The emetic idea of playing Premier League games abroad has reared its ugly head again, I see.
Those who raise this idea have no regard for English football whatsoever. All they are concerned about is making money - plain and simple.
But what is left of English football?
The owners are foreign.
The managers are foreign.
The coaching staff are foreign.
The players are foreign.
"They" want to play the game on foreign fields.
"They" would no doubt use foreign officials.
Many fans are foreign - that's why "they" want to play games abroad - to cash in.
All that would be left would be English club names.
This revived idea is not for a "39th game" as before, but for shipping an existing round of matches to somewhere in the Far East.
The idea makes me sick and I spit on it.
Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore says the clubs still want a game abroad. Of course they do - to fill their coffers. It is up to him to say no!
But it seems he doesn't care.
It is a slow painful death for English football
Showing posts with label Premier League. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Premier League. Show all posts
Thursday, 9 October 2014
Wednesday, 16 July 2014
Will you care about England as long as your club is doing well?
As Germany celebrate the deserved World Cup victory, it seems so long ago that England were eliminated from the tournament. It was actually 20th June (when Costa Rica beat Italy 1-0), the competition having started on the 12th. England lasted barely a week. The players went on holiday and will no doubt start pre-season training a little later than their non-international colleagues.
It will no doubt be just over a week before England fans forget about the ignominious World Cup showing and get down to the real business of supporting their own Premier League team.
And that's the problem.
If you want your team to compete at the top of the Premier League, you'll want it to buy the best players - and that probably means foreign players. At that point you don't care about the England team, only that your club is performing well in the Premier League.
I'm not sure we can have it both ways. Some might claim that Germany have managed it. But have they? They've won the World Cup as a nation, but are all their clubs' supporters happy with their club's showing? I don't know.
I do know that there's no quick fix for England's poor national team's performance. Greg Dyke might not have the perfect solution, but we should certainly give him credit for trying.
It will no doubt be just over a week before England fans forget about the ignominious World Cup showing and get down to the real business of supporting their own Premier League team.
And that's the problem.
If you want your team to compete at the top of the Premier League, you'll want it to buy the best players - and that probably means foreign players. At that point you don't care about the England team, only that your club is performing well in the Premier League.
I'm not sure we can have it both ways. Some might claim that Germany have managed it. But have they? They've won the World Cup as a nation, but are all their clubs' supporters happy with their club's showing? I don't know.
I do know that there's no quick fix for England's poor national team's performance. Greg Dyke might not have the perfect solution, but we should certainly give him credit for trying.
Thursday, 10 October 2013
The downward plight of English football
Surely no one can be surprised at today's news that English players account for about one third of playing minutes in the Premier League.
The question, I guess, is: does it matter?
Personally I think it does matter. It can't be right that an ENGLISH League has:
The question, I guess, is: does it matter?
Personally I think it does matter. It can't be right that an ENGLISH League has:
- more foreign players than home players
- foreign owners
- foreign managers
What is English about the English Premier League?
The grounds and the referees.
And even on the subject of grounds, "they" came up with some bright idea of playing a "39th" game abroad a few years ago!
And on referees, some called for Pierluigi Collina to take the whistle in English games a few years ago.
It seems that nothing is sacrosanct in the modern times of global shrinkage.
The problems are:
- The England team has about 75 players to pick from - and yes, the success of the England team does matter in the long run.
- Nearly all the money in the game goes to players, so that's 2/3 of a huge amount of money going OUT of England in the long run (not good for the economy).
- Every bubble bursts in the end.
- There is no foundation to the short-termism that plagues the English game.
What can be done about it?
I'm no lawyer so I don't know what laws are in place or would be broken to try and fix this.
- Player quotas have been mentioned, but sound unlikely in the European Union (despite plenty of non-European players in the league).
- I guess we can't insist on home ownership.
- Perhaps we need UEFA or FIFA to put in place some rules that mean that leagues are representative of the country.
For the moment though, I weep at the downward plight of English football.
Monday, 25 June 2012
Weep for England
So we weep for England.
Once again we were beaten on penalties in a quarter-final. It is our lot.
But let us not disguise the fact that it would have been an absolute travesty of Chelsea-like proportions for England to have sneaked past Italy to the semi-finals. Italy totally dominated the whole of the second-half and extra-time, but just couldn't turn their dominance into a goal. England, however, barely got into Italy's half in that time.
Yet there is some pride in England's performance in the tournament. It does seem to show a new realism about England's limitations. We are simply not good enough to compete with the top nations in World football, of which most are in these European Championships. Top eight (i.e. quarter-finals) is the best we should realistically expect.
My worry is that the fact that Roy Hodgson has done pretty well with a weak and threadbare squad may blind people to the dearth of English talent and the trends that continue to sweep English players aside in our own Premier League.
