-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Did you buy your last car with cash or on a finance plan?
All Time Premiership Log
- Thread starter Genius.
- Start date
Only one major trophy being the FA cup. Not exactly perennial challenges for anything.
Oh wait, you said 97 so lets make that two... but that stat the really counts is league titles... so lets see - 0. Runner up places? 0.
Oh well. At least you have roman now.
Last edited:
Thanks to icyrus for the stats there. Like I said earlier in this thread. Chelsea are historically a big team but they were never near the status of Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal. Since Roman has come, they have been lifted to what's known as the 'Big Four' whereas it was once known as the 'Big Three'.
Lot's of teams such as Everton, Forest, Leeds have won FA Cups and where are they now? Winning FA Cups does not mean the team were on the up before Roman came. Dig your head out of the sand. It's not a coincidence that when Roman came in and spent millions on world class players, that Chelsea became a serious force. To be fair it was easy for Roman because Chelsea were a quality side before he took over, but to say that Chelsea will still be where they are now if Roman never took over is nonsense. Anyone with any sense at all knows this.
Teams like Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal have built their success over a long period of time. Liverpool's domination in the 70's and 80's was due to Shankley who built a team during the 60's. Man U's domination in the 90's and 00's was built by Ferguson in the late 80's and early 90's. Both of these managers took 5 or more years before they saw success in the League.
guru_pitka
Senior Member
couldnt have said it any better mate
,not a single year did chelsea ever challenge for the title before Roman came ,that says it allAfter 92, not a single year did Liverpool challenge for the title as well
What a well detailed, factual and intelligent contribution to the debate put forward. Brilliant, how do you do it?
Soft lad.
Easy.
I watch football and every year i see Liverpool fall out for the running of the league.
Liverpool's main focus then shifts to the FA Cup and CL.
I think we are all surprised at how long it took this year.
Well done to Liverpool for almost putting up a challenge in 2009. Thats reason to celebrate.
I watch football and every year i see Liverpool fall out for the running of the league.
Liverpool's main focus then shifts to the FA Cup and CL.
I think we are all surprised at how long it took this year.
Well done to Liverpool for almost putting up a challenge in 2009. Thats reason to celebrate.
Yes, but you come on here and sprout something like that and yet it has nothing to do with the argument. We were talking about Chelsea, what's your point? Enlighten me and maybe I will have a decent response as long as yours is.
dbecks
Executive Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 8,897
- Reaction score
- 228
HeHeHe...After 92, not a single year did Liverpool challenge for the title as well
Good one!
dbecks
Executive Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 8,897
- Reaction score
- 228
HeHeHe...
....True!smokey
Honorary Master
Lets start with the teams who won cups that you mentioned.
Everton - Not a cup side historically. Has won 9 titles. The most recent of which were back in the late 80's.
Nottingham Forest - '79 and '80 Euro Champions. That is not a "FA Cup side" if you ask me... Yet despite winning the European Cup (Chamions League) twice in a row... they still managed an epic fail.
Leeds - Leeds had stupid management. Kind of like the management Chelsea had in the 70's. Self destructive and grandeouis.
--
Ok, now on to Chelsea.
First off... I would like to say that I'm only returning to this discussion because you acknowledged that they are historically a "big" team. Very much an also-rans team, but not a yo-yo team either. I wasn't ever oblivious to these facts but the way some people carry on, an independant observer would think that I have going on about how Chelsea have been perrenial favorites for the title... not true.
However, I would like to point out that Liverpool, though they must have been considered among the teams to be "in the fight" for the title, have never really stood a chance (as far as opinion among Liverpool supporters I knew at the time). As far as I can recall - it was a battle between Arsenal and Manchester Utd from 97 onwards. The few real challenges that United faced came from Newcastle under Keegan (which imploded due to Fergies mind-games) and Blackburn (who simply sold off all their best players once they failed a few times).
Again, I said Chelsea were on the rise... much in the same way as are Aston Villa at the moment. Batesy was a shrewd enough man to know that the money was only going to increase from TV deals and the Champions League was becoming ever more commercial, so that would have kept Chelsea going with regards to signings and general cash-flow to be able to put up a fight in the EPL and ECL.
We probably wouldn't have reached the dizzy heights we did without Abramovich, but not due to his money at all... it was due solely to Mourinho. The comment "he got a multi-national team playing with the same spirit and togetherness that the legendary Celtic side of '67 displayed, with all the players form that team being being born a stone's throw away from the stadium they played in" describes this perfectly.
People go on about the money that Chelsea spent, but don't forget that since 2000, Madrid were in their Galactico's era and the record of 44million pounds for Zinedine Zidane still stands, despite being set in 2001.
