What's your unpopular football opinion?

The Golden Miller

JamboMac wrote: »

I find this funny coz in another thread some blokes been trying to convince me Leeds are a big club.:D.

Says they lad who tried to claim Soton were just as big as Leeds, despite winning 1 FA cup in their entire history! It's all relative. I never said Leeds were a big club in comparison to Man United for example, they are a big club in the chasing pack where you have the Chelsea's, Man City's, Spurs, Newscastle's, Eveton's and Villa's of this world. I'd consider the lot tier 2 teams, big clubs who don't quite make the cut as England's best ever, but big nonetheless and ahead of the rest when a good spread of metrics are factored in.

JamboMac wrote: »

By that i mean they aren't a big club because abramhovich's money. Manchester United are the biggest thanks to the history and success. The money came as a result of that and not the Glazer's where Chelsea, Man City and other's just gained financial clout from nowhere. Arsenal are a big club thanks to Arsene and spurs could be bigger if they weren't so cheap.

So only United and Arsenal are big clubs in your opinion? And only Arsenal since Wenger took over, despite Arsenal being England's second most successful before he ever came? Flawless logic right there. So Arsenal won a few leagues 15 year ago and done little since and qualify as a big club, but Liverpool don't since it was 22 years ago or whatever? Where's the cut off point to being considered big since Arsenal qualify and Liverpool don't? Last winning the league 16 year ago? Or is it 17, 18, 19 etc? I'd love to know the exact parameters since you seemingly make these distinctions in spite of Liverpool and Arsenal's last league successes being not too far apart, relatively speaking

The Golden Miller

England's "big clubs":

Tier 1: Liverpool, Man United, Arsenal,

Tier 2: Aston Villa, Newcastle, Leeds, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Spurs

Tier 3/4/5/6 etc: The rest

Tom Mann Centuria

Liverpool and United pissing contests that break out in every soccer forum thread are dull.

bucketybuck

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I must of missed the handbook

Along with a lot of other things.

JamboMac

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Says they lad who tried to claim Soton were just as big as Leeds, despite winning 1 FA cup in their entire history! It's all relative. I never said Leeds were a big club in comparison to Man United for example, they are a big club in the chasing pack where you have the Chelsea's, Man City's, Spurs, Newscastle's, Eveton's and Villa's of this world. I'd consider the lot tier 2 teams, big clubs who don't quite make the cut as England's best ever, but big nonetheless and ahead of the rest when a good spread of metrics are factored in.



So only United and Arsenal are big clubs in your opinion? And only Arsenal since Wenger took over, despite Arsenal being England's second most successful before he ever came? Flawless logic right there. So Arsenal won a few leagues 15 year ago and done little since and qualify as a big club, but Liverpool don't since it was 22 years ago or whatever? Where's the cut off point to being considered big since Arsenal qualify and Liverpool don't? Last winning the league 16 year ago? Or is it 17, 18, 19 etc? I'd love to know the exact parameters since you seemingly make these distinctions in spite of Liverpool and Arsenal's last league successes being not too far apart, relatively speaking

Ever feel like your being followed, I proved countless time with many facts why Leeds are not a big club. Maybe in multiverse reality Leeds are maybe you live in that reality coz you don't live in this one.

All you provided was your opinion and some website that makes zero sense. But please continue dragging this out with your shouty kind of debating with no evince please.

The Talking Bread

It is all a load of nonsense but determining (sigh) "big clubs" should be determined by a mixture of various factors such as historical longevity as a club, honours, what time period (ie lately or decades ago) said honours are attained, how many times they were top flight clubs, fan base, attendances, social media relevance-forums etc, global appeal, fan clubs abroad etc, non domestic trophies, etc etc

Other modern factors have to come into play now such as investment appeal, player attraction, new fan appeal, future prospects, merchandise, even frequency on tv.

Oh, and how AND why investment was pumped into a club. I believe this is a factor to be taken into account.

A mixture of all, in different doses.

alchemist33

Players shouldn't be banned for recreational drug use. Banned for performance-enhancing drugs, yes. Clubs punish players for recreational drugs, sure. But the FA banning for players for non-performance enhancing drugs is just about morals and shouldn't be any of their business.

