Can Liverpool be considered part of the big 4 anymore?

The Muppet

doc_17 wrote: »

There's a big 4 and a rich 4. They aren't the same thing. So Liverpool are a big 4 club.

There's a lot more than 4 big clubs in England if support is the criteria used to guage it and they are not all in the Premiership. Leeds for example are a big club.

The big 4 that us usually referenced is the top 4 team in the prem for the last few seasons it has been United Arsenal Chelsea and Liverpool, Liverpool have already dropped out of it and I think Arsenal neeed to strengthen too because we are about to see a shift with City enterering that group and Tottenham may well hold onto their place.

MuPpItJoCkEy

I am interested to see how Tottenham fair out in the league this season IF they make it to the Champions League.

Everton have had some great seasons their following season after that seen them suffer. Especially when they first started making it into Europe.

If Spurs do make it to the group stages, it's going to be a lot of games for them and travelling so whether or not they are ready for that and be able to keep doing the business in the league at the same time is another story.

doc_17

The Muppet wrote: »

There's a lot more than 4 big clubs in England if support is the criteria used to guage it and they are not all in the Premiership. Leeds for example are a big club.

The big 4 that us usually referenced is the top 4 team in the prem for the last few seasons it has been United Arsenal Chelsea and Liverpool, Liverpool have already dropped out of it and I think Arsenal neeed to strengthen too because we are about to see a shift with City enterering that group and Tottenham may well hold onto their place.

So now there's a top 4, big 4 and rich 4! You are right but the OPs question is not really about league position as far as I'm aware.

therecklessone

stumpypeeps wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/528729.stm

Date of article:

Saturday, 20 November, 1999, 04:31 GMT

stumpypeeps

therecklessone wrote: »

Date of article:

Saturday, 20 November, 1999, 04:31 GMT

I didn't realise the article was so old. Still relevant according to my friends in sports science in Manchester.

Here's Harry Kewells agent talking about treatment.

The agent of former Leeds and Liverpool star Harry Kewell has delivered an astonishing broadside to the British medical system, claiming the Australia international received sub-standard treatment in this country.

It is not the first time the Kewell camp have made such claims, following the player's own attack on the Leeds medical staff prior to his departure for Liverpool in 2003.

Kewell spent 13 years in England from 1995, the majority of which came at Elland Road where he was a key component in Leeds' Premier League heyday of the late nineties and early noughties.

However, he was offloaded as part of club's fire sale in the wake of relegation. Kewell joined Liverpool but was blighted by a succession of injuries, never scaling the heights that had once led to a reported £20+million bid from Inter Milan.

The Australian limped out of both the Champions League final in 2005 and the FA Cup showpiece a year later; the latter injury, a torn a groin muscle, kept Kewell sidelined for almost a year.

The 31-year-old has since resurrected his career at Turkish club Galatasaray, but continues to be hampered by fitness problems. According to his agent, though, he is now in the best possible hands after being allowed to return to Sydney for treatment.

'The reason he gets treated out here [in Australia] now is because we have the best medical staff in the world,' Bernie Mandic told the Sydney Morning Herald. 'He lost three-and-a-half years of his career at Liverpool because the guys over there in England had, quite literally, no idea what they were talking about.

'You have to wonder what they're doing over there. Perhaps they're trying to protect their reputations, but they're certainly not trying to protect their players.

'I think it's a disgrace, as I think it was a disgrace the way Harry was treated.

'What goes around comes around, and people are now wondering, 'How has he recovered like that?' when everyone in England thought he was a broken toy.

'It's a damn shame we didn't … come here earlier. If nothing else, the last World Cup would have seen a far better Harry and maybe they could have avoided the [foot] injury he suffered in the end.'

'But that's life, you learn from it, move on, and that's exactly what Harry's done. Now he doesn't take any chances. He likes to get second opinions, and the bottom line is that Australian doctors have never let him down.'

