Big Four - misnomer?

jesus_thats_gre

Helix wrote: »

you are correct

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

In fairness, Villa are a big club. Any club that fills 40k a match is always going to be considered a big club.

There are are a number of tiers in the PL, with the first one being (based on history, money and successes):

United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea.

The second tier would be:

Everton, Villa, Newcastle, City and 1 or 2 others.

LuckyLloyd

pickarooney wrote: »

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

Believe me, I feel no obligation to respond or contribute in anyway "positively" to an obvious troll attempt.

Bubs101

Just a small question for Liverpool fans regarding the what they would consider to be a top 4.

Two years ago, when Juve were relegated in Italy, would you still have considered them a top 4 team in italy based solely on their illustrious past?

jesus_thats_gre

Obviously, yes...

pickarooney

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Believe me, I feel no obligation to respond or contribute in anyway "positively" to an obvious troll attempt.

FFS, get over yourself with your "troll" this and "troll" that. Just because a post makes a less-than-complimentary oblique reference to Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle, Spurs, Man City's, Villa's inability to challenge for the English title in the last aeon there's no need to act like someone squeezed your zits in front of the cute girl in Art class.

Back on topic, to those who insist that there is a legitimate Big Four in the premiership, albeit with differing opinions as to what defines them, why four? If it's not the repeated insistence on Grand Slam Sunday and the likes that convinces you there is a select group of four clubs who deserve to be referenced at any given opportunity, what's the reason for choosing four, if it's not arbitrary?

Chelsea have won a single more title than Leeds or Blackburn in the last half-century or so.

Arsenal have won the league and the cup in every decade bar the sixties.

Manchester United, despite a barren spell of twenty-six(?) years, have always given at least the impression that they would challenge for the title and the sheer volume of silverware acquired since the early nineties would surely be enough to see them into a select spot regardless.

Liverpool, with an immense history and piles and piles of cups and medals, have the stock in trade of history to place them on a similar pedestal.

But... you can't have your cake and eat it. I contend that between the Johnny-Come-Latelys, the Has-Beens and the Sleeping Giants you have to clearly define what makes a club a top X outfit, be it current success or historical prosperity, but not both. Even a comparison on an accountancy level does not stand up, with some clubs black holes for playboys' cash, some managed through astronomical debt, others run on a wing and a prayer.
For me, the only resilient and defining factor which determines this alleged gang of four is the thumb-rubbing decision of the UEFA football suits which allowed for the bigger shirt-sellers to play in their spin-the-bankroll game a few years back.

All smoke and mirrors.

LuckyLloyd

pickarooney wrote: »

FFS, get over yourself with your "troll" this and "troll" that. Just because a post makes a less-than-complimentary oblique reference to Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle, Spurs, Man City's, Villa's inability to challenge for the English title in the last aeon there's no need to act like someone squeezed your zits in front of the cute girl in Art class.

Back on topic, to those who insist that there is a legitimate Big Four in the premiership, albeit with differing opinions as to what defines them, why four? If it's not the repeated insistence on Grand Slam Sunday and the likes that convinces you there is a select group of four clubs who deserve to be referenced at any given opportunity, what's the reason for choosing four, if it's not arbitrary?

Chelsea have won a single more title than Leeds or Blackburn in the last half-century or so.

Arsenal have won the league and the cup in every decade bar the sixties.

Manchester United, despite a barren spell of twenty-six(?) years, have always given at least the impression that they would challenge for the title and the sheer volume of silverware acquired since the early nineties would surely be enough to see them into a select spot regardless.

Liverpool, with an immense history and piles and piles of cups and medals, have the stock in trade of history to place them on a similar pedestal.

But... you can't have your cake and eat it. I contend that between the Johnny-Come-Latelys, the Has-Beens and the Sleeping Giants you have to clearly define what makes a club a top X outfit, be it current success or historical prosperity, but not both. Even a comparison on an accountancy level does not stand up, with some clubs black holes for playboys' cash, some managed through astronomical debt, others run on a wing and a prayer.
For me, the only resilient and defining factor which determines this alleged gang of four is the thumb-rubbing decision of the UEFA football suits which allowed for the bigger shirt-sellers to play in their spin-the-bankroll game a few years back.

