Ledley
So have Chelsea
As I said it doesn't matter what you've won, winning does not define history.
I'm sure Huddersfield and Leeds would happily trade one of their titles to be in the PL now
Ensil
You didn't dominate that decade, all the London teams were pretty much on par, end of
comment by Bubba's Bubbles™ - Ramires' Braces (U7929)
posted 4 minutes ago
There is a difference between winning things and being dominant.
All of my comments are in response to your statement "Spurs have a hugely loyal following as well, they have been carp for most of their history and lived in the shadow of the other London clubs for all decades of their history bar the 80s."
In the 60's Spurs were the dominant London club - the most successful London club and all the other London clubs were in Spurs' shadow and not as you stated Spurs being in theirs.
I have prove that you were incorrect, again, now be a man and admit it for once.
comment by Bubba's Bubbles™ - Ramires' Braces (U7929)
posted 20 seconds ago
You didn't dominate that decade, all the London teams were pretty much on par, end of
Chelsea relegated, 1 title and 1 cup
Note - no other London club were relegated so hardly "on par"
Chelsea, Spurs and Wham win cups Arsenal don't even make a final - hardly "on par"
Arsenal 0 cups and below Spurs every season bar 1, hardly "on par"
Both Spurs and Wham win European cups - Chelsea could have but didn't - hardly "on par".
Jeez you're as stupid here as you were on the other 606
Chelsea, Spurs and Wham win cups Arsenal don't even make a final - hardly "on par"
--------------
'68 and '69 league cup finals..
Now, you be a man and admit it for once.
Dominant
Most important, powerful, or influential: "they are now in an even more dominant position in the market"
Spurs Form over Main London rivals from 1960-1969:
Chelsea:
Wins: 10
Losses: 8
West Ham
Wins: 9
Losses: 9
Arsenal
Wins: 11
Losses: 6
As I said you were by no means dominant over the other London clubs
Losses: 7
Arsenal
Apologies
I ignored Chelsea's league cup win in 1965.
I also ignored Arsenals 2 league cup final defeats
So those cup stats are now:
2 FA Cups and a Cup Winners Cup for Spurs
1 FA Cup and a Cup Winners Cup for Wham
1 FA Cup and 1 League Cup for Chelsea
I also ought to make mention of Chelsea's 2nd place finish in the 2nd division too.
And no cups for the goons
comment by Bubba's Bubbles™ - Ramires' Braces (U7929)
"Spurs have a hugely loyal following as well, they have been carp for most of their history and lived in the shadow of the other London clubs for all decades of their history bar the 80s."
And the 60's as proven.
But Ensil that doesn't make you dominant, there is a big difference between dominating and simply being slightly better.
Since 2005 for instance, Chelsea have been head and shoulders better than all of the other London clubs in every aspect, that is irrefutable.
The same could be argued for Arsenal from 97 up until that point. Even though Chelsea won more than them in 97 itself and 2000
I repeat - all of my comments were in response to "During that decade no other London club won the league - my comment was in response to that written by Bubbles where he wrongly stated that Spurs were only the better London side in the 80's."
I have proven the above statement to be incorrect and it is my opinion that Spurs were the dominant London side in the 60's.
That you might disagree with my use of the word dominant is by the by however I have successfully proven that spurs were under no London club's shadow in the 60's.
Ensil I agree with you in that you weren't under the shadow of any other London club in the 60s. I just think the 60s in general was one of those decades where there were so many big clubs competing.
Generally speaking London clubs tend not to dominate and have short periods of success at a time.
We will have to agree to disagree for the time being
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Bubba's Bubbles™ - Ramires' Braces (U7929)
posted 2 minutes ago
I agree with you in that you weren't under the shadow of any other London club in the 60s. I just think the 60s in general was one of those decades where there were so many big clubs competing.
Thank you.
The 60's was a decade where no club really dominated the league;
Spurs
Ipswich
Everton
Liverpool
United
Liverpool
United
City
Leeds
Everton
7 different winners, 3 of which won it twice
FA Cup
Spurs
Spurs
United
Wham
Liverpool
Everton
Spurs
WBA
City
Chelsea
7 different winners - 1 winning it 3 times 4 of those that won it also won the league.
League Cup
Villa
Norwich
Birmingham
Leicester
Chelsea
WBA
QPR
Leeds
Swindon
City
10 different winners
Maybe that's why to many the 60's were such a great decade - no dominant club - honours being distributed evenly - no big 4 (or 5) - relegated clubs bouncing back to win the league, wage caps - a decade when the purity of football existed and before money started to ruin the game.
comment by DC5 (U10317)
-----------------------
Isnt it strange that we have no history, you are obsessed with the 60s and we were the only club during that decade to win the League, The FA Cup, The League Cup and a trophy in Europe as well.
