The ascendancy of the London teams...happenstance, or is there a reason for it?

There are 6 london clubs but only arsenal ever win anything .Manure dominated the league in recent history .Liverpool and everton( to a lesser extent) dominated the 80's .Sides like leeds and Liverpool also had good times in the 70's .
most of the trophies head to the big northern teams .
Just because there happens to be 6 london teams in the premiership ,it doesn't mean that they are the dominant force .

 

The number of London teams is generally about 5-7. In 1989/90 there were 8, but in 1979/80 only 3.

Birmingham used to generally have at least 2, and usually 3 teams in the to flight, but not over the past 15 years or so. 1983/84 was the last year with all 3. Villa and West Brom were both founder members of the Football League

Blackburn are a good example of a small town (about 100,000 - 150,000) which supports a top flight team, but the North-West clubs have always drawn huge crowds relative to the size of the town.

Liverpool is the most successful footballing town, if you consider the average number of trophies per team. Both clubs are among the traditional "big 5" (Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Arsenal & Man Utd)

 

Re: Re: The ascendancy of the London teams...happenstance, or is there a reason for it?

Aston Villa are a bigger club then Spurs. They have a bigger fanbase and more illustrious history.

 

Only eight clubs have spent more seasons in the top flight of English football than WBA. Though due to them not being there for the past sixteen years many people (including myself) have got used to them not being among the top tier.

Source: http://stats.football365.com/hist/overall/atdist.html

 

Incidentally, West Bromwich is a separate town, but shares a border with Birmingham. The Hawthorns is positioned on this border, with the East Stand actually in Birmingham.

 

I believe you see a disparity because London is simply a bigger city with more people and more money. This does not insure a team will win anything but like MLB the larger market teams have a better ability to compete.

 

But there are also far more professional teams in London than Birmingham proportional to the population.

 

Re: Re: Re: The ascendancy of the London teams...happenstance, or is there a reason for it?

They may well be, but not during the 1960's-1980's when people referred to the "Big 5".

Preston and Huddersfield have won more than Southampton and Middlesbrough, but which would you call the bigger clubs?

 

And on that note the chances of a London club representing the city would be greater.

Would that be true "proportionately". I believe a few London clubs are destined to be 2nd or 3rd division until the end of time and play accordingly. I certianly dont know the population of most English cities or how many clubs they suuport.

 

Seven-ish years ago I would have said the same thing about Fulham!

 

On the other hand Birmingham only has three professional clubs - there are no smaller clubs in the city, although Walsall and Kidderminster are nearby + Wolves who are not a small club a bit to the north. London also has Millwall, Crystal Palace, Wimbledon (possibly), Leyton Orient, QPR & Brentford.
There are also a lot of small clubs on the outskirts of Manchester.

 

When you think about it London could be considered the home of football, as I'm faily sure that no other city in the world can boast and support so many teams in the top four divisions of a national championship, which is highly competative and is very costly.

Their teams are still sh!t, everbody knows that the power house of English football is Lancashire.

 

London is the home of football. Actually, a particular area on the north side of London is The Home of Football.

 

Ah yes Tottenham

Home of Glory, glory football.

Never thought I'd see the day that An Ar$e would admit that, but fair play to you.

 

There is only one club in London.

 

And it's Arsenal!

 

RESPECT!! Stalybridge Celtic! Well done,mate,I wish more people were proud to support their local team! I live in Burnage,so luckily Manchester City are my local team,but I've got a mind to take the 20 minute trip to watch Stalybridge now,when the blue-shirted heroes aren't playing...may see you thee!!

 

That must be fun come tax time.

 

If anything the number of London teams hurts their chances at winning the league, because so many games are derby matches. Arsenal is the only London club to have won the league since the late sixties (when Sp**s won it). This season alone each London team will have 10 derby matches out of 38 for the season or 1/4 of their games. Compare to Liverpool or Manchester United who only have 2 each... Not only that but last season London clubs finished 1, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14; which means those derbys are against relatively tough competition.

 

True, but does a match between Fulham and Charlton have the same edge as Man.Uv Liverpool, OR Man.Uv Leeds ?

It would appear to me, and I'm probably wrong, that only the match involving Spurs, Arsenal and Chelsea really produce the classic derby confrontations.

 

Fixed your post.

 

I've been over that way myself, living not too far down the road. Sadly Stalybridge won though .

 

Actually, yes they do. Charlton had a great record last season against London opposition, I believe they only lost once to another London club IIRC. While one could argue that the quality of player is less at a Fulham v. Charlton match, I would not argue that it has less edge than a Man Utd v. Liverpool.