With few English owners and English managers in the English Premier League, where is the concern for English players and the English national team? It isn't there.
We've got years of this international misery to come, and it will get worse.
As a final point: let's finally lay to rest this myth that there are any World-class English players. There are none.
Once again we were beaten on penalties in a quarter-final. It is our lot.
But let us not disguise the fact that it would have been an absolute travesty of Chelsea-like proportions for England to have sneaked past Italy to the semi-finals. Italy totally dominated the whole of the second-half and extra-time, but just couldn't turn their dominance into a goal. England, however, barely got into Italy's half in that time.
Yet there is some pride in England's performance in the tournament. It does seem to show a new realism about England's limitations. We are simply not good enough to compete with the top nations in World football, of which most are in these European Championships. Top eight (i.e. quarter-finals) is the best we should realistically expect.
My worry is that the fact that Roy Hodgson has done pretty well with a weak and threadbare squad may blind people to the dearth of English talent and the trends that continue to sweep English players aside in our own Premier League.
With few English owners and English managers in the English Premier League, where is the concern for English players and the English national team? It isn't there.
We've got years of this international misery to come, and it will get worse.
As a final point: let's finally lay to rest this myth that there are any World-class English players. There are none.
Friday, 21 October 2011
Abandoning relegation would be insanity
I have never heard anything so stupid as the apparent proposal to abandon relegation from the Premier League.
And that's saying something when we've had proposals for a "39th game abroad", mid-winter breaks (a pet hate of mine) and Celtic and Rangers to play in the English League.
I'm not sure who's proposing such nonsense, but, at a stroke, it would render about 75% of the games in the Premier League as irrelevant. The top few would still battle for the title and places in the Europa League they later decide they'd rather not have, and the remaining dozen or so clubs would have nothing to play for in the league - ever!
And guess what? No one would want to watch: at the ground, in the pubs, on TV, or even in deepest Malaysia. It's not a recipe for sanctuary for the clubs who might fear relegation; it's a recipe for disaster.
If this is some crazy notion based on the US model of the NFL, then what should we expect next? Overtime to ensure there are no draw? 117 players on each side, 106 of whom would be on the bench (what would Carlos Tevez think of that?)? Full body armour? Renaming football to soccer?
Come on. If our American friends Stateside were so good at inventing sports, some of them might just get played outside of their own back yard, and not have "world champions" from ONE country. Football (yes, NOT soccer) CAN learn a lot from other sports (like replays in cricket, and on-pitch injury treatment in rugby, to name but two), but it should ignore nonsensical proposals from apparent foreign owners who should remember why they bought into our game in the first place.
And why should the current members of the Premier League suddenly decide to ring-fence themselves? Would it be because some of them know they're not really part of the elite? Here's a list of the real top 20 clubs, based on league positions since the war:
1 Manchester United
2 Arsenal
3 Liverpool
4 Tottenham Hotspur
5 Everton
6 Chelsea
7 Aston Villa
8 Manchester City
9 Newcastle United
10 West Ham United
11 Leeds United
12 West Bromwich Albion
13 Wolverhampton Wand.
14 Nottingham Forest
15 Sunderland
16 Leicester City
17 Middlesbrough
18 Blackburn Rovers
19 Birmingham City
20 Southampton
The other current Premier League members are placed as follows:
23 Stoke City
26 Bolton Wanderers
31 Norwich City
32 Fulham
33 QPR
53 Swansea City
80 Wigan Athletic
You know what motivates proposals like this? Greed, fear, cowardice.
And that's saying something when we've had proposals for a "39th game abroad", mid-winter breaks (a pet hate of mine) and Celtic and Rangers to play in the English League.
I'm not sure who's proposing such nonsense, but, at a stroke, it would render about 75% of the games in the Premier League as irrelevant. The top few would still battle for the title and places in the Europa League they later decide they'd rather not have, and the remaining dozen or so clubs would have nothing to play for in the league - ever!
And guess what? No one would want to watch: at the ground, in the pubs, on TV, or even in deepest Malaysia. It's not a recipe for sanctuary for the clubs who might fear relegation; it's a recipe for disaster.
If this is some crazy notion based on the US model of the NFL, then what should we expect next? Overtime to ensure there are no draw? 117 players on each side, 106 of whom would be on the bench (what would Carlos Tevez think of that?)? Full body armour? Renaming football to soccer?
Come on. If our American friends Stateside were so good at inventing sports, some of them might just get played outside of their own back yard, and not have "world champions" from ONE country. Football (yes, NOT soccer) CAN learn a lot from other sports (like replays in cricket, and on-pitch injury treatment in rugby, to name but two), but it should ignore nonsensical proposals from apparent foreign owners who should remember why they bought into our game in the first place.