All smoke and mirrors.

The problem with all of this is that it is utterly irrelevant. Liverpool are a big club. As are Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea. They are big fans because of their history / financial status / tradition / ability to challenge on all fronts / ability to challenge in Europe / fan base / etc, etc. All four excel or fall down slightly in different ways to each other.

I don't give a **** if you or anyone thinks Liverpool are or are not part of a "big four" or not or if you or anyone else thinks there should be strict criteria before you define a club as a "big" club. We're a big club with a big pedigree and have been a major force in the greatest club competition on a consistent basis over the past four seasons - just as we were in times gone by. Genuinely believing that we aren't on the same level as the other three or that we're not a big club or there isn't a clear division between the top four (who finish in the top four on a regular basis) and the rest of the premiership makes one either ridiculously petty or ridiculously retarded or both.

Who cares about a name? Sky or the media can brand it like that because it makes sense to do so. It doesn't bother me what sky or the English media say about the game anyway cause their level of analysis and intelligence falls well below competence. Why should you care either? This is the least interesting aspect of being a football fan. There is debates to be had about tactics and players and possible transfers and the rules of the game and the international game and which one of your mates plays better on a Saturday etc, etc. The **** you are on about in this thread is a waste of time and effort.

The topic you seem so intent on discussing is easily the least interesting and important part of the whole process. And I strongly suspect that your motivation for discussing it is just because it gives you some scope to have a go and spread a little bitterness. Life is too short imo.

pickarooney

The topic you seem so intent on discussing is easily the least interesting and important part of the whole process

Well quit wasting your time posting, extending the lifespan of a six-page thread, pushing it back to the top of the page and trying to provoke a non-existent argument. Honestly, if ever a rolleyes were warranted...

gixerfixer

pickarooney wrote: »

Well quit wasting your time posting, extending the lifespan of a six-page thread, pushing it back to the top of the page and trying to provoke a non-existent argument. Honestly, if ever a rolleyes were warranted...

If ever a rolleyes was warranted it's for your original post lad.Trolling at it's finest

_blank_

Lads.

How many times does it need to be said?

IF YOU THINK SOMEONE IS TROLLING USE THE REPORT POST BUTTON


FOR FÚCK SAKE.

Boggles

gixerfixer wrote: »

If ever a rolleyes was warranted it's for your original post lad.Trolling at it's finest

Desf is right, you joined a couple of weeks ago and I don't think I have read one of your posts where your not accusing someone of trolling.

Procedure is simple.

1. Report the post
2. Put the person on Ignore
3. Start - Shutdown.

---

On Topic, the big 4 are United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. The End.

Mr Alan

pickarooney wrote: »

to those who insist that there is a legitimate Big Four in the premiership, albeit with differing opinions as to what defines them, why four? If it's not the repeated insistence on Grand Slam Sunday and the likes that convinces you there is a select group of four clubs who deserve to be referenced at any given opportunity, what's the reason for choosing four

Because there is four Champions League spots on offer. Which offers the big money. Which attracts the big players.

Can we get a lock thread? question answered numerous times already in this thread.

Karmafaerie

Mr Alan wrote: »

good work ignoring this

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

Lets see if you can ignore it for a third time pickarooney?!!

pickarooney

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Lets see if you can ignore it for a third time pickarooney?!!

Ignore what? All it is is a series of quotes from my own post and an inaccurate paraphrasing of them in some apparent effort to shift focus to an alleged victimisation of Liverpool, of all teams.

Yes, the fourth team in the league (Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton in general) gets what many would recognise as a free ride into the Champions' League (and two other liggers along with them, more would add), but that's only a corollary. I don't personally believe regular CL qualification on its own is enough to place a team on some mythical plateau. What you have is, for the umpteenth time, and I'm quite bored of the subject myself, 3 teams with heritage + a rattle-rattle-jewellery-jewellery gatecrasher or 3 title challengers + non-contender, neither of which makes a definable quartet.

You can go read some other threads now, thanks.

Pepe LeFrits

A quartet of teams that scoop up the majority of the top honours on a regular basis, then?

