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

Congratulations, you have witnessed a miracle.

 

I stand corrected, cheers!

 

Not with the way we played

 

You are wrong, go to a London derby at Upton Park

 

There's a much simpler answer than all the above stuff, superdave - I'm not sure of the population of Birmingham but London has a least 3 times and possibly 5 times it's population and around 7 times that of Manchester.

The reason that London clubs have become more prominent recently is that Birmingham is basically an industrial/engineering city and Manchester a textile city whereas London is a financial/business city. The first two have been hard hit by globilisation and are no longer as prosperous as they were while London's prosperity has soared. That's reflected in the total support available for the clubs and consequently their success.

 

Hmmm. That's a bit too simple. For a start, your industrial profiles of the areas is about 80 years out of date. This is all for another thread, of course, but this might be of interest.

There is no ascendancy of London teams. Arsenal have been there or thereabouts for about five years now and will not be fully "there" until they win multiple titles, Chelsea are a laughing stock, West Ham are the plucky overachievers everyone likes and Spurs are ... well, they're Spurs, aren't they? They're all sat there waiting for another year to end in '1'.

Meanwhile, three of the four English Champions League entrants this year come from the north. The most credible alternative member of that little club is Leeds, also, of course, from the north. Almost the entire England team plays for clubs based in the North and unless Arsenal repeat their form of last season, the Champion of England will be from the north this season.

 

You could also say the same about Arsenal v Man. U or Arsenal v Leeds. These games have an edge to them too, just to go on top of all the derby matches we have to play.

I do agree with Matt, there is no ascendancy of London teams. I suppose with so many teams in the capital, there will always be a few in the top flight. It's just that over the past couple of seasons there's more than normal.

 

Of the London teams in top flight Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea & West Ham are normally there. Fulham have been bankrolled by a very rich owner. Charlton being there is a big achievement, but they are there through good management rather than supporter lead financial muscle. Chelsea have become a bigger club in the last 10 years with a fan base that's almost doubled and ticket prices that have risen to frightening levels, as have their debts and they could face a rough future. On the other hand Spurs have dropped away from a position as being one of the so-called "big five" glamour clubs to being also-rans. A lot of the bigger non-London clubs outside the top flight (Derby, Leicester, Nottm Forest, Sheff Weds etc) are there through financial/management failures rather than any local economic downturn.

 

No, if you look at the teams, then you realise that Fulham are there because of Al-Fayed's money. When he gets bored of pouring it down a bottomless pit, they'll slide back down as they have no real fan base. Charlton are punching above their weight and in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before they are relegated.

So Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea are the big London teams who should always be in the top-flight unless something goes really wrong. West Ham are a mid-table team at best who are just too good to go down, but not good enough to make an impression at the top.

 

I don't think anything going on in the Premier League regarding London clubs can be regarded as ascendancy until they start winning more titles - or, for that matter, until a London team besides Arsenal win the title.

Consider - in the 103 year history of the league, only 21 titles have gone to a club south of the Midlands, and 12 of those were won by Arsenal. In fact, the last southern club to win the league besides the Gunners was Nottingham Forest in 1978. That's hardly an indication of ascendancy.

 

...especially as Nottingham Forest aren't in the south.

 

My knowledge of English geography isn't perfect. In that case, it would be Spurs in 1961.

 

114 year history.

Or am i missing something?

 

I wasn't counting the league setup during both World Wars.

 

Ah, ok.

I was missing something then.

 

>There is no ascendancy of London teams. Arsenal have been there or thereabouts for about five years now and will not be fully "there" until they win multiple titles,

Superdave was clearly referring to the teams in the EPL and not to the top three or four teams vying for the Premiership title. Yours is a very narrow and short term focus on ascendancy. There is no question that London's representation of teams in the EPL is higher than in the past and that the midlands and the north have fallen away in historical terms though happily there are now signs of recovery particularly in the north east.

As for my description of the economic deprivation of these midland and northern towns being inaccurate you should drive along the M6 and M62 and call off at some of the towns in and around Birmingham and Manchester and you'll quickly see that the economic consequences of the demise of their industries is far from being 80 years in the past. As a Mancunian myself I certainly know that Manchester is rising from the ashes but it still has a long way to go to catch up with a London that has never suffered any loss of economic importance and that London is still a very much more affluent place than anything further north. That individual clubs, Liverpool in the 80s and Man Utd in the 90s may well have benefitted from this economic deprivation may well be true as football provided a relief from depression, but that the areas as a whole have not I think is beyond dispute.