And why should the current members of the Premier League suddenly decide to ring-fence themselves? Would it be because some of them know they're not really part of the elite? Here's a list of the real top 20 clubs, based on league positions since the war:
1 Manchester United
2 Arsenal
3 Liverpool
4 Tottenham Hotspur
5 Everton
6 Chelsea
7 Aston Villa
8 Manchester City
9 Newcastle United
10 West Ham United
11 Leeds United
12 West Bromwich Albion
13 Wolverhampton Wand.
14 Nottingham Forest
15 Sunderland
16 Leicester City
17 Middlesbrough
18 Blackburn Rovers
19 Birmingham City
20 Southampton
The other current Premier League members are placed as follows:
23 Stoke City
26 Bolton Wanderers
31 Norwich City
32 Fulham
33 QPR
53 Swansea City
80 Wigan Athletic
You know what motivates proposals like this? Greed, fear, cowardice.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
The insanity of a mid-winter break
Talk of a mid-winter break in the English Premier League has reared its head again.
Sir Alex Ferguson mentioned it after Manchester United were crushed by Barcelona; England players have talked about it after their embarrassing draw against Switzerland last week; Fabio Capello said England players looked tired in that game.
But a mid-winter break simply would not work.
First of all - when IS mid-winter? November suffered snow in 2010; but so also did February 2010. So when do you break? December?
Secondly, the game is all about money and attendances at games on Boxing Day and New Year's Day are always at a peak. This might not matter to clubs whose stadiums are full every week, but it will certainly matter to the Wigans and Fulhams of this world.
Thirdly, it is not the breaks that matter, but the number of games. There are 38 Premier League games, as many as 19 Champions League games, plus possibly 11 cup games. So that's 60+ games in a season of around 41 weeks. That's not mentioning the half-dozen pre-season games, of course. What are we suggesting with a mid-winter break? That we cram those 60+ games into two or three fewer weeks?
Fourthly, the truth is that there will be no mid-winter break for players. If there is a break in the Premier League, then the clubs will whisk their players off to Thailand, Japan, USA for a lucrative mini-tour to ensure that revenue is boosted. Add three more games to the schedule.
Talk of a mid-winter break is misguided foolishness. Forget it now.
Sir Alex Ferguson mentioned it after Manchester United were crushed by Barcelona; England players have talked about it after their embarrassing draw against Switzerland last week; Fabio Capello said England players looked tired in that game.
But a mid-winter break simply would not work.
First of all - when IS mid-winter? November suffered snow in 2010; but so also did February 2010. So when do you break? December?
Secondly, the game is all about money and attendances at games on Boxing Day and New Year's Day are always at a peak. This might not matter to clubs whose stadiums are full every week, but it will certainly matter to the Wigans and Fulhams of this world.
Thirdly, it is not the breaks that matter, but the number of games. There are 38 Premier League games, as many as 19 Champions League games, plus possibly 11 cup games. So that's 60+ games in a season of around 41 weeks. That's not mentioning the half-dozen pre-season games, of course. What are we suggesting with a mid-winter break? That we cram those 60+ games into two or three fewer weeks?
Fourthly, the truth is that there will be no mid-winter break for players. If there is a break in the Premier League, then the clubs will whisk their players off to Thailand, Japan, USA for a lucrative mini-tour to ensure that revenue is boosted. Add three more games to the schedule.
Talk of a mid-winter break is misguided foolishness. Forget it now.
Monday, 17 January 2011
Fourteen teams in relegation battle!
I cannot recall a season when so many teams in the Premier League have the potential to be relegated. I don't mean that they're all not very good - I mean that the lower half (and more) of the division is so tight.
Just TEN POINTS cover the teams from bottom (West Ham United with 20 points) all the way up to Bolton Wanderers in seventh place with 30 points.
Forty points is usually taken as the number you need to be safe after 38 games. Only once have more points been needed. That could happen again this seasonas points are being shared around liberally between all teams.
No team among the 14 in that ten-point zone will consider themselves safe until they are comfortably past the 40-mark point.
Let's look at a few examples:
At the bottom West Ham have 20 points from 23. They need at least another 20 from 15 games. That's seven wins from 15; they've only won four so far. Ouch.
In 17th place are Aston Villa with 22 points from 22. If they carried on at a point a game, they'd get 38 points. Not enough. So they need a couple of back-to-back wins to ease their discomfort.
Everton and Liverpool are 12th and 13th respectively, both with 26 points from 22 games. Another 14 each from 16 games looks within their compass (three wins, 2 draws), but a bad run oif a few games without a win would trouble them.
