The Big Two Vs The Fab Four

starbelgrade

In an article in the Sunday Times this weekend, entitled, "The Great Pretenders", Jonathan Northcroft questioned the validity Arsenal & Liverpool's percieved rankings as part of the 'Big Four'.

"Within any group there is a heirearchy no matter how much it is denied by the lower ranking elements" he stated, before comparing them to The Beatles - "If football's Big Four were the Fab Four, you would have to say that Lennon & McCartney have already played on stage this weekend.. Performing at Anfield this afternoon are Ringo & George."

To back up his argument, he draws on the following facts;

- Arsenal have won nothing since 2005, Liverpool a single FA Cup, whilst Utd & the Blues have a haul of 10 trophies between them.

- In Premier League games since the start of the 04/05 season, Arsenal have won 72 points less than Chelsea & 59 less than Utd.

- The points difference between Liverpool and Chelsea is 79, only 2 less than that of Evertons.

- Since 2004, Liverpool's net spending on players is £95 million more than Utd's.

Then the question of progress came into play.. when Arsenal last won a trophy, his line up in the 2005 FA Cup Final was; Lehmann, Lauren, Toure, Senderos, Cole, Fabergas, Viera, Gilberto, Pires, Reyes, Bergkamp.

And Liverpool's line up for their last trophy in the FA Cup Final in 2006 was; Reina, Finnan, Carragher, Hyypia, Riise, Gerrard, Alonso, Sissko, Kewell, Cisse, Crouch.



Ladies & gentlemen... on the question of the Big 2 versus the Fab Four, the floor is now open.

eagle eye

Let me see.

Big two, I think everybody agrees thats been the case for a few years now.
Liverpool's net spend compared to United's over that period seems pretty irrelevant to his argument. Why does he bring that up, a swipe at Benitez maybe?
Just out of interest why is it that everybody talks about transfer fees all the time, but nobody talks about wage bills. There is a huge gap in wage bills between the top clubs, last year I believe Chelsea had a wage bill in excess of £170m, United's was in excess of £120m, Arsenal had a wage bill of £101m and Liverpool's was £90m.
I think thats far more important than transfer fees spent. He is claiming that the net spend difference on transfers is £95m. I don't know how constant the wage bill has been at these clubs but if the gap between United and Liverpool has remained at over £30m in wages, that means that in the same time period United have outspent Liverpool on wages by £150m and would mean that over that time period they have between transfers and wages outspent Liverpool by £55m and thats including the ridiculous figure of £80mill they got this past summer for Ronaldo.

The lineups for the last trophy win of the two sides is pretty pointless too, he should be showing squads not first eleven on a given day.

I contend that the wage bill is key to the gap that has grown between the top two and Liverpool and Arsenal.

Mr.Nice Guy

I would agree with this in principle, though I've always figured the 'top four' moniker was more a reflection on the 4 Champions League places that the four teams have had a virtual monopoly over, rather than a reflection on the four teams being on the same level.

Just to continue his analogy though, many often say George was underrated and possibly the best Beatle. That he could have been more of a focal point. Similarly I would say Arsenal have at times over the years looked the best of the 4 teams, but other events have seemed to conspire against them. Injuries to key players or else key players wanting to leave for supposedly greener pastures. The Van Persie injury this season is a good example of that.

A case can be made I think that Arsenal, with Fabregas, Van Persie and Arshavin fit and flying, have the best eleven of the teams in the league. In that sense I'd be more tolerant of their trophy record and their place in the grouping.

mayordenis

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I would agree with this in principle, though I've always figured the 'top four' moniker was more a reflection on the 4 Champions League places that the four teams have had a virtual monopoly over, rather than a reflection on the four teams being on the same level.

Just to continue his analogy though, many often say George was underrated and possibly the best Beatle. That he could have been more of a focal point. Similarly I would say Arsenal have at times over the years looked the best of the 4 teams, but other events have seemed to conspire against them. Injuries to key players or else key players wanting to leave for supposedly greener pastures. The Van Persie injury this season is a good example of that.

