Let them have their Super League.

Nero said:
It's all similar to the "I don't care about England" threads on here at various times over the years too. It wouldn't' surprise me if someone puts one up complaining about International Football this week.
Click to expand...
Don't get me started on the international breaks šŸ˜
 
BoroMart said:
If they do break away, they can't have their cake and eat it. It's super league or prem, not both
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on.
No Domestic cups either.
And no return trip.

If we are really serious about curbing the super concentration of football, how about an international ban on players who then played in that "Super League"?

Those clubs and players could make lots of money, but not have their cake and eat it.
Many top players would still go, but it would make them think too.

About as much chance of happening as us winning this season's FA Cup.
Greed is everything it seems.
 
Last edited:
jam69 said:
In the 70s 9 different teams won the fa cup out of the 10 finals , in the last 25 years the same 8 clubs have won every final
Click to expand...

Seems a bit strange to use "the same 8 clubs" as a pejorative when 3 of them won it for the first time in their history.

Most recently Leicester last season.

9 winners in the last 30 years (that's 10 in the unlikely event that Palace win this year).

14 in the previous 30 years.

It's not a huge difference.

Likewise with league titles.

In the last 30 years, 7 teams have won the league.
In the previous 30 years, 10 teams had won the league.

There have always been periods of dominance from clubs.
 
jam69 said:
In the 70s 9 different teams won the fa cup out of the 10 finals , in the last 25 years the same 7 clubs have won every final
Click to expand...
It's on a downward trend in terms of winner diversity.

In numbers, the different sides that have won the FA Cup each decade have gone 9,8,7,6,5 for the 70s,80s,90s,00s and 10s.

At least 3 different winners will have won it in the first 3 years of the 20s, but whoever wins it this year will likely win it a few times to keep such diversity down.
 
downsouth said:
The chances of any team doing a Leicester are now extremely remote. Can't really see any other team winning anything such is the imbalance in wealth and the hold of the top 3. This really became obvious the way Chelsea strolled through and away from home, even with distractions off the pitch. Stating the obvious but has to be accepted.
Forget about all that, though. As said, champo is far more competitive and interesting. Just enjoy the journey.. the destination probably won't be as exciting.
Click to expand...
The chances of Leicester doing a Leicester in the first place were remote tbh.

Glad they popped up again to win the FA Cup last year too.
 
TeaCider said:
Seems a bit strange to use "the same 8 clubs" as a pejorative when 3 of them won it for the first time in their history.

Most recently Leicester last season.

9 winners in the last 30 years (that's 10 in the unlikely event that Palace win this year).

14 in the previous 30 years.

It's not a huge difference.

Likewise with league titles.

In the last 30 years, 7 teams have won the league.
In the previous 30 years, 10 teams had won the league.

There have always been periods of dominance from clubs.
Click to expand...
I would argue not to look at just the winners because we all know that any individual team can win any game and a cup run is the essence of where that is best displayed. A better measure of "dominance" would be to look at the teams that make the semis or quarters. Even then, that is skewed in years when big teams play each other in early rounds or get knocked out by lesser teams like us. We beat Utd and Spurs but at no point did we ever consider ourselves as having a genuine chance of winning the competition because we knew we'd get knocked out eventually by one of the big clubs. We can still see that the teams we expected to be there have made it whether they had to beat Utd/Spurs/Us or Forest/Arsenal.

League finishes always gives a better view of reality. I reckon if you do the average position of the PL and Championship over the last 20 years there would be a group of 6 teams consolidated at the top comfortably above the rest but the same thing for the previous 20 years would have much more variation.
 
Nano said:
I would argue not to look at just the winners because we all know that any individual team can win any game and a cup run is the essence of where that is best displayed. A better measure of "dominance" would be to look at the teams that make the semis or quarters. Even then, that is skewed in years when big teams play each other in early rounds or get knocked out by lesser teams like us. We beat Utd and Spurs but at no point did we ever consider ourselves as having a genuine chance of winning the competition because we knew we'd get knocked out eventually by one of the big clubs. We can still see that the teams we expected to be there have made it whether they had to beat Utd/Spurs/Us or Forest/Arsenal.

League finishes always gives a better view of reality. I reckon if you do the average position of the PL and Championship over the last 20 years there would be a group of 6 teams consolidated at the top comfortably above the rest but the same thing for the previous 20 years would have much more variation.
Click to expand...
Agree with the PL, but think the top of the Championship could offer a fair bit more variety at the top.
 
Ipad1977 said:
Agree with the PL, but think the top of the Championship could offer a fair bit more variety at the top.
Click to expand...
I more meant just to include the top 44 as a whole because some teams have been in and out of the PL. Still just comparing the top of PL.
 
Nano said:
I more meant just to include the top 44 as a whole because some teams have been in and out of the PL. Still just comparing the top of PL.
Click to expand...
The top of the PL is the benchmark tbh.