In 7th Bolton Wanderers should be secure, but even they won't rest easy until they bag another 10 points from their remaining 15 games. If they were to lose three or four in a row and slip into the bottom half the board and fans would soon get nervous.
In a season when the top teams are stumbling and not shining as brightly as in recent seasons, the battle to stay in the Premier League should keep our interest until the very last day.
Just TEN POINTS cover the teams from bottom (West Ham United with 20 points) all the way up to Bolton Wanderers in seventh place with 30 points.
Forty points is usually taken as the number you need to be safe after 38 games. Only once have more points been needed. That could happen again this seasonas points are being shared around liberally between all teams.
No team among the 14 in that ten-point zone will consider themselves safe until they are comfortably past the 40-mark point.
Let's look at a few examples:
At the bottom West Ham have 20 points from 23. They need at least another 20 from 15 games. That's seven wins from 15; they've only won four so far. Ouch.
In 17th place are Aston Villa with 22 points from 22. If they carried on at a point a game, they'd get 38 points. Not enough. So they need a couple of back-to-back wins to ease their discomfort.
Everton and Liverpool are 12th and 13th respectively, both with 26 points from 22 games. Another 14 each from 16 games looks within their compass (three wins, 2 draws), but a bad run oif a few games without a win would trouble them.
In 7th Bolton Wanderers should be secure, but even they won't rest easy until they bag another 10 points from their remaining 15 games. If they were to lose three or four in a row and slip into the bottom half the board and fans would soon get nervous.
In a season when the top teams are stumbling and not shining as brightly as in recent seasons, the battle to stay in the Premier League should keep our interest until the very last day.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Surely Beckham won't become a professional trainer!
It really is beginning to look like David Beckham might make a return to the Premier League. His current club, LA Galaxy, is said to be in talks with Beckham about a possible loan deal, with Tottenham Hotspur as the favourites.
As a strange addendum Galaxy might only releae Beckham to train with the club, not play! That would be weird. It would be hard to imagine Beckham training with Spurs until the US Major League Soccer starts in March. Surely he would have to be able to play.
Of course, the wider media are trying to make out that Beckham's first game for Spurs could be the game agaainst his old club Manchester United on 16 January. That seems a little unlikely given all the caveats involved.
Still, for my part, I'd like to see the old England hero back in English grounds to see what he can still do. He would definitely bring intense media and spectator interest to what is already the most watched football league in the world.
Can Harry Redknapp pull off the deal for Spurs?
As a strange addendum Galaxy might only releae Beckham to train with the club, not play! That would be weird. It would be hard to imagine Beckham training with Spurs until the US Major League Soccer starts in March. Surely he would have to be able to play.
Of course, the wider media are trying to make out that Beckham's first game for Spurs could be the game agaainst his old club Manchester United on 16 January. That seems a little unlikely given all the caveats involved.
Still, for my part, I'd like to see the old England hero back in English grounds to see what he can still do. He would definitely bring intense media and spectator interest to what is already the most watched football league in the world.
Can Harry Redknapp pull off the deal for Spurs?
Monday, 26 July 2010
Whose League is it anyway?
I'm afraid I can't help but view the approach of the new season with a certain coldness and cynicism.
This has undoubtedly been caused, at least in part, by the dismal showing by England at the World Cup, but is also partly as a result of the obscene wages being offered to less-than-great footballers, and the pathetic attempts by the media to whip a transfer storm that atcually doesn't exist.
It's all embarrassingly overhyped.
The thought of watching all these overpaid, over-here Prima Donnas trot out onto our pristine fields on 14 August does not fill me with excitement. At least with the overwhelming foreign influence many of the England failures will be able to hide - many won't even get picked - as doubtlessly there will be a record number of non-English starting in the Premier League in less than two weeks.
Increasingly, one feels it is no longer our League, but belongs to someone else.
This has undoubtedly been caused, at least in part, by the dismal showing by England at the World Cup, but is also partly as a result of the obscene wages being offered to less-than-great footballers, and the pathetic attempts by the media to whip a transfer storm that atcually doesn't exist.
It's all embarrassingly overhyped.
The thought of watching all these overpaid, over-here Prima Donnas trot out onto our pristine fields on 14 August does not fill me with excitement. At least with the overwhelming foreign influence many of the England failures will be able to hide - many won't even get picked - as doubtlessly there will be a record number of non-English starting in the Premier League in less than two weeks.
Increasingly, one feels it is no longer our League, but belongs to someone else.
Monday, 28 June 2010
The Premier League stands in the way of a good England side
I've been listening to a radio phone-in on BBC FiveLive this morning. From 9am the only topic has been "What's wrong with England?" This after the dismal failure of the England team who lost 4-1 to Germany in the World Cup second round yesterday.