A case can be made I think that Arsenal, with Fabregas, Van Persie and Arshavin fit and flying, have the best eleven of the teams in the league. In that sense I'd be more tolerant of their trophy record and their place in the grouping.

Just to keep the analogy going further I reckon Ringo will outlive them all.
Thanks and good night.

Mr.Nice Guy

mayordenis wrote: »

Just to keep the analogy going further I reckon Ringo will outlive them all.
Thanks and good night.

Bit harsh on Paul. :pac:

starbelgrade

mayordenis wrote: »

Just to keep the analogy going further I reckon Ringo will outlive them all.
Thanks and good night.

Apologies for waking you up, but to keep the analogy going further, which one is Ringo?!

Answers on the back of paperback, please!

mayordenis

starbelgrade wrote: »

Apologies for waking you up, but to keep the analogy going further, which one is Ringo?!

Answers on the back of paperback, please!

It's cool I'm on nightshift.

Well if we're talking The Beatles then the big two would be John Lennon, and Paul McCartney and as above they are being likened to Man Utd and Chelsea.

Mr Nice Guy made the point that George Harrison was often remarked as being the most talented of the 4, and that draws likeness to to Arsenal who many people think play the best brand of football.

Me, I was saying that Ringo (Liverpool) who I think will outlive Paul (John and George = deaded as I'm sure we all know, Paul is 2 years younger but looks about 20 years older) is similar to how overall Liverpool have the most success of all, and these flash in the pan teams will be gone in no time :pac:

MementoMori

In a sense I kinda agree.

Looking at the current costs of the squads and the recent spending patterns, it's pretty clear that Liverpool and Arsenal have probably over-achieved previously in terms of maintaining their top four status for so long.

Chelsea £230m
Man City £227m
Man Utd £205m
Spurs £178m
Liverpool £144m
Aston Villa £122m
Arsenal £90m

These are my best estimates on what the current squads for this season have cost.
Long-term loan players aren't included as a team don't get any benefit from them so I don't think it's fair to include their cost.
[This is mainly due to Jo who cost City £19m but is at Everton for this season again]

Mossy Monk

MementoMori wrote: »

In a sense I kinda agree.

Looking at the current costs of the squads and the recent spending patterns, it's pretty clear that Liverpool and Arsenal have probably over-achieved previously in terms of maintaining their top four status for so long.

Chelsea £230m
Man City £227m
Man Utd £205m
Spurs £178m
Liverpool £144m
Aston Villa £122m
Arsenal £90m

These are my best estimates on what the current squads for this season have cost.
Long-term loan players aren't included as a team don't get any benefit from them so I don't think it's fair to include their cost.
[This is mainly due to Jo who cost City £19m but is at Everton for this season again]

Top 4 status is based on how much your squad is worth?

iregk

No the top 4 "big 4" is a status only earned if it helps push the Sky Sports marketing crew into a new gear...

That_Guy

Those facts that the OP posted, as factual as they may be are null and void for me.

It doesn't matter how much Liverpool or Arsenal have won or how much they've spent on their squad. They've still managed to finish in the top 4 year after year.

Beau x1

iregk wrote: »

No the top 4 "big 4" is a status only earned if it helps push the Sky Sports marketing crew into a new gear...

I don't get all the Sky Sports hate. I think they do excellent coverage of all the football matches, and personally I quite enjoy the hype up to a Super Sunday down at the local.

Also, I semi-agree with this argument. Statistically, yes, there's only the big two, the reason there's the top 4 though is because those are the 4 main dominant teams battling it out for the title. It also comes down to reputation, big players are likely to sign for those four teams because they are highly respected and recognised on an international level.

It's really that simple, a kind of silly argument imo but still an interesting read.

