Big Four - misnomer?

Benedict XVI

Stekelly wrote: »

I'd say that Spurs, Villa and City can more than match Liverpool for wealth at the minute. Theres also QPR.

That;s a good point about QPR

They are suddenly very rich, if they were to become Premiership contenders then we would possibly have a top 5 (A real pain in the ass for 'Grand Slam Sunday') or they would replace another team in the Top 4, most likely Chelsea.

Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal have a worldwide fan base that has been building for generations, something the likes of Chelsea would take 100 years to build.

Abromovich will get bored and Chelsea will be back to a mid table team before we know it.

Bubs101

astrofool wrote: »

Anyone have a list of the top 10 most successful clubs in Spain/Italy/Germany, and see how England compares.

For Serie A, Juve are on something like 28/29, AC have around 18 and Inter have a good few less, maybe 12. There are a few clubs that were very succesfull in the past that have around 5 like Torino

raido9

Karmafaerie wrote: »

I'm not going to, never have, or never will, so this is the last I'll say on the matter.

The reason you were warned repeatedly by the mods to stop, is that posts like yours disrupt threads, and cause exactly what's happening here.

You posted it today in the Liverpool thread to start an argument, and you're doing it again now to do the same.

That's why the mod warned you, and that's why if they choose, they'll ban you.

So for yours and all our sakes, just keep posts to subjects about the subject matter.

Otherwiseyou are trolling.

Simple.


Anyway, it's as simply put before a few times.

it's a marketing ploy, and one that works.

LOL sure, you keep telling yourself that. :pac:

raido9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_FA_Premier_League_table

1 Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Chelsea
4 Liverpool
5 Villa
6 Newcastle

Mr Alan

Football was not invented in 1992 Radio9.

_blank_

Mr Alan wrote: »

Football was not invented in 1992 Radio9.

And people who think it was are foolish.

--amadeus--

You can't really claim a ranking like "top 4" unless everyone knows what the ranking basis is. That said it's pretty hard to think of a measure that wouldn't leave those four head and shoulders above every other team in teh EPL. LFC would suffer on average attendance because Anfield is small in comparison to some of teh other stadia but measured on trophies won, turnover, wage bill, fanbase or number of people rising to trols on internet boards the Sky named "Big Four" are the big four. At the end of teh day it's a useful shortand for them and we all know who they are talking about.

But it's not set in stone - back in the 80's there was a "big Five" of Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs. No doubt over the next decade there will be a different Big X and whatever teams are in it will be the glamour clubs and we'll all know who they mean.

raido9

Mr Alan wrote: »

Football was not invented in 1992 Radio9.

Jesus lighten up. So do you think the big four should be decided over the entire history of football, because I doubt Chelsea would be in there, and I consider them one of the big four.

Did you have a go at event when he only quoted results for the last seven years?

Right Mr. Alan, for the purpose of this discussion, with what timeframe should we judge the big four?

_blank_

raido9 wrote: »

Did you have a go at event when he only quoted results for the last seven years?

Well, did you Alan?

raido9 wrote: »

Right Mr. Alan, for the purpose of this discussion, with what timeframe should we judge the big four?

Good question.

Benedict XVI

raido9 wrote: »

Karmafaerie wrote:

I'm not going to, never have, or never will, so this is the last I'll say on the matter.

The reason you were warned repeatedly by the mods to stop, is that posts like yours disrupt threads, and cause exactly what's happening here.

You posted it today in the Liverpool thread to start an argument, and you're doing it again now to do the same.

That's why the mod warned you, and that's why if they choose, they'll ban you.

So for yours and all our sakes, just keep posts to subjects about the subject matter.

Otherwiseyou are trolling.

Simple.


Anyway, it's as simply put before a few times.

it's a marketing ploy, and one that works.

LOL sure, you keep telling yourself that.

Are you implying that the marketing of the premiership and particularly Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea by Sky has not worked ?

Of course it has

If it had not they Sky would be bust and people in Asia would be wearing as many Fullam and Wigan shirts are they are United and Chelsea

_blank_

The Premiership is built on hype ffs.

Sherifu

tbh wrote: »

the reason that England have four teams in the CL is because of Liverpool's success in the CL. Like it or not, Liverpool generally finish in the top 4.

It's always luck :pac:

Mr Alan

in judging the "big 4" from a league, it should be judged on how they've fared in that league since its inception.

After all, thats exactly wat has made the big clubs, bigger than the rest.

