Brooking was OK, but not a true great. Spent a fair bit of time playing second division footie for West Ham.
--
Yes, after you got promoted back from Div2 to Div1.
If this really was The Real Deal concerning football history it would mention teans like The Wanderers, Royal Engineers, and Corinthians; it would tell of the dominance teams such as Sunderland and Bolton Wanderers once had, and mention the feats of Blackburn, Wolves, Leeds, Spurs and Cardiff etc.
English football history is full of the tales of many campaigns; when you have to stoop to statistics the history has been lost!!!
"when you have to stoop to statistics the history has been lost!!!"
History is never lost. By definition.
Seldom mentioned perhaps, but that is a different matter.
Which is why a per decade top flight stat breakdown is of interest.
Think of all the teams seldom mentioned now, who would appear right up there. And see how many of the teams who everyone may think is "great" / "big" nowadays, couldn't even be seen with a microscope.
Lambsy,
I absolutely agree with you that statistics can only relay a fraction of the whole history of our beautiful game.
This table is just a reflection of some of that history and illustrates that there is so more to our game than just the premier league era which has been dominated by Man Utd.
As a City fan I'm tired of being preached to numerous Man Utd 'followers' that City have no 'history' and Utd are, and have always been, the best team in England.
This table clearly shows otherwise and places Utd's recent dominance into some perspective in the 120 years of our game.
It's obvious that Utd have been dominant in the last 20 years and reasonably successful before that too but there are several other teams who have also enjoyed a place in the limelight over a very long period of time and that's a fact that many of Utd's younger fans and 100s of millions of 'followers' seem to find hard to understand.
RDBD,
I'm working on that breakdown and it should be ready in a few weeks time (lots of data to crunch and work always gets in the way!)
Bell :
Stats just give a pattern.
There are a few clubs who had their "when we were King" periods who no longer do.
A few (like the G00ns, Villa etc) have endured at the top flight more or less untouched.
Re number-crunching.
Ask the Admins, I think that is their day job (the slackers) .
"It's obvious that Utd have been dominant in the last 20 years and reasonably successful before that too but there are several other teams who have also enjoyed a place in the limelight over a very long period of time and that's a fact that many of Utd's younger fans and 100s of millions of 'followers' seem to find hard to understand."
And the Poool before that.
Football history, as in general, teaches us that empires come and go.
On that note, very interesting to see if the stats show that 20 yrs is a trend for empire lifetimes across the history of the football league.
RDBD,
yes it should turn up some interesting patterns.
My gut feel is that a 20 year domination is unprecedented due to the massive revenue disparity that has dominated the top flight competition since the formation of the PL.
Here's an interesting quote from the fabulous (if a bit geeky) book called - Pay As You Play: The True Price of Success in the Premier League Era.
"Four clubs have won the Premier League title: United on 11 occasions, Arsenal and Chelsea three times each, and Blackburn once. But to win the title for the ‘first’ time – meaning after a significant break (and on average it was approximately 40 years since the pre-Premier League titles of these clubs) – three of those four ‘first timers’ had the most expensive £XI (Man United, Blackburn and Chelsea), and the other, Arsenal, wasn’t far behind at 94%. So over those four seasons, the average was 98.5%. While this is a small sample size, it seems to support the accepted wisdom that to win a title for the first time is the hardest; not least, in psychological terms, when the pressure really starts to mount. It seems that to overcome this hurdle an even more expensive team is required; more or less the most expensive in the land."
That book was published in 2010 so doesn't mention City's title last season which was 44 years since City's last - which makes their quote a spookily prescient "...on average it was approximately 40 years since the pre-Premier League titles of these clubs"
comment by Bell-CTID (U3991) posted 54 minutes ago
"As a City fan I'm tired of being preached to numerous Man Utd 'followers' that City have no 'history' and Utd are, and have always been, the best team in England."
..............................................................................................
Sound like a bunch of school kids there Belly. Teams can't create history on their own; it's all interactive. Those who know their history will know that while United won the European Cup in 1968 it was City who pipped them to the title on the last day of the season. Now that's history, that's a turn of events, not who's the bestest club!
As a United fan I've been fortunate enough to find out that success is more fulfilling when one has experienced failures; therefore my enjoyment has been enhanced by the triumphs of others from time to time; and that's all part of the rich history which the football fan experience is built upon!
comment by Lucas The Destroyer - Wolf Pack (U11770) posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
"Cardiff isn't in England"
..............................................................................................
Are you trying to be clever, pedantic, or just damn dumb?!
Is the English Football Museum still in Preston?
Lambsy,
thanks - that's a fine balanced view. Like most things in life you have to have experienced the heartaches to appreciate the highs - and you've been through plenty of both supporting Utd from the 70s.
I certainly don't begrudge Utd their 'recent' success and a few more balanced views of Utd fans lke yourself are very welcome.
Bell :
The Poool empire lasted about 20 yrs too (70s to 1991) .