The mood of people phoning was bleak and angry, with solutions ranging from changing the game at grass roots level to sacking the manager.
Personally, although manager Fabio Capello make some mistakes (see below), I think the problme is more deep-rooted than at managerial level. The FA thought the solution upon sacking Englishman Steve McClaren was to bring in a 'show us your medals' soaraway successful foreign manager in the form of Capello. It was patently not the right answer, and papered over the cracks of a failed system.
Capello's main errors were these:
The reason that there are not enough good English players is that there are not enough English players playing in the Premier league.
Dave Whelan, chairman of Wigan Athletic, was on the programme and said that the Premier League should run the England team. Oh My God! He then went on to say that the England team should have an England manager, and England coach. "England, England, England," he said.
The Premier League is not run by English people. In the main the clubs are OWNED by non-English, the teams are MANAGED by non-English, and the teams have mostly non-English PLAYERS. Indeed, there has even been moves to PLAY THE GAMES on foreign soil! Yet Dave Whelan says the Premier League should run the England team!
The result would be no friendlies, no gatherings, top players not released for some England games. In other words a step so far backwards it would be out of sight.
The real answer is move the other way and insist on English ownership, English managers and Englsih players.
But it won't happen. Because the Premier League (which does already hold most of the power) won't let it. Already it's too late because the owners have no interest in the England team.
Get used it to it - the England national team will be a third-rate team for decades to come.
The mood of people phoning was bleak and angry, with solutions ranging from changing the game at grass roots level to sacking the manager.
Personally, although manager Fabio Capello make some mistakes (see below), I think the problme is more deep-rooted than at managerial level. The FA thought the solution upon sacking Englishman Steve McClaren was to bring in a 'show us your medals' soaraway successful foreign manager in the form of Capello. It was patently not the right answer, and papered over the cracks of a failed system.
Capello's main errors were these:
- Took injured players to the tournament.
- Took out-of-form players not even in their club team.
- Failed to change the system when it was evident that playing Gerrard on the left and Rooney with a strike partner was failing.
- Repeatedly played or brought on the worst two players in the squad: Emile Heskey and Shaun Wright-Phillips. Neither should even have been in the squad.
The reason that there are not enough good English players is that there are not enough English players playing in the Premier league.
Dave Whelan, chairman of Wigan Athletic, was on the programme and said that the Premier League should run the England team. Oh My God! He then went on to say that the England team should have an England manager, and England coach. "England, England, England," he said.
The Premier League is not run by English people. In the main the clubs are OWNED by non-English, the teams are MANAGED by non-English, and the teams have mostly non-English PLAYERS. Indeed, there has even been moves to PLAY THE GAMES on foreign soil! Yet Dave Whelan says the Premier League should run the England team!
The result would be no friendlies, no gatherings, top players not released for some England games. In other words a step so far backwards it would be out of sight.
The real answer is move the other way and insist on English ownership, English managers and Englsih players.
But it won't happen. Because the Premier League (which does already hold most of the power) won't let it. Already it's too late because the owners have no interest in the England team.
Get used it to it - the England national team will be a third-rate team for decades to come.
Friday, 27 November 2009
English football rankings since the War
Following Bolton chairman Phil Gartside's apparent attempt to revitalise the idea of a closed Premier League (i.e. little or no relegation) which would have two divisions of 18, I set to work looking at who should be included.
Why should it just be the clubs in the Premier League now? I've looked at all the league positions since the war, and gave a point for every position higher in the league; so bottom of division 4 (or equivalent, i.e. today's League Two) would get one point, all the way to Premier League champions who get 92 points.
Let Mr Gartside understand that heritage counts for a lot. It's not all about today. His club, Bolton would be allowed into Division 2 of the Premier League by these ratings.
