GlastonSpur

You obviously don't get it. It's not that other teams didn't exist during the Victorian era - it's that they weren't part of the league structure. So there was no question of the best players being distributed among the original 12 clubs that were in the league. Besides, your argument that "less is more" is absurd. Would a league of 4 teams be more competitive than a league of 12? Villa in the Victorian era were big fish in a small pond, a bit like Rangers and Celtic are in the SPL. Would either of these Scottish teams win the Prem title if they were shifted into the Premier League? Not a chance. Is this meant to be a serious comment? Having no teams from London or the South meant that any such teams were not even able to compete for the league title.

Your post makes no sense. I have equated the 3 Spurs trophies to Villa's single European Cup. So why would I then equate the 3 Spurs trophies to three of Man. Utd's European Cups? I haven't done so.

True, it's not necessarily an automatic thing. But generally speaking it's harder to make it into the top division, to stay there and then become its champions when there are many more chasing competitors. And it's also a lot easier to become champions when the competition doesn't include clubs from London and the South. The modern TV era is different again, because the advent of TV mega money has made it much harder for lower division clubs to compete, and the advent of CL mega money (again TV based) has tended to cement in place those teams that have played in the CL season after season.

Actually I wouldn't, because all European trophies are difficult to win, even if the European Cup is by far the major prize. But that's a matter of personal choice since I'm sure some Spurs fans would make the swap. No, obviously not ... and nor have I suggested any such thing.

For every "dead rubber" there are many matches in today's CL against teams that finished 2nd - 4th in strong leagues: teams like Arsenal, Man. Utd, Real Madrid, Valencia, AC Milan, Werder Bremen, Lyon and so on. These very tough opponents are in addition to the league champions from each league, which unquestionably makes it a harder competition to win.

Your concept of "discussion" would thus appear to involve little more than a string of abuse and a collection of unchallenged opinions and largely inaccurate statements.

The point is that there were far fewer of them, thus far less competition: just 12 originally in a single division, compared to 94 today across 4 divisions. And that 12 didn't include any clubs outside the Midlands and North. Even by the end of the Victorian era there were still only 36 clubs involved. Yet again, no one is saying that Villa's Victorian era trophies don't count. On the contrary, the CL still includes all the teams who have "won their respective leagues". Except now it also includes a whole raft of other clubs, many of whom are very strong teams. Thus the competition is expanded and more difficult.

No, it doesn't assume that. During the period concerned to date, it assumes that: * Two top-flight League Championships are better than one. * Seven FA Cups are better than two. * Three European trophies are as good as one European Cup. * Five League Cups for Villa is one better than four for Spurs And overall, based on the above, it assumes that 16 trophies is better than 9.

Yet another post that insists on trying to put someone else's words in my my mouth ... always a sign of a weak argument. I haven't said that Villa's Victorian era trophies don't exist or don't count, and I'm happy to agree that Villa were the most successful league club in that distant era. What I have said is simply this: 1) The value of trophies won when the league structure was tiny - and most of today's clubs weren't even it - is diminished in comparison to later times: big fish in small pond = far less competition. 2) That since WWI Villa have been a less successful club than Spurs - by a 16 to 9 trophy count. The first item is an opinion that most reasonable fans would agree with, and the 2nd item is simply a statement of fact.

But, unfortunately for Villa, less successful than Spurs since WWI onwards. As I've said, it's perhaps time for Villa fans to stop looking backwards into the remote, Victorian past when the league was tiny.

No, I haven't said that. I've said that winning a trophy and then qualifying to play in the CL is an obviously better achievement that simply accumulating more league points to no great end. I find it hard to believe that you are seriously attempting to argue otherwise. I've noticed the tendency on VT to often blame the match officials for the outcome of lost games. Sometimes of course this can be justified, but usually it's a just convenient excuse ... as generally this 'luck' element evens itself out over the course of a season and the more successful teams tend to make their own luck. Spurs recently lost their 2nd Wembley final in successive years on the lottery of a penalty shoot-out, but I make no complaints about that.

I'll assume your figures are correct, but so what? Is it supposed to be a better achievement than winning a trophy plus getting the chance to play in the CL?

You don't even seem to know what the word 'fact' means. A fact is not an opinion, and far less does it centre around filling your posts with witless abuse.

