English football's biggest underachievers

[The People's Hero]

2 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

Astonishing really.

I never knew a member of a bowls club before..

I can't believe that is true, but its a cool story, so I'm going to try to force myself.

[Fox92]

15 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

A couple of good seasons, followed by a deep and steady decline, seems to me to count as under-achieving. We'll have to disagree on this one. 

What you on about? Drinkwater was good for us every season he was here. He was our best player in 16/17 when most of the other's were shit.

[The People's Hero]

Just now, Corky said:

Really? What's the take up like for that now? I remember it being a thing when Charlton were in the Premier League but that was 15 years ago.

I don't really know; they have really apathetic support... like so many people around here 'support' them but never seem to go; and then you'll see one week they suddenly have 20k+ fans in and other weeks its dreadful.

 

They are a club that has 26,000 paying (attending) fans in the PL and maybe 16,000 at all other times, the point being that there are always about 10,000 who just want to go and watch the away team; its a season ticket of convenience if you like.

 

They get probably a bit unfairly derided for that, but they were catering to the 'football tourist' in a very domestic way, long before West Ham, Chelsea and Spurs were targeting Americans that happened to be in the City. Charlton were essentially selling tickets on the unspoken basis of 'we'll pick you up and bus you up here and you can watch the away team superstars'.

 

They are averaging 17,000 ish this year, which is pretty good for them in league one. I'm fairly sure there were times they were getting less in the Championship, so there are signs of improvement. 

 

I know that doesn't answer your question really!

 

 

[SkidsFox]

1 minute ago, Fox92 said:

What you on about? Drinkwater was good for us every season he was here. He was our best player in 16/17 when most of the other's were shit.

What about the next few seasons? I know top players cannot stay at the top forever, but declining like that is fairly unusual. He should have had at least another five good seasons in the EPL in him.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Drinkwater is an overachiever if anything. Pretty limited player imho, yet was a mainstay of a side that achieved the improbable.

 

Someone like Gazza is an underachiever. A few pots in Scotland is a meagre return on that talent.

[Stadt]

2 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

 

Knew it felt familiar - I searched ‘underachiever(s)’ as well 

[Duquesne Whistle]

1 minute ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Someone like Gazza is an underachiever. A few pots in Scotland is a meagre return on that talent.

This.

Not been many truly World class England players in the last 40 years, but he had the ability to be the very best. The very epitome of under achievement when allied to actual ability.

[SkidsFox]

10 minutes ago, Duquesne Whistle said:

This.

Not been many truly World class England players in the last 40 years, but he had the ability to be the very best. The very epitome of under achievement when allied to actual ability.

Half agree, but he did play well for several teams in different countries, and he had some impressive performances for England too. What's the opinion on Matt Le Tissier?

[Duquesne Whistle]

Just now, SkidsFox said:

Half agree, but he did play well for several teams in different countries, and he had some impressive performances for England too. What's the opinion on Matt Le Tissier?

He did, but Rangers were the dominant team in Scotland at the time and it allowed an often half fit Gascoigne to dominate games. I saw him live aat Ibrox and Pittodrie during that era and he looked sensational at times, but he really was better than that league (not meant to be insulting, but he was too good). Having the likes of Laudrup helped.

He was electric for Lazio in a few games but he only played about 35 in total.

By the time he left Lazio for Rangers he was half done, by the time he left Rangers for Boro, he was totally done.

 

Really, he was never the same player again after the broken leg in Rome and he was only about 26 then. Totally unfulfilled talent due to a self destructive attitude. 

 

Matt Le Tiss was insanely talented but a lazy git, he's one that would never survive in this era due to his lack of work rate. I don't think modern managers would put up with that. It seems, from interviews since, that he loved being a big fish in a little pond.

[Fox92]

49 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

What about the next few seasons? I know top players cannot stay at the top forever, but declining like that is fairly unusual. He should have had at least another five good seasons in the EPL in him.

You mean post City? Obviously quite right his career took a downfall. Sorry, I thought you were referring to his time here, he was superb for us.