Ironically, Liverpool - who are believed to have thought Kewell would never make a full recovery - are now trying to track down the Australian specialists who brought him back to full health.

'We had Rafa Benitez call him the other night inquiring who these guys were because Fernando Torres has got such major problems now,' Mandic said.

'Then we've had Jonathan Woodgate's physio, Dave Hancock, who used to work at Chelsea and before that worked with Harry and Jonathan at Leeds, inquiring about Jonathan, who is apparently almost unfixable.

'Look at Liverpool - why is it that over so many recent years, usually around November, lots of their key players are injured? …

'It's always soft-tissue injuries. How come other clubs, like Arsenal, don't have that sort of a dilemma? And why do their players recover quicker? There's logical reasons for all of this.'

Source (Daily Mail)

Mr Alan

i remember those quotes from his agent alright. twas pretty funny when someone responded to them by posting up an old article on the official site talking about how he went back to australia while he was at Liverpool regularly to receive treatment from his own doctor. The article talks about him gettin nursed back to full health with the correct medical care since he left liverpool but hasn't he been injured a load since then? Didn't he get injured at this world cup again? Seems to of that he can't just accept he is a crock.

The Muppet

doc_17 wrote: »

So now there's a top 4, big 4 and rich 4! You are right but the OPs question is not really about league position as far as I'm aware.

What is the ops question about? There are many top 4 as you say but in the last few years the term top 4 has referred to league position.

stumpypeeps

Mr Alan wrote: »

i remember those quotes from his agent alright. twas pretty funny when someone responded to them by posting up an old article on the official site talking about how he went back to australia while he was at Liverpool regularly to receive treatment from his own doctor. Seems like Harry can't just accept he is a crock.

Well seen as the entire medical staff bar one or two have been sacked and Australians brought in, looks like Harrys agent was spot on no?

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

What is the ops question about? There are many top 4 as you say but in the last few years the term top 4 has referred to league position.

The OP talks about the big 4. Not the top 4.

stumpypeeps

The Muppet wrote: »

What is the ops question about? There are many top 4 as you say but in the last few years the term top 4 has referred to league position.

This whole thread is a little silly. Liverpool have just been paid £80 Million by Standard Chartered to get their name on their shirt. Thats the second biggest sponsorship deal in the League.

Liverpool are still the most successful club in the history of British Football.

If Liverpool finished in the bottom half of the table for the next ten years they'd still be a bigger club than anyone outside of United.

jesus_thats_gre

It's amazing what you lot manage to drag out of bull**** topics..

The Muppet

stumpypeeps wrote: »

This whole thread is a little silly. Liverpool have just been paid £80 Million by Standard Chartered to get their name on their shirt. Thats the second biggest sponsorship deal in the League.

Liverpool are still the most successful club in the history of British Football.

If Liverpool finished in the bottom half of the table for the next ten years they'd still be a bigger club than anyone outside of United.

What would make them so?

K-9

doc_17 wrote: »

So now there's a top 4, big 4 and rich 4! You are right but the OPs question is not really about league position as far as I'm aware.

Who are the rich 4 though and what's based on?

stumpypeeps

stumpypeeps wrote: »

If Liverpool finished in the bottom half of the table for the next ten years they'd still be a bigger club than anyone outside of United.

Really?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

K-9

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On a European trophy level, obviously both.

x in the city

Liverpool haven't won a league since 1990 and are no where nearer to ending that drought.

Everton and Liverpool dominated the game in the 80s, it would be nice to revert back to them times....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/howard-kendall-bolt-from-the-blue-1935322.html


*talks to himself

ilovelamp2000

stumpypeeps wrote: »

Footballers 'receive poor medical care'
The survey says some club physiotherapists are not qualified

Footballers are being treated by unqualified physiotherapists and inexperienced doctors who come under pressure from club managers to make them play while unfit, according to a survey.