In 1992, the league had its name changed, thats all.

this thread was set up as an effort to start rows. thats all.

raido9

Mr Alan wrote: »

in judging the "big 4" from a league, it should be judged on how they've fared in that league since its inception.

After all, thats exactly wat has made the big clubs, bigger than the rest.

In 1992, the league had its name changed, thats all.

this thread was set up as an effort to start rows. thats all.

So who would you class as the big four?

Mr Alan

Liverpool
Manchester United
Arsenal
Everton

are the four most successful clubs in england if i'm not mistaken.

Helix

you are correct

villa are 5th, so lets include us in there too lol

raido9

Mr Alan wrote: »

Liverpool
Manchester United
Arsenal
Everton

are the four most successful clubs in england if i'm not mistaken.

Sigh, I think, Mr Alan, you have missed the point of this thread altogether.

Mr Alan

no, i got the point of this thread from the outset.

to start rows.

gixerfixer

Mr Alan wrote: »

no, i got the point of this thread from the outset.

to start rows.

+1.Like 90% of the threads on here

pickarooney

Mr Alan wrote: »

no, i got the point of this thread from the outset.

to start rows.

In fairness, if you can't discuss the need, in day-to-day parlance, for a term fabricated to convince football fans that second, third and fourth place in a league is a success story, without starting a fight, you have anger management/self-esteem issues.

Mr Alan

pickarooney wrote: »

In fairness, if you can't discuss the need, in day-to-day parlance, for a term fabricated to convince football fans that second, third and fourth place in a league is a success story, without starting a fight, you have anger management/self-esteem issues.

but that wasnt the point you were making in the OP.

you were trying to say that there is only three big teams in England and Liverpool ride on their coat-tails.

pickarooney wrote: »

England doesn't really have a big four. It has a big three, and a team that rides into the Champions League on their coat tails.

pickarooney wrote: »

And yet in England you're still a Big Four club even if you haven't won the title in 20 years

as i said above, you started this thread looking for trouble, i've been pleasantly suprised most people have kept a cool head about it and not risen to your bait tbh.

raido9

I think whatever set of areas you want to compare clubs you will inevitably come out with the top four, (Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) at the top most of the time, an usually the gap is significant. Liverpool in recent years have slipped to being considered fourth (not talking about just league finishes) of the big four.
Saying that they are alot closer to the top three than the Uefa cup clubs, so to not include them in the 'Big Four' would be ridiculous.

gixerfixer

pickarooney wrote: »

In fairness, if you can't discuss the need, in day-to-day parlance, for a term fabricated to convince football fans that second, third and fourth place in a league is a success story, without starting a fight, you have anger management/self-esteem issues.

Are you for real? Your posts are there as plain as day to wind liverpool fans up and that is there sole purpose.LFC are the most successful team in the history of English football (fact) and you are trying to say that they are not even a top 4 team.The arguement you are putting across is the view of a person who is biased and is childish to say the least.Let me put it to you like this.Arsenal are a top 4 side right,everyone can agree on that but yet otta the last 3 years Liverpool have won more trophys than them and have finished ahead of them twice in the league....a better record right....but yet you seem to question if Liverpool are a top 4 side :pac: Says it all really

Mr Alan

raido9 wrote: »

Liverpool in recent years have slipped to being considered fourth (not talking about just league finishes) of the big four..

well in the last 5 years we've finished ahead of Arsenal in the 3 out of 5 times, and have won more trophies than them...so i'm a little confused here.

more succesful history----check
more recent success

---

check

personally i still think Liverpool and Utd are miles ahead of the rest on the "big club" scale.

raido9 wrote: »

so to not include them in the 'Big Four' would be ridiculous.

so you agree, this thread is ridiculous.

raido9

Mr Alan wrote: »

well in the last 5 years we've finished ahead of Arsenal in the 3 out of 5 times, and have won more trophies than them...so i'm a little confused here.

more succesful history----check
more recent success

---

check

personally i still think Liverpool and Utd are miles ahead of the rest on the "big club" scale.



so you agree, this thread is ridiculous.

I'd consider Arsenal to be more established in the current Sky Sports big four than Liverpool. Noone can beat Liverpool for history, but they haven't looked like challenging for the league for years now. Arsenal have it in a few other areas as well (stadium, financially maybe, I'm not too sure)

I don't agree that this thread is ridiculous, I think not putting Liverpool as part of the top four is ridiculous.

gixerfixer

raido9 wrote: »

I'd consider Arsenal to be more established in the current Sky Sports big four than Liverpool. Noone can beat Liverpool for history, but they haven't looked like challenging for the league for years now. Arsenal have it in a few other areas as well (stadium, financially maybe, I'm not too sure)

I don't agree that this thread is ridiculous, I think not putting Liverpool as part of the top four is ridiculous.