[Guest StevieLynex]

Lee Sharpe. Looked like a world beater when he first came on the scene, and then a few years later lost his way. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Newport considering the size of their city, but obviously their support gets gobbled up by the other big Welsh clubs.

[Aus Fox]

Got to be a word for Hull City here, fairly big city with a massive area around them and no really big teams for miles around. Quite a bit of investment recently and as far as I am aware never won anything. 

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Got to be a word for Hull City here, fairly big city with a massive area around them and no really big teams for miles around. Quite a bit of investment recently and as far as I am aware never won anything. 

I lived in Hull for a few years in the late 90's and got the impression they're mainly Rugby League fans first and foremost.

Never really met many football fans and no one seemed that arsed about it. Very weird place.

[Spudulike]

4 hours ago, bovril said:

As above, considering the players West Ham have produced and their support, their lack of trophies is notable.

 

In the last 50 years, Newcastle United. 

Bit longer, 1954 was the last major domestic trophy win. Before that a league title in 1927. Their 'big' club status is totally unjustified. 

[Spudulike]

5 hours ago, Stadt said:

Interesting discussion in the Bristol City thread. Who are English football's biggest underachievers?

 

Some possible parameters?

 

Historical success (or lack of it)

- League finishes 

- Trophies

- Win %

- Reputation

- Attendance

 

Location

- Population

- Catchment area

- Affluence 

- Transport links

- Rivals

- Importance 

 

Players

 

Managers

 

Finances

 

 

The other thread mentioned Bristol City, Bradford, Birmingham City & Plymouth.

 

I think West Ham, Newcastle, Southampton and Leeds need to be in the discussion but from a higher floor obviously.

 

I'd go for Leeds actually, 4th biggest city in England, one club city, half of Yorkshire supports them, an historically & economically significant place and they've won 2 more honours than us. Wednesday, Sunderland, Blackburn and Wolves have all won more. 19th on the all time league table.

 

West Ham have won remarkably little too, biggest club to never have won the league by a mile (although they've won a world cup, remember ).

 

They are (only just) one place above us in the all time Premier League table. 

 

https://www.statbunker.com/alltimestats/AllTimeLeagueTable?comp_code=EPL

[bovril]

12 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

They are (only just) one place above us in the all time Premier League table. 

 

https://www.statbunker.com/alltimestats/AllTimeLeagueTable?comp_code=EPL

We've played more PL games than Leeds. Obviously it shouldn't be surprising but it is. Shows what an awful 15 years they had.

[Sly]

I’m terms of clubs, as others have said, it’s got to be Newcastle, Leeds, Bradford, Coventry, Forest, Plymouth and Bristol. I’d throw Birmingham into the mix as well, coming from the 2nd largest city. Even with the support split with Villa, they’ve never really done anything. 
 

The issue with the likes of Sheffield, Nottingham and Bristol is that the fan base is split. If the areas didn’t have that and combined support, they’d be a more formidable team with a larger fan base. 

 

Players wise, you’ve got to be looking at someone from Englands golden generation that wasn’t at the Manchester United or Arsenal surely. 
 

Michael Owen surely, who has the world at his feet when he was 18?

 

Even Stan Collymore, Joe Cole, Jonathan Woodgate, Robbie Fowler or Kieron after potentially. 

 

Interestingly, if you look at the Premier League by capacity, it would look a little

differently.

 

1. Manchester United

2. Tottenham

3. Arsenal

4. West Ham

5. Manchester City

6. Liverpool

7. Newcastle United

8. Sunderland

9. Aston Villa

10. Chelsea

11. Sheffield Wednesday

12. Everton

13. Leeds United

14. Middlesbrough
15. Derby County

16. Sheffield United

17. Coventry City

18. Southampton 

19. Leicester City

20. Wolverhampton Wanderers

 

 

 

[Facecloth]

Tottenham, but only on one metric. I think the number of league titles won it a poor return for a club of that size and the time frame since the last one is too long. They've won the league less than Villa, Everton, Wolves, Blackburn, Sunderland, Sheff Wed, Huddersfield and Leeds, and the same number of times as Portsmouth, Burnley, Preston and Derby. They last won it in 1961. Its not really good enough for a team that's been in the top division the majority of their existence. 