In an attempt to stay on topic and answer the OP's WUM question:
No
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
How embarrassed will you be in your first CL group season, after Sugga Daddy FC giving you all that cash, if you don't :
1. top your group
2.score about 3 goals per game (home and away)
3. beat the current CL champions at least once
Anyway, Thursdays on Channel 5.
Our 3rd/kids team will have a laugh playing bib boy et al in the Europa League.
The RDBD
Is it possible to come across as more bitter than this character?
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
posted 35 minutes ago
The RDBD
Is it possible to come across as more bitter than this character?
Well you seem to be doing a good of proving that it is.
comment by ManCitizens. Only here cos of City (U1216)
posted 9 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by DC5 (U10317)
-----------------------
Isnt it strange that we have no history, you are obsessed with the 60s and we were the only club during that decade to win the League, The FA Cup, The League Cup and a trophy in Europe as well.
You missed out being relegated and only finishing runners up in the 2nd division
How embarrassed will you be in your first CL group season, after Sugga Daddy FC giving you all that cash, if you don't :
1. top your group
2.score about 3 goals per game (home and away)
3. beat the current CL champions at least once
Anyway, Thursdays on Channel 5.
Our 3rd/kids team will have a laugh playing bib boy et al in the Europa League.
<facepalmsmiley>
Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
No
DC5
How you can suggest city fans are bitter,when we are in the strongest position weve ever been,is a mystery.All youve done by dragging up stats from 60 year old history is embarrass yourself,i was expecting you to either make yourself scarce or come on to apologise after yesterday once you had slept on it and realised that you had in fact been a tool
Hope this helps
DC5 :
He can give it, but he cannot take it.
Always the sign of a poor WUM wannabee.
He asked a "genuine" question. So did I.
His one got a reply from me. My one made him go .
Sign in if you want to comment
Tottenham fans,will you be supporting city?
Page 5 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 8/9/11
Ledley
So have Chelsea
As I said it doesn't matter what you've won, winning does not define history.
I'm sure Huddersfield and Leeds would happily trade one of their titles to be in the PL now
posted on 8/9/11
Ensil
You didn't dominate that decade, all the London teams were pretty much on par, end of
posted on 8/9/11
comment by Bubba's Bubbles™ - Ramires' Braces (U7929)
posted 4 minutes ago
There is a difference between winning things and being dominant.
All of my comments are in response to your statement "Spurs have a hugely loyal following as well, they have been carp for most of their history and lived in the shadow of the other London clubs for all decades of their history bar the 80s."
In the 60's Spurs were the dominant London club - the most successful London club and all the other London clubs were in Spurs' shadow and not as you stated Spurs being in theirs.
I have prove that you were incorrect, again, now be a man and admit it for once.
posted on 8/9/11
comment by Bubba's Bubbles™ - Ramires' Braces (U7929)
posted 20 seconds ago
You didn't dominate that decade, all the London teams were pretty much on par, end of
Chelsea relegated, 1 title and 1 cup
Note - no other London club were relegated so hardly "on par"
Chelsea, Spurs and Wham win cups Arsenal don't even make a final - hardly "on par"
Arsenal 0 cups and below Spurs every season bar 1, hardly "on par"
Both Spurs and Wham win European cups - Chelsea could have but didn't - hardly "on par".
Jeez you're as stupid here as you were on the other 606
posted on 8/9/11
Chelsea, Spurs and Wham win cups Arsenal don't even make a final - hardly "on par"
--------------
'68 and '69 league cup finals..
Now, you be a man and admit it for once.
posted on 8/9/11
Where are you Ensil?
posted on 8/9/11
Dominant
Most important, powerful, or influential: "they are now in an even more dominant position in the market"
Spurs Form over Main London rivals from 1960-1969:
Chelsea:
Wins: 10
Losses: 8
West Ham
Wins: 9
Losses: 9
Arsenal
Wins: 11
Losses: 6
As I said you were by no means dominant over the other London clubs
Losses: 7
Arsenal
posted on 8/9/11
Apologies
I ignored Chelsea's league cup win in 1965.
I also ignored Arsenals 2 league cup final defeats
So those cup stats are now:
2 FA Cups and a Cup Winners Cup for Spurs
1 FA Cup and a Cup Winners Cup for Wham
1 FA Cup and 1 League Cup for Chelsea
I also ought to make mention of Chelsea's 2nd place finish in the 2nd division too.
