bigger club, and this is clearly true by any but the most recent partisan measures. This got me thinking, does it matter to Saka? To any player at a ‘big club’ if they are not in a comparable, contemporary, competitions?

 

So come to Leicester any play in, for example the Cl or EL, stay at big club and accept you get the kudos, but no CL or EL.

My questions is, why is this the case? For a player with a finite time at the top, why stay as big club A, why not to club B to play in Europe?

 

Saka will feel arsenal is still a better place to be to get European football, we still have a lot to prove before we can seriously overcome such clubs. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

Saka will feel arsenal is still a better place to be to get European football, we still have a lot to prove before we can seriously overcome such clubs. 

That is a good point, and as much as I do not like it, you are correct

[Sly]

23 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

To say West ham have underachieved and list the talent they've produced in direct comparison to Southampton is a wierd direction to take it. Southampton have had some truly world class talent come through their academy. Shearer and Bale stand out. If Southampton had have kept hold of the players they brought through themselves and the great business they did with the likes of Van Dijk, Mane etc, they'd be bigger than us and west ham combined. Alas, ifs and buts. 

Bale, Shearer, Walcott, Bertrand, Shaw, Bridge, Wise, Oxlaide-Chamberlain, Chambers, Mings, Ben White, Ward-Prowse, Targett, Reed, Lallana, 

 

 

...... all came through the Southampton academy.

[Sly]

18 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Was just reading a thread about Saka on Red Cafe, bear with me, and som Man Utd fan was saying that as Arsenal are in danger of being a mid table club under Arteta (not sure I agree but that’s not the point) that Saka should look to move. Someone suggested Leicester, which would be lovely, but someone responded with Arsenal are a much bigger club, and this is clearly true by any but the most recent partisan measures. This got me thinking, does it matter to Saka? To any player at a ‘big club’ if they are not in a comparable, contemporary, competitions?

 

So come to Leicester any play in, for example the Cl or EL, stay at big club and accept you get the kudos, but no CL or EL.

My questions is, why is this the case? For a player with a finite time at the top, why stay as big club A, why not to club B to play in Europe?

 

As a player, you surely want to play at a club where you’ve a  75% chance of playing football. If you’re Saka, as good as joining a Bayern, Man City, Liverpool etc would be, it’d be bad for his career long term. 
 

So you look at the next level down, Arsenal, Napoli, Dortmund, Athletico etc. Some will play Champions League and grow your career. That’s why I think Dortmund get good press, they know that they can’t compete with Bayern, however are an attractive option to great young talent. I’d mentioned Bellingham whilst he was at Birmingham a few times. He’d have been great for us. 

[Spudulike]

13 hours ago, peach0000 said:

Agreed. It's so artificial. Club size is a sliding scale and so subjective, there's not a 'big six'. In my mind Everton and Villa are closer in size to Spurs than Spurs are to Man Utd and Liverpool for example. 

I think if the word 'big' is removed it makes understanding much easier. 

 

The media have singled out 6 clubs to focus attention on as they create the most clicks, likes, bets etc. It's business. It's the way it is and even when one of these clubs slips down the table they can run even more features on why it's happening. 

 

Nothing will change. Ride above it, laugh at it as most fans do. They have been sussed, we're not stupid (mostly). 

[tylesta]

28 minutes ago, Sly said:

Bale, Shearer, Walcott, Bertrand, Shaw, Bridge, Wise, Oxlaide-Chamberlain, Chambers, Mings, Ben White, Ward-Prowse, Targett, Reed, Lallana, 

 

 

...... all came through the Southampton academy.

Bertrand came through chelsea academy