One interesting you see is that the "Sky 4" has killed top 4 competition. Last season was probably the best in ages for the fight all top 4 places.
When you look at the league tables in the 80s, even though you had the Poool empire, twas not the same old clubs as shoe-ins for the other 3 places every yr. We need some of that again.
Yeah may be because there were not any incentives to finish in top4. Thanks to them English teams were banned. From Europe as well
Bell, I don't begrudge City winning the title either. Oh yes it hurt but not because it was our local rivals, but because it wasn't United and it had been so close. To have something ripped from one's grasp like that makes it worse.
But I look on the bright side, a bunch of different fans have been able experience the joy I've had over the years, I can imagine how deliriously happy they must have been on that closing day of the season, and how they've felt since, and I'm happy for them, though I could do without hearing snippets of the commentary on radio and TV all the time. Ouch!
Lambsy,
I know exactly what you mean.
The year before all I ever saw on the TV was that ****ing Rooney overhead kick - drove me to distraction!
RDBD,
good point about Liverpool in the 70s & 80s - we'll let the data show how dominant they were then versus how dominant Utd have been in the PL years.
As for (un)predictablility of the 'also rans', there's been some study of the reason why there's been a near-monopoly by the Sky4 for a good part of the PL (thankfully now being challenged) and I'm afraid it's down to money again.
The book I referred to above, "Pay As You Play: The True Price of Success in the Premier League Era" shows resoundingly using financial data (1st XI and squad costs) and other stats that the spending of the old Sky4 was a very high multiple compared with the spending of the rest of the PL clubs.
For example (and very roughly), if the cost of your starting 1st XI averaged over a season is around £27m then you'll get around 39 pts
If it's around £37m then you'll get around 49 pts
£43m then about 59 pts
£76m then about 69 pts
£103m then about 79 pts
£142m then about 89 pts
£180+ then 90+ points
There are of course exceptions to this generality (two obvious examples being Allerdyce who has managed clubs to PL safety several times with much cheaper 1st XIs and Newcastle who have spent more than these averages and not achieved the points) but in the main, that money buys you those points!
Those are 2010 figures and the £ per pts is even higher now.
Sign in if you want to comment
English football history (the real deal)
Page 5 of 5
posted on 12/9/12
Brooking was OK, but not a true great. Spent a fair bit of time playing second division footie for West Ham.
--
Yes, after you got promoted back from Div2 to Div1.
posted on 13/9/12
If this really was The Real Deal concerning football history it would mention teans like The Wanderers, Royal Engineers, and Corinthians; it would tell of the dominance teams such as Sunderland and Bolton Wanderers once had, and mention the feats of Blackburn, Wolves, Leeds, Spurs and Cardiff etc.
English football history is full of the tales of many campaigns; when you have to stoop to statistics the history has been lost!!!
posted on 13/9/12
"when you have to stoop to statistics the history has been lost!!!"
History is never lost. By definition.
Seldom mentioned perhaps, but that is a different matter.
Which is why a per decade top flight stat breakdown is of interest.
Think of all the teams seldom mentioned now, who would appear right up there. And see how many of the teams who everyone may think is "great" / "big" nowadays, couldn't even be seen with a microscope.
posted on 13/9/12
Lambsy,
I absolutely agree with you that statistics can only relay a fraction of the whole history of our beautiful game.
This table is just a reflection of some of that history and illustrates that there is so more to our game than just the premier league era which has been dominated by Man Utd.
As a City fan I'm tired of being preached to numerous Man Utd 'followers' that City have no 'history' and Utd are, and have always been, the best team in England.
This table clearly shows otherwise and places Utd's recent dominance into some perspective in the 120 years of our game.
It's obvious that Utd have been dominant in the last 20 years and reasonably successful before that too but there are several other teams who have also enjoyed a place in the limelight over a very long period of time and that's a fact that many of Utd's younger fans and 100s of millions of 'followers' seem to find hard to understand.
posted on 13/9/12
RDBD,
I'm working on that breakdown and it should be ready in a few weeks time (lots of data to crunch and work always gets in the way!)
posted on 13/9/12
Cardiff isn't in England
posted on 13/9/12
Bell :
Stats just give a pattern.
There are a few clubs who had their "when we were King" periods who no longer do.
A few (like the G00ns, Villa etc) have endured at the top flight more or less untouched.
Re number-crunching.
Ask the Admins, I think that is their day job (the slackers) .
posted on 13/9/12
"It's obvious that Utd have been dominant in the last 20 years and reasonably successful before that too but there are several other teams who have also enjoyed a place in the limelight over a very long period of time and that's a fact that many of Utd's younger fans and 100s of millions of 'followers' seem to find hard to understand."
And the Poool before that.
Football history, as in general, teaches us that empires come and go.
On that note, very interesting to see if the stats show that 20 yrs is a trend for empire lifetimes across the history of the football league.
posted on 13/9/12
RDBD,
yes it should turn up some interesting patterns.