And no cups for the goons
posted on 8/9/11
comment by Bubba's Bubbles™ - Ramires' Braces (U7929)
"Spurs have a hugely loyal following as well, they have been carp for most of their history and lived in the shadow of the other London clubs for all decades of their history bar the 80s."
And the 60's as proven.
posted on 8/9/11
But Ensil that doesn't make you dominant, there is a big difference between dominating and simply being slightly better.
Since 2005 for instance, Chelsea have been head and shoulders better than all of the other London clubs in every aspect, that is irrefutable.
The same could be argued for Arsenal from 97 up until that point. Even though Chelsea won more than them in 97 itself and 2000
posted on 8/9/11
I repeat - all of my comments were in response to "During that decade no other London club won the league - my comment was in response to that written by Bubbles where he wrongly stated that Spurs were only the better London side in the 80's."
I have proven the above statement to be incorrect and it is my opinion that Spurs were the dominant London side in the 60's.
That you might disagree with my use of the word dominant is by the by however I have successfully proven that spurs were under no London club's shadow in the 60's.
posted on 8/9/11
Ensil I agree with you in that you weren't under the shadow of any other London club in the 60s. I just think the 60s in general was one of those decades where there were so many big clubs competing.
Generally speaking London clubs tend not to dominate and have short periods of success at a time.
We will have to agree to disagree for the time being
posted on 8/9/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/9/11
comment by Bubba's Bubbles™ - Ramires' Braces (U7929)
posted 2 minutes ago
I agree with you in that you weren't under the shadow of any other London club in the 60s. I just think the 60s in general was one of those decades where there were so many big clubs competing.
Thank you.
The 60's was a decade where no club really dominated the league;
Spurs
Ipswich
Everton
Liverpool
United
Liverpool
United
City
Leeds
Everton
7 different winners, 3 of which won it twice
FA Cup
Spurs
Spurs
United
Wham
Liverpool
Everton
Spurs
WBA
City
Chelsea
7 different winners - 1 winning it 3 times 4 of those that won it also won the league.
League Cup
Villa
Norwich
Birmingham
Leicester
Chelsea
WBA
QPR
Leeds
Swindon
City
10 different winners
Maybe that's why to many the 60's were such a great decade - no dominant club - honours being distributed evenly - no big 4 (or 5) - relegated clubs bouncing back to win the league, wage caps - a decade when the purity of football existed and before money started to ruin the game.
posted on 8/9/11
comment by DC5 (U10317)
-----------------------
Isnt it strange that we have no history, you are obsessed with the 60s and we were the only club during that decade to win the League, The FA Cup, The League Cup and a trophy in Europe as well.
posted on 8/9/11
In an attempt to stay on topic and answer the OP's WUM question:
No
posted on 9/9/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/9/11
How embarrassed will you be in your first CL group season, after Sugga Daddy FC giving you all that cash, if you don't :
1. top your group
2.score about 3 goals per game (home and away)
3. beat the current CL champions at least once
Anyway, Thursdays on Channel 5.
Our 3rd/kids team will have a laugh playing bib boy et al in the Europa League.
posted on 9/9/11
The RDBD
Is it possible to come across as more bitter than this character?
posted on 9/9/11
comment by Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
posted 35 minutes ago
The RDBD
Is it possible to come across as more bitter than this character?
Well you seem to be doing a good of proving that it is.
posted on 9/9/11
comment by ManCitizens. Only here cos of City (U1216)
posted 9 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by DC5 (U10317)
-----------------------
Isnt it strange that we have no history, you are obsessed with the 60s and we were the only club during that decade to win the League, The FA Cup, The League Cup and a trophy in Europe as well.
You missed out being relegated and only finishing runners up in the 2nd division
posted on 9/9/11
How embarrassed will you be in your first CL group season, after Sugga Daddy FC giving you all that cash, if you don't :
1. top your group
2.score about 3 goals per game (home and away)
3. beat the current CL champions at least once
Anyway, Thursdays on Channel 5.
Our 3rd/kids team will have a laugh playing bib boy et al in the Europa League.
<facepalmsmiley>
posted on 9/9/11
Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
No
posted on 9/9/11
DC5
How you can suggest city fans are bitter,when we are in the strongest position weve ever been,is a mystery.All youve done by dragging up stats from 60 year old history is embarrass yourself,i was expecting you to either make yourself scarce or come on to apologise after yesterday once you had slept on it and realised that you had in fact been a tool
Hope this helps
posted on 9/9/11
DC5 :
He can give it, but he cannot take it.
Always the sign of a poor WUM wannabee.
He asked a "genuine" question. So did I.
His one got a reply from me. My one made him go .
Page 5 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9