The champo will always have a lot more variety as it's much more of a level playing field aside from parachute payments. Plus you get teams rising up AND dropping down to it, whereas at the top of the Prem they have nowhere to go except sit there in the main. Unless this Super League does get formed of course.
 
Nano said:
League finishes always gives a better view of reality. I reckon if you do the average position of the PL and Championship over the last 20 years there would be a group of 6 teams consolidated at the top comfortably above the rest but the same thing for the previous 20 years would have much more variation.
Click to expand...

In the top 6 in last 20 seasons:

Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal,
Liverpool, Tottenham, Manchester City, Everton, Aston Villa, Leicester, Newcastle, Bolton, Blackburn, Southampton, West Ham.

14 unique teams

The 20 seasons before that:

Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Leeds, Everton, Tottenham, Nottingham Forest, Blackburn, Newcastle, Ipswich,
Norwich, QPR, Southampton, West Ham,
Wimbledon, Sheffield Wednesday,
Manchester City, Crystal Palace, Derby,
Watford, Swansea, West Brom.

25 unique teams.

So you're right in as much as there was more variety, but most of those teams in the second list below Newcastle made only 1 or 2 appearances in the top 6 in 20 seasons.

It was still largely the usual suspects.
 
TeaCider said:
In the top 6 in last 20 seasons:

Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal,
Liverpool, Tottenham, Manchester City, Everton, Aston Villa, Leicester, Newcastle, Bolton, Blackburn, Southampton, West Ham.
Click to expand...

In the last 10 seasons, the top 6 spots, 52 of the times have been taken by the same teams Arsenal, Man C, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs. That leaves just 8 other opportunities in a dacade for teams to challenge for european qualification by the league in a decade. It was a little better before that but we have had the Man City and Chelsea ownerships lock out two spots, and the traditional Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs ensure everyone else feeds on scraps.

Something has to change, or competiton will just die with Newcastle buying the same european spots.
 
Ipad1977 said:
It's on a downward trend in terms of winner diversity.

In numbers, the different sides that have won the FA Cup each decade have gone 9,8,7,6,5 for the 70s,80s,90s,00s and 10s.

At least 3 different winners will have won it in the first 3 years of the 20s, but whoever wins it this year will likely win it a few times to keep such diversity down.
Click to expand...
Yeah that was the point I was trying to make.
It seems less and less likely a team similar size to ours will believe they have a chance at a trophy.
I would imagine the league Cup starts are worse still now.
 
TeaCider said:
Seems a bit strange to use "the same 8 clubs" as a pejorative when 3 of them won it for the first time in their history.

Most recently Leicester last season.

9 winners in the last 30 years (that's 10 in the unlikely event that Palace win this year).

14 in the previous 30 years.

It's not a huge difference.

Likewise with league titles.

In the last 30 years, 7 teams have won the league.
In the previous 30 years, 10 teams had won the league.

There have always been periods of dominance from clubs.
Click to expand...
Which 3 clubs won it for the first time in their history?
 
jam69 said:
Yeah that was the point I was trying to make.
It seems less and less likely a team similar size to ours will believe they have a chance at a trophy.
I would imagine the league Cup starts are worse still now.
Click to expand...
The similar league Cup stats are a bit stranger until you get to very recent history.

The record right from the 60s in terms of different winners reads; 9,6,6,9,7,6. With the 60s it can also be noted that there was a different winner each year as the competition was only founded for the 60/61 season.

Liverpool's overall dominance largely ensured that the amount of winners actually reached a joint low for the 70s and 80s, otherwise it's diversity actually remained pretty similar right up until about 6 years ago due to the blue half of Manchester's overall dominance in the competition, a bit like Liverpool in the early 80s.

With City this can doubtless be in large part attributed to their acquiring a full-squad whose second string side is stronger than the other second string sides of the remaining big 6 and the other Prem sides that field an in part reserve side in the competition, whilst still more than a match for the first team sides outside the Prem or the few lower Prem sides that take the Cup seriously which backs up the original point, but only in very recent years.
 
Ipad1977 said:
The similar league Cup stats are a bit stranger until you get to very recent history.

The record right from the 60s in terms of different winners reads; 9,6,6,9,7,6. With the 60s it can also be noted that there was a different winner each year as the competition was only founded for the 60/61 season.

Liverpool's overall dominance largely ensured that the amount of winners actually reached a joint low for the 70s and 80s, otherwise it's diversity actually remained pretty similar right up until about 6 years ago due to the blue half of Manchester's overall dominance in the competition, a bit like Liverpool in the early 80s.

With City this can doubtless be in large part attributed to their acquiring a full-squad whose second string side is stronger than the other second string sides of the remaining big 6 and the other Prem sides that field an in part reserve side in the competition, whilst still more than a match for the first team sides outside the Prem or the few lower Prem sides that take the Cup seriously which backs up the original point, but only in very recent years.
Click to expand...
City in recent times play strong sides in the League Cup. They donā€™t make 11 changes (although they of course can) even for League Cup ties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top