I continue by looking at the best clubs since the war (1945-6 to 2008-9). Here are the top 50, with their current league position in brackets):
1 Manchester United 5530 (2)
2 Arsenal 5472 (3)
3 Liverpool 5410 (7)
4 Tottenham Hotspur 5224 (4)
5 Everton 5172 (14)
6 Chelsea 5062 (1)
7 Aston Villa 4948 (5)
8 Newcastle United 4876 (21)
9 Manchester City 4856 (6)
10 Leeds United 4728 (45)
11 West Ham United 4718 (17)
12 West Bromwich Albion 4576 (22)
13 Wolverhampton Wand. 4564 (19)
14 Nottingham Forest 4509 (29)
15 Sunderland 4466 (8)
16 Leicester City 4456 (23)
17 Middlesbrough 4408 (31)
18 Southampton 4366 (65)
19 Derby County 4323 (39)
20 Blackburn Rovers 4304 (12)
21 Birmingham City 4302 (13)
22 Sheffield Wednesday 4296 (37)
23 Stoke City 4211 (9)
24 Sheffield United 4208 (34)
25 Ipswich Town 4190 (43)
26 Bolton Wanderers 4130 (18)
27 Charlton Athletic 4088 (46)
28 Coventry City 4049 (38)
29 Portsmouth 3900 (20)
30 Burnley 3826 (11)
31 Norwich City 3795 (48)
32 QPR 3697 (26)
33 Fulham 3691 (10)
34 Luton Town 3529 (99)
35 Blackpool 3412 (27)
36 Preston North End 3411 (32)
37 Huddersfield Town 3283 (49)
38 Crystal Palace 3262 (33)
39 Cardiff City 3138 (25)
40 Bristol City 3029 (30)
41 Watford 2937 (28)
42 Millwall 2877 (54)
43 Barnsley 2847 (35)
44 Plymouth Argyle 2782 (42)
45 Hull City 2739 (15)
46 Brighton & HA 2622 (64)
47 Rotherham United 2599 (71)
48 Oldham Athletic 2581 (60)
49 Notts County 2566 (75)
50 Bristol Rovers 2565 (52)
Why should it just be the clubs in the Premier League now? I've looked at all the league positions since the war, and gave a point for every position higher in the league; so bottom of division 4 (or equivalent, i.e. today's League Two) would get one point, all the way to Premier League champions who get 92 points.
Let Mr Gartside understand that heritage counts for a lot. It's not all about today. His club, Bolton would be allowed into Division 2 of the Premier League by these ratings.
I continue by looking at the best clubs since the war (1945-6 to 2008-9). Here are the top 50, with their current league position in brackets):
1 Manchester United 5530 (2)
2 Arsenal 5472 (3)
3 Liverpool 5410 (7)
4 Tottenham Hotspur 5224 (4)
5 Everton 5172 (14)
6 Chelsea 5062 (1)
7 Aston Villa 4948 (5)
8 Newcastle United 4876 (21)
9 Manchester City 4856 (6)
10 Leeds United 4728 (45)
11 West Ham United 4718 (17)
12 West Bromwich Albion 4576 (22)
13 Wolverhampton Wand. 4564 (19)
14 Nottingham Forest 4509 (29)
15 Sunderland 4466 (8)
16 Leicester City 4456 (23)
17 Middlesbrough 4408 (31)
18 Southampton 4366 (65)
19 Derby County 4323 (39)
20 Blackburn Rovers 4304 (12)
21 Birmingham City 4302 (13)
22 Sheffield Wednesday 4296 (37)
23 Stoke City 4211 (9)
24 Sheffield United 4208 (34)
25 Ipswich Town 4190 (43)
26 Bolton Wanderers 4130 (18)
27 Charlton Athletic 4088 (46)
28 Coventry City 4049 (38)
29 Portsmouth 3900 (20)
30 Burnley 3826 (11)
31 Norwich City 3795 (48)
32 QPR 3697 (26)
33 Fulham 3691 (10)
34 Luton Town 3529 (99)
35 Blackpool 3412 (27)
36 Preston North End 3411 (32)
37 Huddersfield Town 3283 (49)
38 Crystal Palace 3262 (33)
39 Cardiff City 3138 (25)
40 Bristol City 3029 (30)
41 Watford 2937 (28)
42 Millwall 2877 (54)
43 Barnsley 2847 (35)
44 Plymouth Argyle 2782 (42)
45 Hull City 2739 (15)
46 Brighton & HA 2622 (64)
47 Rotherham United 2599 (71)
48 Oldham Athletic 2581 (60)
49 Notts County 2566 (75)
50 Bristol Rovers 2565 (52)
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
English football: club records in the last twenty years
Following Bolton chairman Phil Gartside's apparent attempt to revitalise the idea of a closed Premier League (i.e. little or no relegation) which would have two divisions of 18, I set to work looking at who should be included.
I'm glad to see the Premier League clubs rejected the idea of including Celtic and Rangers, but why should it just be the clubs in the Premier League now? I've looked at all the league positions since the war, and gave a point for every position higher in the league; so bottom of division 4 (or equivalent, i.e. today's League Two) would get one point, all the way to Premier League champions who get 92 points.