Hammer Archer

Some supporters' obsessions about whether certain clubs are "big" or not are equally dull.
Who the hell cares?

JamboMac

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Some supporters' obsessions about whether certain clubs are "big" or not are equally dull.
Who the hell cares?

I'm sorry for my part in this, but I didn't realise somebody would literally stalk me into another thread.

BBDBB

JamboMac wrote: »

I'm sorry for my part in this, but I didn't realise somebody would literally stalk me into another thread.

ahh there you are! found you, right, my turn to hide, you close your eyes and count to a hundred.....no peeking

JamboMac

BBDBB wrote: »

ahh there you are! found you, right, my turn to hide, you close your eyes and count to a hundred.....no peeking

Ffs.

The Golden Miller

JamboMac wrote: »

Ever feel like your being followed, I proved countless time with many facts why Leeds are not a big club. Maybe in multiverse reality Leeds are maybe you live in that reality coz you don't live in this one.

All you provided was your opinion and some website that makes zero sense. But please continue dragging this out with your shouty kind of debating with no evince please.

JamboMac wrote: »

I'm sorry for my part in this, but I didn't realise somebody would literally stalk me into another thread.

Wasn't it you who referenced me in this thread, quite some time after the topic died on the other thread? So remind me, who was stalking who? Am I that much to the forefront of your thoughts? Should I be worried I'm here asking myself? As for "facts", you gave nothing but subjective opinions with links from obscure websites, not realising the topic is pretty much subjective to begin with, the best little gem being So'ton were bigger than Leed's because they produced and sold off good underage players! Here's a fact, Leeds had bigger attendances in League 1 than So'ton had in the Championship. Such a bigger club than Leed's, with their 1 FA cup and all

The Talking Bread

alchemist33 wrote: »

Players shouldn't be banned for recreational drug use. Banned for performance-enhancing drugs, yes. Clubs punish players for recreational drugs, sure. But the FA banning for players for non-performance enhancing drugs is just about morals and shouldn't be any of their business.

I respect your take but in my opinion I disagree, nothing personal!.

The Body which presides over a sporting association have every right, both legally( I mean they have a legal right to, not a legal obligation) and morally, and a public duty and a duty to the players also to intervene if members of their association are employing staff who are taking illegal substances and giving them leeway as to whether they want to punish certain players or not.

If it were to reach public knowledge, (Berainho case) what sort of public reaction would such a body which governs a sport, which children are so invested in, get.

They can't order the club to intervene in your scenario? The club could then decide they aren't going to punish their best player but may find out that a player in the reserves is also snorting a substance and punish him. Employment Equality then comes to the fore.


The FA needs to set respectable standards. Besides many recreational drugs do help performances. And they can also help to impair the investigation into the presence of "performance enhancing substances"

I do think it should be kept in secret though if possible and rehabilitation, rather than punishment should be the prime focus. But, having seen drug addicts in rehab situation, there has to be some sort of punishment to make a success of the rehab for the vast majority of cases.

You could argue that they should fine them as said punishment but they can only fine them so much and given the wealth of footballers a fine is not enough of an incentive to bother either a player or, indeed, a club.

It is an interesting topic though, especially in light of the recent case.

Ormus

Could we not just agree that "big" is a completely subjective word which means totally different things to different people?

The_Kew_Tour

As a United fan I think Liverpool are a big Club.

They are one of the most successful clubs in Europe.

Its should not even be up for debate, but the title of this thread in fairness is about unpopular opinion.

JamboMac

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Wasn't it you who referenced me in this thread, quite some time after the topic died on the other thread? So remind me, who was stalking who? Am I that much to the forefront of your thoughts? Should I be worried I'm here asking myself? As for "facts", you gave nothing but subjective opinions with links from obscure websites, not realising the topic is pretty much subjective to begin with, the best little gem being So'ton were bigger than Leed's because they produced and sold off good underage players! Here's a fact, Leeds had bigger attendances in League 1 than So'ton had in the Championship. Such a bigger club than Leed's, with their 1 FA cup and all

Fact reference means using an identifiable name.
Fact I was in this thread before and you decided to continue a debate with me in another thread.