 

I didn't mention other trophies, but I will say even though they've won 8 FA Cups, it's over 30 years since the last one. That's too long to have not won at least one. They've also gone over a decade now of winning nothing at all.

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

I’m terms of clubs, as others have said, it’s got to be Newcastle, Leeds, Bradford, Coventry, Forest, Plymouth and Bristol. I’d throw Birmingham into the mix as well, coming from the 2nd largest city. Even with the support split with Villa, they’ve never really done anything. 
 

The issue with the likes of Sheffield, Nottingham and Bristol is that the fan base is split. If the areas didn’t have that and combined support, they’d be a more formidable team with a larger fan base. 

 

Players wise, you’ve got to be looking at someone from Englands golden generation that wasn’t at the Manchester United or Arsenal surely. 
 

Michael Owen surely, who has the world at his feet when he was 18?

 

Even Stan Collymore, Joe Cole, Jonathan Woodgate, Robbie Fowler or Kieron after potentially. 

 

Interestingly, if you look at the Premier League by capacity, it would look a little

differently.

 

1. Manchester United

2. Tottenham

3. Arsenal

4. West Ham

5. Manchester City

6. Liverpool

7. Newcastle United

8. Sunderland

9. Aston Villa

10. Chelsea

11. Sheffield Wednesday

12. Everton

13. Leeds United

14. Middlesbrough
15. Derby County

16. Sheffield United

17. Coventry City

18. Southampton 

19. Leicester City

20. Wolverhampton Wanderers

 

 

 

The new East Stand will elevate us to 11th (until Everton move) putting us more or less on par with Chelsea and Villa. 

[Spudulike]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Tottenham, but only on one metric. I think the number of league titles won it a poor return for a club of that size and the time frame since the last one is too long. They've won the league less than Villa, Everton, Wolves, Blackburn, Sunderland, Sheff Wed, Huddersfield and Leeds, and the same number of times as Portsmouth, Burnley, Preston and Derby. They last won it in 1961. Its not really good enough for a team that's been in the top division the majority of their existence. 

 

I didn't mention other trophies, but I will say even though they've won 8 FA Cups, it's over 30 years since the last one. That's too long to have not won at least one. They've also gone over a decade now of winning nothing at all.

I think that Tottenham were established as a 'big' club in the London based media and fan pysche due to locality, the '61 double season and a few famous players down the years. White Hart Lane was not a massive stadium although the new ground has upped their status. Move them to the Midlands and they would be portrayed much differently. 

[Bert]

10 hours ago, SkidsFox said:

Half agree, but he did play well for several teams in different countries, and he had some impressive performances for England too. What's the opinion on Matt Le Tissier?

Have you seen his soccerbox episode with Gary Neville? 
 

Said he could’ve moved to Spurs but he turned back round on the motorway and said he kind of liked being the underdog. 

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, Spudulike said:

I think that Tottenham were established as a 'big' club in the London based media and fan pysche due to locality, the '61 double season and a few famous players down the years. White Hart Lane was not a massive stadium although the new ground has upped their status. Move them to the Midlands and they would be portrayed much differently. 

I still think if you look at other clubs who have spent most their time in the top leagues, they should have more than 2 league titles and be on par with Everton and Villa on 6 or 7.

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

I still think if you look at other clubs who have spent most their time in the top leagues, they should have more than 2 league titles and be on par with Everton and Villa on 6 or 7.

I'm convinced that had Tottenham been based elsewhere in the country then their football status would've been the equivalent of a club such as Ipswich Town. 

[Facecloth]

5 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I'm convinced that had Tottenham been based elsewhere in the country then their football status would've been the equivalent of a club such as Ipswich Town. 

Possibly, but they aren't, they are based where they are and have spent most of their history in the top division and underachieved in doing so. You could say similar about Everton or Villa being from big cities, but they've mostly had a decent level of success.