I continue by looking at the best clubs over the last twenty years (1989-90 to 2008-9). Here are the top 36 (last ten year position in brackets):
1 Manchester United 1813 (1)
2 Arsenal 1789 (2)
3 Liverpool 1781 (4)
4 Chelsea 1738 (3)
5 Aston Villa 1689 (6)
6 Tottenham Hotspur 1666 (5)
7 Everton 1638 (7)
8 Newcastle United 1605 (8)
9 Blackburn Rovers 1579 (10)
10 West Ham United 1560 (12)
11 Leeds United 1528 (now League One) (21)
12 Manchester City 1511 (13)
13 Middlesbrough 1503 (9)
14 Southampton 1495 (now League One) (19)
15 Sunderland 1406 (15)
16 Coventry City 1394 (33)
17 Charlton Athletic 1388 (now League One) (16)
18 Derby County 1385 (25)
19 Sheffield United 1374 (24)
20 Ipswich Town 1371 (currently 41st) (22)
21 Bolton Wanderers 1369 (11)
22 Crystal Palace 1365 (31)
23 Sheffield Wednesday 1356 (36)
24 Leicester City 1355 (26)
25 Norwich City 1344 (now League One) (32)
26 Nottingham Forest 1328 (-)
27 Wolverhampton Wand. 1301 (23)
28 Portsmouth 1296 (18)
29 MK Dons (Wimbledon) 1285 (now League One) (-)
30 QPR 1281 (-)
31 Birmingham City 1266 (17)
32 West Bromwich Albion 1230 (20)
33 Watford 1183 (27)
34 Barnsley 1104 (-)
35 Stoke City 1098 (35)
36 Reading 1090 (28)
Others who were in the ten-year top 36:
37 Fulham (14)
43 Preston North End (30)
45 Burnley (34)
47 Wigan Athletic (29)
I'm glad to see the Premier League clubs rejected the idea of including Celtic and Rangers, but why should it just be the clubs in the Premier League now? I've looked at all the league positions since the war, and gave a point for every position higher in the league; so bottom of division 4 (or equivalent, i.e. today's League Two) would get one point, all the way to Premier League champions who get 92 points.
I continue by looking at the best clubs over the last twenty years (1989-90 to 2008-9). Here are the top 36 (last ten year position in brackets):
1 Manchester United 1813 (1)
2 Arsenal 1789 (2)
3 Liverpool 1781 (4)
4 Chelsea 1738 (3)
5 Aston Villa 1689 (6)
6 Tottenham Hotspur 1666 (5)
7 Everton 1638 (7)
8 Newcastle United 1605 (8)
9 Blackburn Rovers 1579 (10)
10 West Ham United 1560 (12)
11 Leeds United 1528 (now League One) (21)
12 Manchester City 1511 (13)
13 Middlesbrough 1503 (9)
14 Southampton 1495 (now League One) (19)
15 Sunderland 1406 (15)
16 Coventry City 1394 (33)
17 Charlton Athletic 1388 (now League One) (16)
18 Derby County 1385 (25)
19 Sheffield United 1374 (24)
20 Ipswich Town 1371 (currently 41st) (22)
21 Bolton Wanderers 1369 (11)
22 Crystal Palace 1365 (31)
23 Sheffield Wednesday 1356 (36)
24 Leicester City 1355 (26)
25 Norwich City 1344 (now League One) (32)
26 Nottingham Forest 1328 (-)
27 Wolverhampton Wand. 1301 (23)
28 Portsmouth 1296 (18)
29 MK Dons (Wimbledon) 1285 (now League One) (-)
30 QPR 1281 (-)
31 Birmingham City 1266 (17)
32 West Bromwich Albion 1230 (20)
33 Watford 1183 (27)
34 Barnsley 1104 (-)
35 Stoke City 1098 (35)
36 Reading 1090 (28)
Others who were in the ten-year top 36:
37 Fulham (14)
43 Preston North End (30)
45 Burnley (34)
47 Wigan Athletic (29)
Thursday, 12 November 2009
English football: club records in the last ten years
Last week I gave a big thumbs down to Bolton chairman Phil Gartside's apparent attempt to revitalise the idea of a closed Premier League (i.e. little or no relegation) which would have two divisions of 18, and would include Celtic and Rangers.
I set to work looking at who should be included. Why should it just be the clubs in the Premier League now? I've looked at all the league positions since the war, and gave a point for every position higher in the league; so bottom of division 4 (or equivalent, i.e. today's League Two) would get one point, all the way to Premier League champions who get 92 points.
We'll start today with the best clubs over the last ten years (1999-00 to 2008-9). Here are the top 36:
1 Manchester United 913
2 Arsenal 905
3 Chelsea 898
4 Liverpool 895
5 Tottenham Hotspur 837
6 Aston Villa 837
7 Everton 832
8 Newcastle United 832
9 Middlesbrough 802
10 Blackburn Rovers 793
11 Bolton Wanderers 790
12 West Ham United 789
13 Manchester City 788
14 Fulham 779
15 Sunderland 763
16 Charlton Athletic 749 (now League One)
17 Birmingham City 739
18 Portsmouth 717
19 Southampton 710 (now League One)
20 West Bromwich Albion 699
21 Leeds United 684 (now League One)
22 Ipswich Town 683 (currently 41st)
23 Wolverhampton Wand. 674
24 Sheffield United 660
25 Derby County 656
26 Leicester City 655
27 Watford 638
28 Reading 632 (currently 40th)
29 Wigan Athletic 632
30 Preston North End 629
31 Crystal Palace 628
32 Norwich City 625 (now League One)
33 Coventry City 612
34 Burnley 592
35 Stoke City 583
36 Sheffield Wednesday 547
No sign of Hull City (they're 53rd on the last ten years) who would "get lucky" by being in the Premier League. Clubs with a good record even in the last ten years, but not currently in the top 36 positions, would miss out - most notably Charlton Athletic, Southampton and Leeds United.