Some clubs are investing huge amounts of money in players but failing to invest in proper medical care
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
Some club doctors in the Premiership and the Nationwide League admitted that they lacked past experience of sports medicine, while physiotherapists sometimes did not have formal qualifications.

On occasion, they said they breached patient confidentiality by passing private information about footballers to their employers.

The survey, commissioned by the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) and carried out by the Centre for Research into Sport and Society at the University of Leicester, used evidence from 49 interviews and anonymous questionnaires completed by 58 doctors and physiotherapists.

It found that just three club doctors took up their posts after replying to advertisements, only one of which was in the medical press. The others were generally appointed on a network basis.

Just nine of the respondents had specific qualifications in physiotherapy.

'Not qualified to work in NHS'

The director of the Centre for Research into Sport and Society, Ivan Waddington, said: "All these football club players are being looked after by somebody who is not qualified to work in the NHS.

"Practice is no better in the Premiership than in the third division. There is more money but just as much bad practice."

Among the cases uncovered by the study was one of a top division player, who was attracting the attentions of three other major English clubs and two continental sides, being summoned to the physiotherapist's house where he was also met by the surgeon who had recently operated on him.

He was then told he had only a year left to his career and that his value on the transfer market was therefore negligible. The player went on to play for another 11 years.

In another case, a Premiership footballer played for several months on painkillers for an injured toe and was not told until the end of the season that the bone had been broken, though the club's medical staff were aware of this throughout.

'Timely reminder'

The chief executive of the PFA, Gordon Taylor, said: "It is a timely reminder that we need to carry on improving matters."

All physiotherapists in the Premiership must now be qualified and Mr Taylor called for this to be extended to the Nationwide League.

This plea was supported by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, whose chief executive Phil Gray said: "Some clubs are investing huge amounts of money in players but failing to invest in proper medical care."

Mr Waddington demanded a series of measures to tighten controls on physiotherapists, including compulsory advertising for posts in appropriate journals and possession of qualifications in sports medicine.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/528729.stm

That isn't necessarily indicative of what you think it is. There are other qualifications that are suitable for people treating sports injuries that don't give them the ability to work in the NHS. Does that mean they can't treat sports injuries properly ? Personally I doubt it.

That said I agree with a bit of what you are saying, I don't think Premiership clubs do necessarily have the best staff in place to deal with injuries, David James wrote an article on his experiences in the Guardian last year if I remember correctly.

The most laughable example of it actually took place at Liverpool, where a "doctor" was found not to have the correct qualifications to practice as a doctor and it only came to light when the person was asked to sign off on a medical for an incoming signing.

You've also got to bear in mind that the demands on top footballers are pretty ridiculous at this stage and don't help matters.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

doc_17

K-9 wrote: »

Who are the rich 4 though and what's based on?

I have no idea.

The Muppet wrote: »

What would make them so?

The same thing that made Man Utd a big club in the 70s and 80s.

The Muppet wrote: »

What is the ops question about? There are many top 4 as you say but in the last few years the term top 4 has referred to league position.

The OPs question was basically are liverppol still one of the "Big 4" and since no criteria was given as to what membership of the big 4 entails then anyone can answer either yes or no.

It's like "list all the nice people". Too subjective.

In fact, i just read the OP again and this thread is curious. Would the OP be a Man U fan?

x in the city

x in the city wrote: »

Liverpool haven't won a league since 1990 and are no where nearer to ending that drought.

Everton and Liverpool dominated the game in the 80s, it would be nice to revert back to them times....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/howard-kendall-bolt-from-the-blue-1935322.html


*talks to himself

So are you gonna take that bet I offered then?

Liverpool to finish above Everton this season - €50.

Sure it's easy money for you as you said Everton will certainly finish higher?

man or mouse

roar_ie

I think there are 2 distinct questions here.

Are Liverpool a big club? As a Man UTD fan, I would have to say yes. You just need to see their fan base and history to recognise this.