Stalking definition: of or relating to the act of pursuing or harassing

All sites I used are reputable the on you used is one made by some web developer to see which stadiums people went too.

Southampton 8th in premier league Leeds 7th championship fact. 20 years ago Leeds where big, now not at all.

NIMAN

Football is riddled with PEDs.

The Golden Miller

JamboMac wrote: »

Fact reference means using an identifiable name.
Fact I was in this thread before and you decided to continue a debate with me in another thread.

Stalking definition: of or relating to the act of pursuing or harassing

All sites I used are reputable the on you used is one made by some web developer to see which stadiums people went too.

Southampton 8th in premier league Leeds 7th championship fact. 20 years ago Leeds where big, now not at all.

So St. Mirren were bigger than Rangers when Rangers were in the 3rd division? You provided 0 facts, other than your own subjective criteria, on a website that gave a random number for attendances while not actually going into any detail on how they obtained the figures. As I said, Leeds had bigger attendances in League One than So'ton in the Championship.

Yes, once you went around other threads referencing me long after the topic had died in the other thread, I responded, as is the point of forums, is it not? To debate? Your stalking definition carries no weight in this context, since you went out of your way to reference another poster. The right to reply simply doesn't fall under the category of stalking. Pretty simple really. Although as I said, going around referencing other posters in a negative manner and in an unprovoked fashion is far more worrying I would have thought?

Omackeral

The Golden Miller wrote: »

, the best little gem being So'ton were bigger than Leed's

Ah the famous Apostrophe Derby. Now that's big.

The Golden Miller

Omackeral wrote: »

Ah the famous Apostrophe Derby. Now that's big.

Only a small derby though, those So'ton minnows letting the occassion down

JamboMac

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So St. Mirren were bigger than Rangers when Rangers were in the 3rd division? You provided 0 facts, other than your own subjective criteria, on a website that gave a random number for attendances while not actually going into any detail on how they obtained the figures. As I said, Leeds had bigger attendances in League One than So'ton in the Championship.

Yes, once you went around other threads referencing me long after the topic had died in the other thread, I responded, as is the point of forums, is it not? To debate? Your stalking definition carries no weight in this context, since you went out of your way to reference another poster. The right to reply simply doesn't fall under the category of stalking. Pretty simple really. Although as I said, going around referencing other posters in a negative manner and in an unprovoked fashion is far more worrying I would have thought?

So not saying your name once is referencing you?

Since you equate attendance to success, Leeds don't make the top 20.

http://talksport.com/football/average-attendances-201617-so-far-top-20-british-clubs-featuring-premier-league?p=0
Spoiler Southampton do.

Websites I use talksport etc are random websites? Really.
You use a website which says where the specific members of that site have gone is legitimate data.
I hope you are not in banking or data analysis.

The Golden Miller

JamboMac wrote: »

So not saying your name once is referencing you?

Since you equate attendance to success, Leeds don't make the top 20.

http://talksport.com/football/average-attendances-201617-so-far-top-20-british-clubs-featuring-premier-league?p=0
Spoiler Southampton do.

Websites I use talksport etc are random websites? Really.
You use a website which says where the specific members of that site have gone is legitimate data.
I hope you are not in banking or data analysis.

Yes, making implications and alluding to someone is referencing someone, depending on the context of course. In this case it was pretty straight forward. Again, very basic stuff.

1.the action of mentioning or alluding to something.
"he made reference to the enormous power of the mass media"
synonyms: mention of, allusion to, comment on, remark about; More
2.
the use of a source of information in order to ascertain something.
"popular works of reference"

More goal post moving, talksport wasn't the website you used previously. And of course all Premiership teams will have full capacity attendances, just as Leeds would if they got promoted. But we can weed out the big teams from the rest, when they both fall on fallow times, and Leeds were bringing in bigger gates than So'ton who were a division above. That's telling.