Karmafaerie

pickarooney wrote: »

Blah, blah, blah, watch me once again refuse to address the point, blah, blah, blah, damn is my trolling was so obvious that everyone saw it, blah, blah, blah, I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and refuse to address the point, blah, blah, blah!!!

Sorry for paraphrasing there.
I got the gist though.

You started this whole exercise in Trolling with one thing in mind.
Congratulations.
It's plainly obvious from everyone here what you've done.

You refuse to address the points made.

Tell you what, I'll spell it out for you really patiently.

What did you mean by ....."And yet in England you're still a Big Four club even if you haven't won the title in 20 years".....?

What club were you talking about?

Now bearing in mind that this was the original post, and how you decided to welcome us all into this farce of a thread, what exactly else could your intentions have been.

You derisively talk about a club "ridding on the coat-tails" of others, and then actively point out that the club you consider this to be is Liverpool (The only club that fits your discription).

Bull**** or ignore the facts all you want, but you were trolling, and looking for a reaction.

Congratulations, your Troll licence is in the mail.
Please allow 2-4 weeks for delivery.
This device is non-refundable!

LuckyLloyd

Pickarooney is a new addition to my ignore list.

Pepe LeFrits

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Pickarooney is a new addition to my ignore list.

Congratulations.

GuanYin

I'll make this clear.

You have two options.

1. Discuss the thread topic highlighting your points and refuting points you don't agree with (thisis called debate). If someone oversteps the mark during this process, report their posts.

2. Get banned from soccer.


I'll let you guys decide which route to take.

Oh by the way, this is an offical boards.ie soccer mod warning (tm).

Jazzy

bookmakers have pool down at the same odds as arsenal to win the 09 PL.

no, hang on. this is a stupid thread. bye

x in the city

I think people are forgetting that football in the uk has been played since the 18th century.

Chelsea as a club have only been successful in recent years. However, teams like Liverpool, United, Arsenal and Everton (well until recently:p) have had alot of success.

the big '5' in the 1980s was unquestionably United, Everton, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal. (in no particular order)

Anyone who says otherwise obviously never read shoot...:eek:

The big '4' now as mentioned in this thread really just matches the places for the CL spots, and to a more important extent it has begun around the time of the BSB/Murdoch monolopy. Money is power, and it will not change any time soon.


Everton are the only team in recent years to have broken this monolopy.

The game now is a farce, ruined by greedy players and agents.

Next years title will almost certainly be decided by United, Chelsea or Arsenal...

de ja vu anyone...

ShoulderChip

everton aren't up there or they?

kida

--amadeus-- wrote: »

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

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

Apologies if already pointed out but Liverpool only top this because they have had to qualify over the last few years and especially due the year they were put into the first qualifying rounds.

I mentioned this in a thread a few weeks back and it wasn't commented on, wonder why

PHB

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/...eedcl2008.html

You need more than one good season to get a good ranking...
Apologies if already pointed out but Liverpool only top this because they have had to qualify over the last few years and especially due the year they were put into the first qualifying rounds.

That can't be right.
I thought the coefficient was based on how far you got combined with how far your country got.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

That can't be right.

:eek::eek:
Questioning Bert's page?

Shame on you. Shame.

--amadeus--

These rankings are drawn up on the basis of a combination of 33 per
cent of the value of the respective national association's coefficient
for the period from 1999/2000 to 2003/04 inclusive (see Annexe II,
points 5 to 10) and the clubs' individual performances in the UEFA
club competitions during the same period. Each club retains the
cumulative number of points obtained during this period. Qualifying-
round matches will not be taken into account as far as individual club
performances are concerned (see Annexe II, points 6 and 10). If the
title-holders take part, they are always the top seed

From here which seems fairly authorative, though I'm open to correction.

kida

--amadeus-- wrote: »

From here which seems fairly authorative, though I'm open to correction.

According to Bert

From 1999 on these points are halved for qualification matches: one point for a win and half a point for a draw.

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

oops - only applies to countries - not teams

Mr Alan

who the **** is bert?

--amadeus--

Shhhh, don't question Burt.

He might hear you

_blank_

Mr Alan wrote: »

who the **** is bert?

Shameful.