Will Liverpool be challengers? This I think is the more important question. When it comes to the Premiership, for me it depends on how they start the season. A good start, with some good football/results will provide the team with the confidence and belief they so clearly lacked last season. If they get that, then yes I think they could challenge. However if they have a bad start, I can see the players that are already disenchanted with the club becoming more so and them having another poor season.

~Rebel~

Rosco1982 wrote: »

That isn't necessarily indicative of what you think it is. There are other qualifications that are suitable for people treating sports injuries that don't give them the ability to work in the NHS. Does that mean they can't treat sports injuries properly ? Personally I doubt it.

That said I agree with a bit of what you are saying, I don't think Premiership clubs do necessarily have the best staff in place to deal with injuries, David James wrote an article on his experiences in the Guardian last year if I remember correctly.

The most laughable example of it actually took place at Liverpool, where a "doctor" was found not to have the correct qualifications to practice as a doctor and it only came to light when the person was asked to sign off on a medical for an incoming signing.

You've also got to bear in mind that the demands on top footballers are pretty ridiculous at this stage and don't help matters.

As was pointed out, that article is also 11 years old..

The Muppet

I think we're straying from the question, no one is doubting Liverpool will always be a big club in the same way Leeds are still a big club despite their plight their average attendances a just a few thousand below Liverpools.

The question is will Liverpool be considered one of the "big 4" and I don't believe they will if they don't get back to achieveing a regular top 4 league finish.

There was a time when Leeds would have been considered one of the Big 4 English teams so to say any team would be considered thus irrespective of their performances/result is wrong IMO.

doc_17

The Muppet wrote: »

I think we're straying from the question, no one is doubting Liverpool will always be a big club in the same way Leeds are still a big club despite their plight their average attendances a just a few thousand below Liverpools.

The question is will Liverpool be considered one of the "big 4" and I don't believe they will if they don't get back to achieveing a regular top 4 league finish.

There was a time when Leeds would have been considered one of the Big 4 English teams so to say any team would be considered thus irrespective of their performances/result is wrong IMO.

The question is completely stupid then. This thread is completely stupid if noone knows what exactly we're supposed to be talking about!!!!

parker kent

The Muppet wrote: »

I think we're straying from the question, no one is doubting Liverpool will always be a big club in the same way Leeds are still a big club despite their plight their average attendances a just a few thousand below Liverpools.

The question is will Liverpool be considered one of the "big 4" and I don't believe they will if they don't get back to achieveing a regular top 4 league finish.

There was a time when Leeds would have been considered one of the Big 4 English teams so to say any team would be considered thus irrespective of their performances/result is wrong IMO.

But why must there even be a "Big 4"? Working under the idea that it is not related to being a big club, it is not a promotion/relegation system. There just happened to be 4 teams regularly taking the 4 Champions League places. That that 4 had the 3 biggest names in English football and noveau riche Chelsea, made it easier for Sky to label them the big 4 and set up all their Grand Slam Sunday malarkey.

I don't really see the need to discuss whether somebody is part of an artificially produced phrase.

Spurs and Man City are unknown quantities next season, so it is difficult to say if one will make a definite step forward. City will have to bed in new players and try to improve. Spurs will have to do do something unusual for them and have 2 good seasons in a row. Then add in that they may have group stage games to juggle which will be new for them. So that gives Liverpool plenty of opportunity to slip back in there. Who knows, maybe Arsenal could have a dismal season and finish 4th and Liverpool might get third? Or Liverpool could be as bas as last season and finish seventh. With that sort of uncertainty, it is difficult to put any club into Sky's natty marketing label.

rossie1977

The Muppet wrote: »

I think we're straying from the question, no one is doubting Liverpool will always be a big club in the same way Leeds are still a big club despite their plight their average attendances a just a few thousand below Liverpools.

leeds averaged 24,000 in league 1 over 3 years and 21,000 last two years in the championship

The Muppet

The Muppet wrote: »

I think we're straying from the question, no one is doubting Liverpool will always be a big club in the same way Leeds are still a big club despite their plight their average attendances a just a few thousand below Liverpools.