When you've no other metric to determine So'ton being a bigger club, you revert back to the here and now. Being a division above, with all it brings, doesn't mean you're a bigger footballing institution. You're getting a topic of "big clubs" mixed up with the "best teams currently". Again, very basic stuff. You line of argument is all over the place. Jumping from trophies won in the 1890's to determine a big club on the previous thread, to then writing off any team who isn't at the top in the here and now. A bit of consistency wouldn't go astray.

blinding

Ormus wrote: »

Could we not just agree that "big" is a completely subjective word which means totally different things to different people?

I was going to say something about a certain part of my body but your right , its all subjective.......

If you had a football club in your trousers , which would be the biggest.....

BrookieD

i dont want to see a video replay to correct every descision in a game. what in the blue hell will provoke discussion on a Monday morning? Ahh did ye see the replay of that offisde/foul/goal/non goal/ great huh?

plus it takes away the level playing field for all teams to operate the same, from non league to premier league.

leave humans get it wrong every now and again

JamboMac

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Yes, making implications and alluding to someone is referencing someone, depending on the context of course. In this case it was pretty straight forward. Again, very basic stuff.

1.the action of mentioning or alluding to something.
"he made reference to the enormous power of the mass media"
synonyms: mention of, allusion to, comment on, remark about; More
2.
the use of a source of information in order to ascertain something.
"popular works of reference"

More goal post moving, talksport wasn't the website you used previously. And of course all Premiership teams will have full capacity attendances, just as Leeds would if they got promoted. But we can weed out the big teams from the rest, when they both fall on fallow times, and Leeds were bringing in bigger gates than So'ton who were a division above. That's telling.

When you've no other metric to determine So'ton being a bigger club, you revert back to the here and now. Being a division above, with all it brings, doesn't mean you're a bigger footballing institution. You're getting a topic of "big clubs" mixed up with the "best teams currently". Again, very basic stuff. You line of argument is all over the place. Jumping from trophies won in the 1890's to determine a big club on the previous thread, to then writing off any team who isn't at the top in the here and now. A bit of consistency wouldn't go astray.

I gave you 5 including talksport, but you looked at none.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057724279&page=10

KaiserGunner

BrookieD wrote: »

i dont want to see a video replay to correct every descision in a game. what in the blue hell will provoke discussion on a Monday morning? Ahh did ye see the replay of that offisde/foul/goal/non goal/ great huh?

plus it takes away the level playing field for all teams to operate the same, from non league to premier league.

leave humans get it wrong every now and again

Tbh I'd rather that a team won on merit than by bad officiating and mistakes. On a Monday morning I'd rather talk about the great football and goals than contentious decisions, especially if it was my team on the wrong end of them.

bucketybuck

KaiserGunner wrote: »

On a Monday morning I'd rather talk about the great football and goals than contentious decisions

But nobody would be talking about the football.

Great football provokes praise, contentious decisions provoke debate, and debate will always generate more discussion than praise will.

Brian?

The Talking Bread wrote: »

It is all a load of nonsense but determining (sigh) "big clubs" should be determined by a mixture of various factors such as historical longevity as a club, honours, what time period (ie lately or decades ago) said honours are attained, how many times they were top flight clubs, fan base, attendances, social media relevance-forums etc, global appeal, fan clubs abroad etc, non domestic trophies, etc etc

Other modern factors have to come into play now such as investment appeal, player attraction, new fan appeal, future prospects, merchandise, even frequency on tv.

Oh, and how AND why investment was pumped into a club. I believe this is a factor to be taken into account.

A mixture of all, in different doses.

In order to be a truly big club, you had to have been a founder member of the league and spend at least 125 seasons in the top flight of English football.


Which clubs meet that criteria?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

It is all a load of nonsense but determining (sigh) "big clubs" should be determined by a mixture of various factors such as historical longevity as a club, honours, what time period (ie lately or decades ago) said honours are attained, how many times they were top flight clubs, fan base, attendances, social media relevance-forums etc, global appeal, fan clubs abroad etc, non domestic trophies, etc etc

Other modern factors have to come into play now such as investment appeal, player attraction, new fan appeal, future prospects, merchandise, even frequency on tv.

Oh, and how AND why investment was pumped into a club. I believe this is a factor to be taken into account.