I really don't have the time for these types of discussions. Anytime a Chelsea fan says something, people immediately start on the "you're a bandwagon joiner" tirade. Then they go about how we were hopeless before Abramovich lobbed his millions when the truth is we weren't as close to the title as Manchester or Arsenal, but we weren't int he same position as Middlesbrough or Forest or <insert team of choice here>...
And for the record, everything Genius said is correct. Sad but true. Football, like life, is all about cycles and I am enjoying Chelsea's current successful cycle immensely. So there!
Some interesting points. Let's deal with each point.
Answers in bold above.
Lets start with the teams who won cups that you mentioned.
Everton - Not a cup side historically. Has won 9 titles. The most recent of which were back in the late 80's.
Correct.
Nottingham Forest - '79 and '80 Euro Champions. That is not a "FA Cup side" if you ask me...
You missed the point I was making. It was in response to you mentioning about Chelsea being on the up and your proof was that they won FA Cups. I was just pointing out teams that have as well.
Yet despite winning the European Cup (Chamions League) twice in a row... they still managed an epic fail.
Surely this has nothing to do with the original argument.
Leeds - Leeds had stupid management. Kind of like the management Chelsea had in the 70's. Self destructive and grandeouis.
Again, I was just pointing out that they are a big team historically and that they won FA Cups. The point that they are currently playing in League one was not meant to be part of the point I was making.
Ok, now on to Chelsea.
First off... I would like to say that I'm only returning to this discussion because you acknowledged that they are historically a "big" team.
Thanks for that, you are kind.
Very much an also-rans team,
Historically, yes in my opinion. Currently no. If they continue like they are now for 20 years and pick up lots of titles then historically the also-rans tag would disappear. Example: Liverpool is historically not an also-rans team as they have achieved so much in the past. Currently they are an also-rans team.
but not a yo-yo team either.
Agreed.
I wasn't ever oblivious to these facts but the way some people carry on, an independant observer would think that I have going on about how Chelsea have been perrenial favorites for the title... not true.
Never said anything along those lines and don't intend to.
However, I would like to point out that Liverpool
We are discussing Chelsea but I'll humour you since you make an interesting debate.
, though they must have been considered among the teams to be "in the fight" for the title, have never really stood a chance (as far as opinion among Liverpool supporters I knew at the time).
Hence why they are currently an also-rans team in my opinion as they have not won the premiership since it's inception. They have only won league cups, FA Cups, an Uefa cup and a champions league cup and other small time cups. The League is the bread and butter, it is the Cup above all to win and that has eluded us.
But let's not forget that historically they are world class club with a superb history. They are a club that with the right players, management, staff, support can get back to being a dominant force. This has not happened but there have been periods of hope. We wait and see.
As far as I can recall - it was a battle between Arsenal and Manchester Utd from 97 onwards.
Correct.
The few real challenges that United faced came from Newcastle under Keegan (which imploded due to Fergies mind-games)
Very few, I think only once or twice, can't remember.
and Blackburn (who simply sold off all their best players once they failed a few times).
Blackburn won it in 1995 if a recall. I don't think they had any challenge before or after that.
Again, I said Chelsea were on the rise... much in the same way as are Aston Villa at the moment.
In that case you are spot on. The point I was arguing was the degree of rise. It was implied by yourself that they were on the rise to where they are now irrespective of Roman taking over.
Batesy was a shrewd enough man to know that the money was only going to increase from TV deals and the Champions League was becoming ever more commercial, so that would have kept Chelsea going with regards to signings and general cash-flow to be able to put up a fight in the EPL and ECL.
Difficult one to argue. You could say the same for Newcastle, Everton, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal.
We probably wouldn't have reached the dizzy heights we did without Abramovich, but not due to his money at all... it was due solely to Mourinho.
We agree on something. Agree totally. Jose made a difference as well. Roman did as well which was my point.
The comment "he got a multi-national team playing with the same spirit and togetherness that the legendary Celtic side of '67 displayed, with all the players form that team being being born a stone's throw away from the stadium they played in" describes this perfectly.
Disagree there. Jose did well and brought the team together but nothing like what that quote says comparing to Celtic in '67
People go on about the money that Chelsea spent, but don't forget that since 2000, Madrid were in their Galactico's era and the record of 44million pounds for Zinedine Zidane still stands, despite being set in 2001.
Would really have to do research on this before I debate it, maybe later...
I really don't have the time for these types of discussions.
Shame really because you do a good job of it.
Anytime a Chelsea fan says something, people immediately start on the "you're a bandwagon joiner" tirade.
I don't know you personally so wouldn't know which faction you belong in. Know this, Every top team has 'bandwagon fans'. Liverpool is good example. After they won the champions league in 2005, the amount of new Liverpool supporters was beyond belief. Same can go for Manchester United after they won the Treble '99.
Then they go about how we were hopeless before Abramovich lobbed his millions when the truth is we weren't as close to the title as Manchester or Arsenal, but we weren't int he same position as Middlesbrough or Forest or <insert team of choice here>...