Fuhrer

Beau x1 wrote: »

I don't get all the Sky Sports hate. I think they do excellent coverage of all the football matches, and personally I quite enjoy the hype up to a Super Sunday down at the local.

If you hate on Sky Sports then you are a "real" football fan

GavRedKing

I think he has just wrote exactly whta we all know at this stage, there is nothing new in the article other then a reference to the Beatles.

That_Guy

Fuhrer wrote: »

If you hate on Sky Sports then you are a "real" football fan

Yet people who "hate" Sky will still watch it.

Dub13

MementoMori wrote: »

In a sense I kinda agree.

Looking at the current costs of the squads and the recent spending patterns, it's pretty clear that Liverpool and Arsenal have probably over-achieved previously in terms of maintaining their top four status for so long.

Chelsea £230m
Man City £227m
Man Utd £205m
Spurs £178m
Liverpool £144m
Aston Villa £122m
Arsenal £90m

These are my best estimates on what the current squads for this season have cost.
Long-term loan players aren't included as a team don't get any benefit from them so I don't think it's fair to include their cost.
[This is mainly due to Jo who cost City £19m but is at Everton for this season again]

I would be interested in your breakdown of Liverpool's squad,sure Torres,Gerrad & Aquilani would be near that.

iregk

That_Guy wrote: »

Yet people who "hate" Sky will still watch it.

I hate sky and I don't watch it. Don't have sky sports, got rid of it due to the head wrecking crap they spout on a constant basis.

pickarooney

mayordenis wrote: »

Me, I was saying that Ringo (Liverpool) who I think will outlive Paul (John and George = deaded as I'm sure we all know, Paul is 2 years younger but looks about 20 years older) is similar to how overall Liverpool have the most success of all, and these flash in the pan teams will be gone in no time :pac:

Once they're done with the Fat Controller, that is.

MementoMori

Mossy Monk wrote: »

Top 4 status is based on how much your squad is worth?

Not worth. Cost. Too vastly different things.

That aside glad you understood my point so clearly.

Dub13 wrote: »

I would be interested in your breakdown of Liverpool's squad,sure Torres,Gerrad & Aquilani would be near that.

Never said worth, said cost. Mossy mis-interpreted me.

Getting into what one player, never mind what a squad is worth, is a massively arbitrary game, so I wouldn't even bother. Also short on time today.

However one point worth noting is that a key component of how valueable a squad is, is the length of time left on contracts and that is one area where the Liverpool squad (and even reserves/youngsters) are in a very good state.

Kold

That_Guy wrote: »

Yet people who "hate" Sky will still watch it.

If there was an alternative I reckon I'd give it a bash... Oh wait, I watch all the games on stream.

starbelgrade

mayordenis wrote: »

Me, I was saying that Ringo (Liverpool) who I think will outlive Paul (John and George = deaded as I'm sure we all know, Paul is 2 years younger but looks about 20 years older) is similar to how overall Liverpool have the most success of all, and these flash in the pan teams will be gone in no time :pac:

If Liverpool are Ringo, all they seem to be doing is the football equivalent crappy jobs, like voice-overs for Thomas the Tank Engine!

Meanwhile, Paul McCartney is still alive & well and rocking on.

Bandit12

Who cares if your part of the "big four" or not. Winning is what matters. Second is nowhere.

Bandit12

iregk wrote: »

I hate sky and I don't watch it. Don't have sky sports, got rid of it due to the head wrecking crap they spout on a constant basis.

I have never and will never have sky sports in my house. I hold them up as one of the main culprits in the destruction of match day atmosphere inside football stadia.

leninbenjamin

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

many often say George was underrated and possibly the best Beatle.

I read that article too and I nearly choked on my tea the way he dismissed George so much. Utter drivel.

The big 4 are so called only because they have had a monopoly on the champions league spots for so long. I thought it was pretty obvious why it is used. Yer man was just clutching at straws with that article.