A mixture of all, in different doses.

In order to be a truly big club, you had to have been a founder member of the league and spend at least 125 seasons in the top flight of English football.


Which clubs meet that criteria?

115 not 125.

BrookieD

BrookieD wrote: »

i dont want to see a video replay to correct every descision in a game. what in the blue hell will provoke discussion on a Monday morning? Ahh did ye see the replay of that offisde/foul/goal/non goal/ great huh?

plus it takes away the level playing field for all teams to operate the same, from non league to premier league.

leave humans get it wrong every now and again

We shouldn't have switched on broadband until we made sure every house & business in the country was connected first. That would have gone down well......

deadybai

This CROSSED my mind today.

I think David Beckham was an absolutely brilliant player and had he not been a celebrity he would have been one of Englands greatest . I think Fergie said that he was stupid to go to LA Galaxy and i completely agree.

My other unpopular opinion is. I'm a United fan but my second favourite team is Liverpool. Obviously i love beating them and finishing above them but putting that aside. It's an absolutely brilliant club and i miss the Champions Leagues nights from 10-15 years ago. I'd much rather Liverpool win the league than City or Chelsea who are two rotten clubs especially City.

Another unpopular opinion i have is , I hate Martin O Neil. He's done well with Ireland but comes across as an arrogant pr1ck

sky88

As man united fan I don't have any hate towards Liverpool or city.

764dak

La Liga seems overrated.

AndyBoBandy

764dak wrote: »

La Liga seems overrated.

Last night Barca won 7-1 and Real Madrid won 6-2

Both with 2nd string sides (Madrid only had 2 starters from the weekends Classico)


2 teams level at the top.
It might be a 2 horse race again this year, but is the league overrated? I don't believe it is.

dundalkfc10

sky88 wrote: »

As man united fan I don't have any hate towards Liverpool or city.

Not surprised, your Irish! Why would you have any hate towards a football team in a different Country!

764dak wrote: »

La Liga seems overrated.

And the Premiership isnt :eek:

ERG89

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Last night Barca won 7-1 and Real Madrid won 6-2

Both with 2nd string sides (Madrid only had 2 starters from the weekends Classico)

Tbf the teams at the bottom of the league in Spain have little to no money, I imagine that James cost far more than the entire Depor squad. I think the top sides in Spain would absolutely destroy the likes of Sunderland or Middlesbrough.

Dirty Dingus McGee

764dak wrote: »

La Liga seems overrated.

Last 6 European trophies have been won by Spanish teams.

2 all Spanish champions league finals in 3 years.

Stick Real and Barca in the EPL and they'd dish out similar hidings to the ones they handed out last night.

They're the only 2 teams who hand out beatings like that in Spain and that's because they are so good.

The Talking Bread

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Last 6 European trophies have been won by Spanish teams.

2 all Spanish champions league finals in 3 years.

Stick Real and Barca in the EPL and they'd dish out similar hidings to the ones they handed out last night.

They're the only 2 teams who hand out beatings like that in Spain and that's because they are so good.

Not that I necessarily agree with the post, that is not what the OP means, I assume, by the league as a whole is overrated. I assume they mean the competitiveness of it. But almost all leagues are the same, a bracket of teams average 3 usually, who will be always rise to the top.

This is an example of measurement of "quality of league"

The top 4 in Spain have lost 15 between them out of 134 games. Most of these games against eachother. The bottom 3 have won 19 games between them out of a similar amount of games, most between eachother I imagine.

Most leagues wouldn't have such a discrepancy between top and bottom.

I think that is a good indicator of competitiveness of leagues overall. In tyhe Premier League the top 4 have lost 20 games between them in the exact same amount of games as the La Liga example, whilst the bottom 4 have won 27 games between eachother in the same amount of games as La Liga


Again both the top 4 losses and the bottom 4 wins above, I imagine, most are amongst eachother.


I think it comes down to what people mean by quality of the league. Quality of the teams, players, games, competition?. There are many variants.