At the end of the day Liverpool and Manchester united are the bigest two clubs in England.No amount of arguements and stats wil prove otherwise.Chelsea and Arsenal can only dream of the amount of trophys both clubs have won

Mr Alan

raido9 wrote: »

I'd consider Arsenal to be more established in the current Sky Sports big four than Liverpool

perhaps, but they havent won it in a few years themselves and are losing some of their top players (adebayour,hleb,flamini), and as i said, since Rafas arrival we have been more successful in the league as well as in Europe.

i would view our place within the top 4 as just as, if not more stable than theirs.

pickarooney

gixerfixer wrote: »

Are you for real? Your posts are there as plain as day to wind liverpool fans up and that is there sole purpose.LFC are the most successful team in the history of English football (fact) and you are trying to say that they are not even a top 4 team.The arguement you are putting across is the view of a person who is biased and is childish to say the least.Let me put it to you like this.Arsenal are a top 4 side right,everyone can agree on that but yet otta the last 3 years Liverpool have won more trophys than them and have finished ahead of them twice in the league....a better record right....but yet you seem to question if Liverpool are a top 4 side :pac: Says it all really

Obviously there are some posters with persecution complexes who will take any opportunity to get upset and believe they're being targetted. That can't be helped.

My point was, and remains, not that there is a big four of which Liverpool are a debatable member, but that there is no big four, it's a logical fallacy in a league where there only three teams have won the title on more than one occasion over the last twenty or so years.

It would be like describing a 'big three' in Scotland of Celtic, Rangers and Motherwell or a 'big three' in Spain of Real Madrid, Barcelona and Villareal.

therecklessone

When I talk of the big 4 or the top 4 I mean the four sides that have monopolised CL qualification from the PL since the league was awarded a 4th place. And before some smart arse points out the one exception to that, the side that were replaced went one better and won the bloody thing that year...;)

As asked earlier:

raido9

pickarooney wrote: »

Obviously there are some posters with persecution complexes who will take any opportunity to get upset and believe they're being targetted. That can't be helped.

My point was, and remains, not that there is a big four of which Liverpool are a debatable member, but that there is no big four, it's a logical fallacy in a league where there only three teams have won the title on more than one occasion over the last twenty or so years.

It would be like describing a 'big three' in Scotland of Celtic, Rangers and Motherwell or a 'big three' in Spain of Real Madrid, Barcelona and Villareal.

I see your point, but where do you consider Liverpool to be, in a league of their own between the top three and Uefa club teams? They are alot closer to the top than the others, in nearly all respects.

Mr Alan

pickarooney wrote: »

Obviously there are some posters with persecution complexes who will take any opportunity to get upset and believe they're being targetted. That can't be helped.

My point was, and remains, not that there is a big four of which Liverpool are a debatable member, but that there is no big four, it's a logical fallacy in a league where there only three teams have won the title on more than one occasion over the last twenty or so years.

It would be like describing a 'big three' in Scotland of Celtic, Rangers and Motherwell or a 'big three' in Spain of Real Madrid, Barcelona and Villareal.

good work ignoring this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56433335&postcount=72

--amadeus--

pickarooney wrote: »

there is no big four

Thanks for that, cheers for clearing up that matter. I assume you have let Sky, the print media and all internet sources (thats 92,200 hits on Google for "big four" "Premier League") know your decision and changes are being rushed through accordingly?

citytillidie

They are called the big four in England for many reasons not just wining the league, until this season the last time a team outside of Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea or Man Utd won the FA Cup was in 1995.

So you think a team that is going to number 1 seed in Europe this season is not good enough to be considered one of England's big 4

raido9

Right, how about we class clubs under a number of catagories (History, recent success, supporters, value of club, turnover, ability to attract top players, attendances ect.) and I guarantee which four clubs will keep popping up to the top.

There's a clear gap between these four and the rest, mostly thanks to the champions league!

Pepe LeFrits

Mr Alan wrote: »

well in the last 5 years we've finished ahead of Arsenal in the 3 out of 5 times, and have won more trophies than them...so i'm a little confused here..

In that particular period the record is:

Arsenal: 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 1st
Liverpool: 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 4th

Arsenal won the league and the FA cup, Liverpool won the CL and the FA cup.

Mr Alan

apologies pepe, you get my point though.

--amadeus--

What Pepe's post shows is how close LFC and Arsenal are and how daft it is to try to re-write the terminology to exclude either.