Yes, I know, there are plenty supporters out there that say those type of things because they are jealous of your teams recent success. I am as well to be fair. What I know is that Chelsea were never 'hopeless' before the Roman era. They were a top side but inconsistent, pretty much like Liverpool over the last many years. I still remember a stat which was that Liverpool hadn't won at Stamford bridge in 12 years until this season. I could be wrong but it was something along those lines.
And for the record, everything Genius said is correct.
Well, that is a pity, you made such a good case then you say something like that. Genius, in no way, did not even try and construct a proper response to the points that were made. He still hasn't to date. All i can say is this:
Liverpool - 5 European Cups, 18 League Domestic Titles
Barcelona - 2 European Cups, 18 League Domestic Titles
Not bad that Liverpool.
Sad but true. Football, like life, is all about cycles and I am enjoying Chelsea's current successful cycle immensely.
Agreed.
So there!
So there!
Answers in bold above.
Last edited:
@ Poolmania
Barcelona has more silverware than Liverpool. They are a more succesful club than your precious Liverpool. Why only compare those two competitions?
The most evident one being Barcelona finishing second in the league 22 times compared to Liverpool 11 times. LoL
Must be sad for Pool supporters to watch their team fail every single year in the local league.
Smokey is correct - Chelsea were not a poor team before Roman.
Barcelona has more silverware than Liverpool. They are a more succesful club than your precious Liverpool. Why only compare those two competitions?
The most evident one being Barcelona finishing second in the league 22 times compared to Liverpool 11 times. LoL
Must be sad for Pool supporters to watch their team fail every single year in the local league.
Smokey is correct - Chelsea were not a poor team before Roman.
guru_pitka
Senior Member
are you serious
you are calling coming 2nd an achievment ...lmaopoolmania is spot on all the other trophies dont count you only count the major trophies and barca are clearly found wanting in that department
LoL - you people are blind!!!
Barca has more trophies than Liverpool. Go google if you dont believe me.
hahahahahah Comparing Barca's trophy cabinet to Liverpool's??? and you say im found wanting?
You Guru, dont know what you talking about
Another lesson for you today.
1) Barcelona have more trophies than Liverpool.
2) Learn to live with it, cos it is the truth.
I will await your reply. Thx for the morning laugh.
Barca has more trophies than Liverpool. Go google if you dont believe me.
hahahahahah Comparing Barca's trophy cabinet to Liverpool's??? and you say im found wanting?
You Guru, dont know what you talking about
Another lesson for you today.
1) Barcelona have more trophies than Liverpool.
2) Learn to live with it, cos it is the truth.
I will await your reply. Thx for the morning laugh.
guru_pitka
Senior Member
LoL - you people are blind!!!
Barca has more trophies than Liverpool. Go google if you dont believe me.
hahahahahah Comparing Barca's trophy cabinet to Liverpool's??? and you say im found wanting?
You Guru, dont know what you talking about
Another lesson for you today.
1) Barcelona have more trophies than Liverpool.
2) Learn to live with it, cos it is the truth.
I will await your reply. Thx for the morning laugh.
OMG are you for real ,dude that means that because you won more minor (doesnt mean anything tophies) that you are more succesfull...lolso if you using this analogy then Celtic fc is more successfull than real madrid ,ac milan, liverpool ,manure ,barcelona cause they have more trophies than all those team
let me give you the stats then
celtic fc 42 league champs ,1 CL total 43 major trophies
real madrid 31 league champs ,9 CL total 40 major trophies
Ac milan 17 league champs , 7 CL total 24 major trophies
Liverpool fc 18 league champs ,5 CL total 23 major trophies
Barcelona 18 league champs , 2 CL total 20 major trophies
Manure 17 league champs ,3 CL total 20 major trophies
Can someone please phone FIFA as they gave club of the century to the wrong club ,it should have gone to Celtic seeing as they won the most major trophies put together
dude take off your Barca hat
Take off your Liverpool goggles. You clearly dont understand how the points system works.
So if Orlando Pirates were to win a 100 domestic cups - would they be the most successful?
You make me laugh! You got owned thinking that Liverpool has more trophies than Barca. LoL - weak attempt at a comeback reply.
So if Orlando Pirates were to win a 100 domestic cups - would they be the most successful?
You make me laugh! You got owned thinking that Liverpool has more trophies than Barca. LoL - weak attempt at a comeback reply.
are you serious
poolmania is spot on all the other trophies dont count
To be fair, I never said that. The other trophies are still very important.
you only count the major trophies and barca are clearly found wanting in that department
Come on guys, I'm not in the slightest saying that Liverpool is better than Barcelona or have more important trophies. Barcelona have a huge history and no one can deny that. They will always be a huge club. Genius, you really do have to think before you post.