Mr.H

irishman86 wrote:

Sorry Ill re-word what I meant by that. 99% of clubs who have won titles/CL can say that. I thought I had said it in the original post, thats my fault. Its why I used Partizan and Nottingham has examples in a later post. For me winning a solitary CL in the last 27 years just doesnt make a team a top club. Porto have done the same and they arent a top club. I explained how I see Liverpool right now a 3rd bracket club along with Spurs. You clearly dont agree, which is entirely your right

So it's been how long since united won the league now?

When in your opinion do they stop being a big club?

You know your logic is rubbish by the way.

United and Liverpool are still the most successful teams in England and until they are greatly overtaken they will remain two huge massive clubs.

Your opinion means nothing. Mine means nothing either. Facts speak for themselves

Mr.H

sky88 wrote:

As man united fan I don't have any hate towards Liverpool or city.

As an Irish Liverpool fan I don't feel the same hate toward united city and everton that obviously the locals would.

I do however love to see united Chelsea arsenal and city lose. It's not a hate though it's more of a haha screw you feeling. At the end of the day I may jokingly say I hate those teams but in reality I don't care how they do as all I want is them to drop points to give Liverpool a better chance at reaching the stupid league that no-one really wants anyway. I mean we cares if you win the title. FFS Leicester won it last season 😂

NIMAN

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Last 6 European trophies have been won by Spanish teams.

2 all Spanish champions league finals in 3 years.

Stick Real and Barca in the EPL and they'd dish out similar hidings to the ones they handed out last night.

They're the only 2 teams who hand out beatings like that in Spain and that's because they are so good.

...aye, but would they hand out a beating on a wet and windy January evening in Stoke?

The Talking Bread

Probably not that unpopular an opinion! But my God, that joke phrase above has run its course!! : D

The Golden Miller

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Probably not that unpopular an opinion! But my God, that joke phrase above has run its course!! : D

And Stoke had nothing on Bolton under Allardyce

dfx-

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Last night Barca won 7-1 and Real Madrid won 6-2

Both with 2nd string sides (Madrid only had 2 starters from the weekends Classico)


2 teams level at the top.
It might be a 2 horse race again this year, but is the league overrated? I don't believe it is.

This is probably the first week where that has happened this season. And Barcelona were essentially playing a relegated side.

Barcelona have failed to score lowly Malaga this season and lost 2-0 and Barcelona lost to lowly Deportivo. They needed a last minute penalty at home to newly promoted and struggling Leganes. Largely the same side for Madrid struggled to beat a doomed Gijon last week until a last minute winner.

If you look at comparable teams, Middlesborough and Sunderland would be equally thrashed despite all their premier league millions....

y0ssar1an22

people giving out about sanchez. fuchs clearly tried, and succeeded, to leather the ball at sanchez, it hit him, he went down. he gets booked. fuchs should have been booked

The Talking Bread

Sachet should have stood back. 3 times he tried to throw it. Fuchsia, whilst we know what was going on done nothing wrong. If I was chasing an equaliser and I was being subjected to that nonsense by Sanchez I would take my throw "and if it hits the 140K per week player, tough luck".

Mr.H

y0ssar1an22 wrote:

people giving out about sanchez. fuchs clearly tried, and succeeded, to leather the ball at sanchez, it hit him, he went down. he gets booked. fuchs should have been booked

Please, Sanchez acting the tool to get Fuchs booked.......

Sanchez deserved what he got and I'd be saying the same if he got it in the face

The Talking Bread

*Sanchez, not Sachet!

blinding

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Sachet should have stood back. 3 times he tried to throw it. Fuchsia, whilst we know what was going on done nothing wrong. If I was chasing an equaliser and I was being subjected to that nonsense by Sanchez I would take my throw "and if it hits the 140K per week player, tough luck".

Sachet is some Fuchsia.....with that carry on.......:p

y0ssar1an22

Mr.H wrote: »

Please, Sanchez acting the tool to get Fuchs booked.......

Sanchez deserved what he got and I'd be saying the same if he got it in the face

he was allowed to stand there (i think), fuchs got annoyed and threw the ball at sanchez. sanchez went down to highlight the fact to the ref, like what happens in every game. he was infringed upon