My gut feel is that a 20 year domination is unprecedented due to the massive revenue disparity that has dominated the top flight competition since the formation of the PL.
Here's an interesting quote from the fabulous (if a bit geeky) book called - Pay As You Play: The True Price of Success in the Premier League Era.
"Four clubs have won the Premier League title: United on 11 occasions, Arsenal and Chelsea three times each, and Blackburn once. But to win the title for the ‘first’ time – meaning after a significant break (and on average it was approximately 40 years since the pre-Premier League titles of these clubs) – three of those four ‘first timers’ had the most expensive £XI (Man United, Blackburn and Chelsea), and the other, Arsenal, wasn’t far behind at 94%. So over those four seasons, the average was 98.5%. While this is a small sample size, it seems to support the accepted wisdom that to win a title for the first time is the hardest; not least, in psychological terms, when the pressure really starts to mount. It seems that to overcome this hurdle an even more expensive team is required; more or less the most expensive in the land."
That book was published in 2010 so doesn't mention City's title last season which was 44 years since City's last - which makes their quote a spookily prescient "...on average it was approximately 40 years since the pre-Premier League titles of these clubs"
posted on 13/9/12
comment by Bell-CTID (U3991) posted 54 minutes ago
"As a City fan I'm tired of being preached to numerous Man Utd 'followers' that City have no 'history' and Utd are, and have always been, the best team in England."
..............................................................................................
Sound like a bunch of school kids there Belly. Teams can't create history on their own; it's all interactive. Those who know their history will know that while United won the European Cup in 1968 it was City who pipped them to the title on the last day of the season. Now that's history, that's a turn of events, not who's the bestest club!
As a United fan I've been fortunate enough to find out that success is more fulfilling when one has experienced failures; therefore my enjoyment has been enhanced by the triumphs of others from time to time; and that's all part of the rich history which the football fan experience is built upon!
posted on 13/9/12
comment by Lucas The Destroyer - Wolf Pack (U11770) posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
"Cardiff isn't in England"
..............................................................................................
Are you trying to be clever, pedantic, or just damn dumb?!
posted on 13/9/12
Is the English Football Museum still in Preston?
posted on 13/9/12
Lambsy,
thanks - that's a fine balanced view. Like most things in life you have to have experienced the heartaches to appreciate the highs - and you've been through plenty of both supporting Utd from the 70s.
I certainly don't begrudge Utd their 'recent' success and a few more balanced views of Utd fans lke yourself are very welcome.
posted on 13/9/12
Bell :
The Poool empire lasted about 20 yrs too (70s to 1991) .
One interesting you see is that the "Sky 4" has killed top 4 competition. Last season was probably the best in ages for the fight all top 4 places.
When you look at the league tables in the 80s, even though you had the Poool empire, twas not the same old clubs as shoe-ins for the other 3 places every yr. We need some of that again.
posted on 13/9/12
Yeah may be because there were not any incentives to finish in top4. Thanks to them English teams were banned. From Europe as well
posted on 13/9/12
Bell, I don't begrudge City winning the title either. Oh yes it hurt but not because it was our local rivals, but because it wasn't United and it had been so close. To have something ripped from one's grasp like that makes it worse.
But I look on the bright side, a bunch of different fans have been able experience the joy I've had over the years, I can imagine how deliriously happy they must have been on that closing day of the season, and how they've felt since, and I'm happy for them, though I could do without hearing snippets of the commentary on radio and TV all the time. Ouch!
posted on 13/9/12
Lambsy,
I know exactly what you mean.
The year before all I ever saw on the TV was that ****ing Rooney overhead kick - drove me to distraction!
posted on 13/9/12
RDBD,
good point about Liverpool in the 70s & 80s - we'll let the data show how dominant they were then versus how dominant Utd have been in the PL years.
As for (un)predictablility of the 'also rans', there's been some study of the reason why there's been a near-monopoly by the Sky4 for a good part of the PL (thankfully now being challenged) and I'm afraid it's down to money again.
The book I referred to above, "Pay As You Play: The True Price of Success in the Premier League Era" shows resoundingly using financial data (1st XI and squad costs) and other stats that the spending of the old Sky4 was a very high multiple compared with the spending of the rest of the PL clubs.
For example (and very roughly), if the cost of your starting 1st XI averaged over a season is around £27m then you'll get around 39 pts
If it's around £37m then you'll get around 49 pts
£43m then about 59 pts
£76m then about 69 pts
£103m then about 79 pts
£142m then about 89 pts
£180+ then 90+ points
There are of course exceptions to this generality (two obvious examples being Allerdyce who has managed clubs to PL safety several times with much cheaper 1st XIs and Newcastle who have spent more than these averages and not achieved the points) but in the main, that money buys you those points!
Those are 2010 figures and the £ per pts is even higher now.
posted on 13/9/12
my bad, £180m+
Page 5 of 5