The question is will Liverpool be considered one of the "big 4" and I don't believe they will if they don't get back to achieveing a regular top 4 league finish.

There was a time when Leeds would have been considered one of the Big 4 English teams so to say any team would be considered thus irrespective of their performances/result is wrong IMO.

Muppet, your energy to keep pointless threads going has to be admired

x in the city

parker kent wrote: »

But why must there even be a "Big 4"? Working under the idea that it is not related to being a big club, it is not a promotion/relegation system. There just happened to be 4 teams regularly taking the 4 Champions League places. That that 4 had the 3 biggest names in English football and noveau riche Chelsea, made it easier for Sky to label them the big 4 and set up all their Grand Slam Sunday malarkey.

I don't really see the need to discuss whether somebody is part of an artificially produced phrase.

Spurs and Man City are unknown quantities next season, so it is difficult to say if one will make a definite step forward. City will have to bed in new players and try to improve. Spurs will have to do do something unusual for them and have 2 good seasons in a row. Then add in that they may have group stage games to juggle which will be new for them. So that gives Liverpool plenty of opportunity to slip back in there. Who knows, maybe Arsenal could have a dismal season and finish 4th and Liverpool might get third? Or Liverpool could be as bas as last season and finish seventh. With that sort of uncertainty, it is difficult to put any club into Sky's natty marketing label.

there is only a big four because of sky and george hooks insistence that we all get a sky package..

they do care you know. :rolleyes:

The Muppet

rossie1977 wrote: »

leeds averaged 24,000 in league 1 over 3 years and 21,000 last two years in the championship

Go on give last season figures I though i read it was in the late 30ks perhaps I'm wrong.

amacachi

I was wondering why I was feeling so serene this summer and this thread made me realise what it was; it's the first time in my life that I haven't had to listen about how Liverpool have made 1 or 2 signings and that this will be their year.

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

I was wondering why I was feeling so serene this summer and this thread made me realise what it was; it's the first time in my life that I haven't had to listen about how Liverpool have made 1 or 2 signings and that this will be their year.

Liverpool have made signings though.

Also, who ever said it will be Liverpools year recently?

The Muppet

rarnes1 wrote: »

Muppet, your energy to keep pointless threads going has to be admired

Excuse me if I point out that you have more posts in this thread than I have, Why are you keeping it going?:p

The Muppet

The Muppet wrote: »

Excuse me if I point out that you have more posts in this thread than I have, Why are you keeping it going?:p

You also have more posts in the Liverpool superthread than the utd one but we won't go down that road

K-9

amacachi wrote: »

I was wondering why I was feeling so serene this summer and this thread made me realise what it was; it's the first time in my life that I haven't had to listen about how Liverpool have made 1 or 2 signings and that this will be their year.

Maybe it's reverse psychology!

I'm loving being written of by so many. Pool fans have no unrealistic aspirations this year, a serious push for 4th would be great.

Funds do seem to be there for at least 1 decent money purchase and a fair bit of the Masch money should be there too. No big new contracts to renegotiate this year either, which was part of the transfer fund last Summer. We haven't paid any big money since Acquilani. Sold a few dead wood players, barring Benny and got a couple of decent frees.

parker kent

rarnes1 wrote: »

Liverpool have made signings though.

Also, who ever said it will be Liverpools year recently?

It was a pretty commonly held opinion last year that Liverpool would win the league. The viewpoint these people held was that they would step on from finishing second and United would falter due to Ronaldo and Tevez leaving. I was lambasted for saying they would finish fourth at best last season. Obviously not everybody thought this, but it was far from uncommon.

Mister men

We'll do well to stay in the top half of the league next season as long as the owners are still there.