They both also got to a CL final in adition to the trophies won.

Pepe LeFrits

Mr Alan wrote: »

apologies pepe, you get my point though.

I do.

This thread reminds me of the arguments over the definition of what a ‘world class’ player is. Likewise ‘Big four’ means different things to different people. It isn’t a misnomer.

raido9

citytillidie wrote: »

So you think a team that is going to number 1 seed in Europe this season is not good enough to be considered one of England's big 4

I may be wrong, but are Utd not seeded 1 as champions, and have Chelsea no passed out Liverpool in the Uefa rankings?

--amadeus--

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/seedcl2008.html

You need more than one good season to get a good ranking...

--amadeus--

To clarify (since my "edit" button isn't working)

Chelsea --- 24.996
Liverpool --- 118.996
Arsenal --- 110.996
Manchester United --- 107.996

The number is the co-efficient ranking based on performance in recent years. I am sure that if Utd can string together another couple of good runs they can consloidate thier position in the "big four" and close the gap on the top two...

Jazzy

YEAH! Liverpool ARE sh1t....................................................

I heard Liverpool ate a baby mouse and Liverpool is also responsible for Amy Whinehouses drug problems. and once Liverpool was caught taking drugs with innocent model Kate Moss. Liverpool also regularly crashes his Jaguar cars cos they are mad fer it.



i thought this was going to be one of those threads on how the big 4 are ruining football. imagine my surprise at finding out it was ANOTHER of the boards soccer forum thread clichés - a Liverpool are crap & evil thread featuring a thinly veiled point which doesn't have much relevance if the OP really thought about what he was saying

Fall_Guy

Helix wrote: »

apparently it does if people are considering leeds a bigger club than villa and everton

Villa have won the league ONCE in the last NINETY YEARS. The year after that win they won the European Cup and Super cup (one-off match). They have had two very succesful seasons and a couple of relatively successful seasons in the past ninety years (Fa Cup, two league cups and 2nd place to united in the early nineties).

In contrast, Leeds have won the league three times in the last FORTY YEARS, been runners up five times. During this period they have Gotten to the final of both the European Cup and Cup Winners Cup, got to the semis of the Champion's League, won the F.A. cup, and got to two UEFA Cup semis.

On top of this, the Leeds team under Don Revie are reputed to have played some of the best football ever played in England.

While "statistics may make them a "bigger" team than leads, common sense sauggests otherwise. Leeds really should have won a European cup in the Early Seventies.

Everton is still a bigger club than Leeds for me, however.

citytillidie

Jazzy wrote: »

YEAH! Liverpool ARE sh1t....................................................

I heard Liverpool ate a baby mouse and Liverpool is also responsible for Amy Whinehouses drug problems. and once Liverpool was caught taking drugs with innocent model Kate Moss. Liverpool also regularly crashes his Jaguar cars cos they are mad fer it.



i thought this was going to be one of those threads on how the big 4 are ruining football. imagine my surprise at finding out it was ANOTHER of the boards soccer forum thread clichés - a Liverpool are crap & evil thread featuring a thinly veiled point which doesn't have much relevance if the OP really thought about what he was saying

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::D:D:D:D:D

Nah it was just started as some people cant stand Liverpool been Englands most successfull ever team even though they have not won the league in 18 years and cant see why they are part of the big four.

Death or Glory

Leeds won the European Cup in 75, and don't anyone forget it

'WE ARE CHAMPIONS, CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE'

Fall_Guy

Death or Glory wrote: »

Leeds won the European Cup in 75, and don't anyone forget it

'WE ARE CHAMPIONS, CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE'

yeah, just don't tell bayern miunich!

Death or Glory

Ref f*cked us

Locked up and never reffed a game again

LuckyLloyd

If there is a genuine interest in improving the quality of this forum a good place to start would be with the insta - locking of threads like this one.

citytillidie

Top four teams in the all time top flight table are.

1. Liverpool 93 3716 1713 926 1077 6086 - 4563 4352
2. Everton 105 4100 1671 1006 1423 6428 - 5752 4348
3. Arsenal 91 3716 1653 965 1098 6068 - 4725 4271
4. Aston Villa 97 3766 1557 880 1329 6273 - 5615 3994

This is based on 2 points for a win.

http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engalltime.html

pickarooney

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If there is a genuine interest in improving the quality of this forum a good place to start would be with the insta - locking of threads like this one.

Or the deletion of non-contributing posts, that'd clean it up nicely
*post self-destructs*