Spurs and Everton: The Race for 4th -- The Other Teams Thread

If Man U don't equalize in the 90th, I'll be shocked.

Edit: Told you.

RVP has actually gotten better this season.

 

I'll take the replay. Let them play three times a week reliant on RvP's tissue-like tendons. When discussing hookers or RvP, one should remember that, just because they are on their feet for periods of time, you can always be sure they will soon be on their backs.

 

He carried us for the entirety of last season. Letting him go was the worst transfer decision we've made in recent history. Worse than Gervinho.

 

He hasn't been injured for any length of time for more than two years.

 

And what hooker has spent 2 years on her back?

 

a rich one?

 

All my childish instincts were saying "Your MOM"...luckily im more mature than that

 

I was leaning towards a sore one.

 

i made a major lulz when Fergie called newcastle a small club.

despite having a large fan base, they have practically zero tradition. if anything, a large fan base is their major claim to big club status

 

by tradition i presume you mean success?
imo fanbase is about 80% of my personal classification of a "big club".

 

to me, it's primarily about tradition. this is what gives a club its name/stature.

 

they've won as many league titles as chelsea *shrug*

 

Yeah, but what's your conception of tradition? Most English clubs have tradition (sans MK Dons, I guess).

 

an extended history of winning trophies, and noteworthy feats (,e.g. our Chapman era, "spurs" double, Liverpool's Shankly era, Fergie's Treble, our Invincibles, etc.)

 

Yet Chelsea has more trophies overall, by a large margin.

 

they won the league 3 out of 4 years on the trot.

 

And? Newcastle's record of winning things is very scant.

 

the margin is not ridiculously larger, though some are "better" trophies.
does this make chelsea a bigger club now, when just 20 years ago they had a 3/4ers empty small ground full of rabid racists and newcastle always had a good crowd, even in their darkest days?
newcastle's success isn't that scant. they're equal 7th overall in both fa cup wins and league titles. where does your line between "big" and "not big" cut off?

you wanted to know if they had a period of sustained success.......there it is. (actually it was 3 wins in 5 years, not 4). they were also beaten fa cup finalists 3 times around that period.

 

Newcastle > Chelsea. (sorry to go the bigman route)

Talking about big clubs, I finally saw the club world cup final between Corinthians and chelski. Corinthians had I don't know, (looked to me) like 40,000 fans supporting them in Tokyo. 100 chavs made the trek from London. Corinthians is a big club.

 

Well, they have had Rivelino, Socrates, Garrincha, Edmundo, Dunga, Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Deco, Tevez and Mascherano among others play for them, so it's not too shabby.

 

Oh yes, I am a bit familiar with their (and other south american clubs) history and players. I wanted to point out that astounding number since fanbase came up in the discussion. Travel to Tokyo is almost 2x as far from Sao Paolo as London also. That's an expensive ticket,

 

I don't dispute that they're a big club. just not that big in comparative terms.

My own subjective ranking, so to speak, are high order big clubs (support base/tradition/finance) and low order ones (either support base, tradition and finance but not all). United, Liverpool, us, "Spurs", Everton and Villa are the high order English clubs. Low order ones are Newcastle, Chelsea, City, Leeds and Sunderland.

 

spurs bigger than newcastle, or even sunderland? not sure about that one......

 

Some people just don't know when to quit.