For a deeper record of football heritage I'll be looking further back in similar articles in the future.
I set to work looking at who should be included. Why should it just be the clubs in the Premier League now? I've looked at all the league positions since the war, and gave a point for every position higher in the league; so bottom of division 4 (or equivalent, i.e. today's League Two) would get one point, all the way to Premier League champions who get 92 points.
We'll start today with the best clubs over the last ten years (1999-00 to 2008-9). Here are the top 36:
1 Manchester United 913
2 Arsenal 905
3 Chelsea 898
4 Liverpool 895
5 Tottenham Hotspur 837
6 Aston Villa 837
7 Everton 832
8 Newcastle United 832
9 Middlesbrough 802
10 Blackburn Rovers 793
11 Bolton Wanderers 790
12 West Ham United 789
13 Manchester City 788
14 Fulham 779
15 Sunderland 763
16 Charlton Athletic 749 (now League One)
17 Birmingham City 739
18 Portsmouth 717
19 Southampton 710 (now League One)
20 West Bromwich Albion 699
21 Leeds United 684 (now League One)
22 Ipswich Town 683 (currently 41st)
23 Wolverhampton Wand. 674
24 Sheffield United 660
25 Derby County 656
26 Leicester City 655
27 Watford 638
28 Reading 632 (currently 40th)
29 Wigan Athletic 632
30 Preston North End 629
31 Crystal Palace 628
32 Norwich City 625 (now League One)
33 Coventry City 612
34 Burnley 592
35 Stoke City 583
36 Sheffield Wednesday 547
No sign of Hull City (they're 53rd on the last ten years) who would "get lucky" by being in the Premier League. Clubs with a good record even in the last ten years, but not currently in the top 36 positions, would miss out - most notably Charlton Athletic, Southampton and Leeds United.
For a deeper record of football heritage I'll be looking further back in similar articles in the future.
Friday, 6 November 2009
'Closed' Premier League must never be allowed
I read in today's Daily Telegraph that Phil Gartside, chairman of Bolton Wanderers, is looking to revive proposals for a 'closed' Premier League, consisting of 36 clubs of two divisions, with only one club being relegated to the Football League each season.
The proposal would also include Celtic and Rangers from the Scottish Premier League.
It is incredible that this should be considered at this time. How on earth could these clubs in the top flight support this: Fulham, Wigan Athletic, Stoke City, Hull City, Burnley, plus Reading - all of whom have spent much of the past 10-15 years in the lower reaches of the Football League? Without promotion through the ranks they would never have made it to the top flight. There are clubs with much greater heritage, bigger grounds, better support and a fuller trophy cabinet than these and Bolton Wanderers and these facts cannot be ignored.
Of course, this sort of protective exculsivity is just what you would expect from greedy, frightened, short-termism chairman who can't see beyond the far goalposts.
As for bringing in two clubs from another country - no, no and no again. If Scotland feels compromised by the possibility of a Great Britain team in the Olympics having consequences foe their home association and national team, how does it think Uefa or Fifa would react to two of its clubs competing in another country's league?
The answer is no; it should not be discussed and never raised again.
The proposal would also include Celtic and Rangers from the Scottish Premier League.
It is incredible that this should be considered at this time. How on earth could these clubs in the top flight support this: Fulham, Wigan Athletic, Stoke City, Hull City, Burnley, plus Reading - all of whom have spent much of the past 10-15 years in the lower reaches of the Football League? Without promotion through the ranks they would never have made it to the top flight. There are clubs with much greater heritage, bigger grounds, better support and a fuller trophy cabinet than these and Bolton Wanderers and these facts cannot be ignored.
Of course, this sort of protective exculsivity is just what you would expect from greedy, frightened, short-termism chairman who can't see beyond the far goalposts.
As for bringing in two clubs from another country - no, no and no again. If Scotland feels compromised by the possibility of a Great Britain team in the Olympics having consequences foe their home association and national team, how does it think Uefa or Fifa would react to two of its clubs competing in another country's league?
The answer is no; it should not be discussed and never raised again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