But with teams like Blackburn, Bolton, Sunderland, Newcastle, Middlesbrough now coming back to former glories we may have now seen the end of this shift to the south.

 

I just disagree that there has been a shift to the south. What has the south done in football ... erm ... ever? OK, so London has a larger number of professional clubs than any other city in the UK - so what? It's by far the largest city in the country, you'd be worried if they DIDN'T have a big number of professional clubs. Likewise, the percentage of those clubs that have reached the top division will fluctuate, but if we count that as a factor in "ascendancy" then we really are damning the south with faint praise. "Congratulations - two teams that would not count amongst most people's idea of 'a big club' have made an appearance in the EPL".

Wow.

Superdave's original question has been answered, so I think we need to move along from the idea that "ascendancy" is not synonimous with actual achievement. Mere presence in the league does not represent ascendancy. The south has punched WAY below it's weight for more or less the entirety of the game's history in this country. Today that fact is no less real than at any other time in the last 130 years.

As others have said, it is only a matter of time before Fulham return to their natural habitat in the toilet of football and Charlton, Gawd luvvem, will need to continue quickstepping their way through the reality of the football world ad infimitum if they hope life isn't going to catch up with them eventually.

There is no ascendancy of London teams.

 

The standard view of any manager of a London team is that their lack of success relative to the North is down to the number of derbies played in a season. The more London clubs in the same division, the higher the number of these draining, emotionally charged occasions.

The logic goes that whereas, for instance, Liverpool only have Everton and United in that category of opponent, Arsenal will have to contend with Spurs, Chelsea, West Ham and Charlton, on top of their trips north to play biggest rivals Liverpool and United.

Personally, I think it is bollocks, because the champion or top championship contender will never face anything other than a fully “up-for-it” opponent. As witnessed by the fact that, for instance, White Hart Lane will sell out when United or Liverpool are in town, but not when Charlton come over from their neighbourhood.

 

Birmingham clubs aren't regarded as southern teams because they are in the midlands rather than the south. It would be like calling Chicago an eastern USA city.
IF you are counting Birmingham's clubs in the equation then I'd have to point out that the midlands has more than it's fair share of medium sized clubs that have been sitting in the first division for a while. It just so happened that two of them made it up this year.

A city's economic performance deosn't go hand-in hand with the performance of it's team. It could be argued that Liverpool's best period in the 80s coincided with one of the worst periods economically in it's history. Manchester United's recent successes have been as much due to Alex Fergurson's management skills as they have to that clubs financial muscle and have little relevence to the economy of the city.

Of all the London clubs only Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea are big enough to mount a challenge and Spurs gave up trying a long time ago. Spurs & Chelsea have only 3 titles between them, all three a long, long, time ago. It could be argued that there are too many London clubs, but it is actually quite common throughout Europe for a capital city to be less than blessed with success, with provincial teams often boasting higher support. PSG in Paris were a mediocre, poorly supported team until CANAL+ pumped loads of money into them. Berlin is a similar story.

The only clubs that could be described as being in the ascendency are Fulham & Charlton, and as has been sent before Fulham are being bankrolled by the owner of Harrods, while Charlton are admiribly competing with a lower budget than most clubs. Their fan base increased following success, not the other way around.

 

It's not clear that the London pie is split into too many pieces. Within a 35 mile radius west and north of Manchester (and, I suspect a smaller population than that which the London teams draw from), there are also six Premier League teams, namely Man Utd/City, Liverpool, Everton, Bolton and Blackburn. This hasn't exactly done Man Utd's championship credentials much harm.

As for the Birmingham area, there have traditionally always been at least two teams - i.e. pick from Aston Villa, B'ham City, West Brom, Wolves and Coventry - in the top league. In fact, I suspect that in the past there have been a few seasons when at least four have been there. Given that the odds are that at least one of B'ham City and West Brom will get relegated, I would wager that the Birmingham area is actually underrepresented compared to its norm over, say, the last 35 years.

 

All five "Birmingham" teams were in the top flight in 1975/76, from 1977/78 to 1978/79, 1980/81 to 1981/82 and 1983/84. By 1987/88 however only Coventry remained (albeit just for one season before Villa came back up)

 

You're quick learner, well done , A star for effort.

BTW Leeds are the Lazio of the EPL, if you catch my drift.