Why should I wish to "dodge" last night's game? An away draw against the 2nd seeds in the group is a decent start for Spurs ... certainly a better result for us than Bremen, and a better result for us than Inter obtained considering they were only playing against the group's 4th seeds. The Bremen result puts Spurs in a decent position, with all our home games yet to come. Nor have I said that finishing 4th is a better achievement than making 2 Wembley finals and winning one of them. It's simply an additional achievement. As for the comparison 'time period', I think you'll find it was a Villa fan who specified the roughly 4 years in question and claimed that Spurs have "achieved less" than Villa during this time.

A Villa fan has claimed that Spurs have "achieved less" than Villa in the last few years. So when I point out the obvious flaws in this claim, your reaction is to call for me to be banned? What exactly do you want in this thread? Do you actually wish to read only Villa-praising and Spurs-damning posts, regardless of whether or not they they are based on bullshit, factual errors, wishful thinking and self-delusions? Or do you prefer actual discussion/debate, with often challenging views epxressed?

Achieving less? Spurs won the League Cup during the period you mention - what did Villa win? Spurs have made it into the Champions' League group stages during this period - what have Villa done that's comparable?

4 games into the season and your crowing about being 1 point above Spurs? It sounds a bit desperate to me, but I guess it's understandable when you've already conceded 8 Prem goals (the worst in the league so far) and have again been knocked out of Europe at the first time of asking.

I've given the plain facts about the trophy count during the 9 decades that have elapsed since WWI. You wish to try and translate these facts into "crap" that I spout ... well good luck with this ongoing denial of reality. Occasionally I do post in the VT section But since in this thread there are plenty of posts from VTers that make ludicrous claims about Villa in comparison to Spurs, why should I not - in this thread - pass comment on such posts? Perhaps you're just unhappy that all of the BS spouted about Spurs gets challenged with actual facts.

Yep. Ancient history from the Victorian era, when the league was tiny, but when you look at the picture since as far back as WWI, this is what it shows: Villa have not won more trophies than Spurs in any decade since World War I - whilst Spurs have won more trophies than Villa in 4 out of the last 5 decades, including the decade just finished. During this 9 decade period the trophy count stands at 16 to 9 in Spurs favour: very nearly double. Yes, Villa won the European Cup during this period, but then again Spurs won three European trophies - and in fact were the first British club ever ever win a European trophy. And yes, Villa won a league title during this period, but then again so have Spurs - twice. There comes a point when Villa fans have to stop looking backwards at the remote past when teams like Spurs, Chelsea and many, many, many others weren't even in the league structure.

As I've already said, your (now ex) manager has already turned his back on you: those who live in glass houses would be wise not to throw stones.

Isn't the answer obvious? I'd understand why he'd taken the new offer given that he's already explained his feelings about it, I'd be wishing that he'd stayed and be hoping that (a) whoever came in to replace him would prove to be as good or better; and ( that the squad's continuity of development wouldn't be damaged.

Do you seriously suppose that a thread titled "... Spuds/Redknobb Hatefest" - a thread now running to nearly 250 pages - contains many "pretty genuine and reasonable" questions? Aside from the fact that the longevity of this thread borders on obsessive (and constantly remains on page 1 even if come back to visit the VT site after many weeks absence) - 95% of the Villa-fans posts in this thread are increasingly desperate attempts to knock Spurs and everything to do with Spurs, mixed in with heaps of childish abuse. There is very little attempt at reasonable discussion. However, to answer the "reasonable" question you refer to, what Redknapp actually said, when asked if he would turn down England job, is this: "No, but I don’t want to start saying I want the England job, because I don’t. I’m not saying that. It’s not something I push myself for. People will always take it because, if you’re English, it’s the pinnacle of your career if you’re in management. You’ve got to take the job if you get offered it." So, he's not pushing to get the England job, but will accept it if offered because he doesn't feel that the high honour of managing England is a job that any English manager should refuse if offered. That's somewhat different from how the post in question phrased it, namely: "... he wants to quit the job in 2 years time", as if he's desperate to escape from the terrible prospect of managing Spurs in the Champion's League and the possbility of pushing on further in the league.

You like to dish it out, but don't like it when it's dished back it seems. Have you heard the saying about heat and kitchens?

Better than Villa fans feel about a manager who ditched them without prior notice just days before the season began. And doubtless better than Villa fans feel about a replacement manager who has said that Villa's natural station is somewhere between 7th and 12th place, who has also compared Villa unfavourably with his former club (Liverpool), and who, although apparently appointed as manager, won't actually become manager until some unspecified future date. It may be a step down for you, Monsieur Houllier, but I'm sure Villa fans will take you into their warm embrace anyhow ..... whenever you arrive that is.

I have already explained about that. In the same way that a player like Shaun Maloney is a better player than Carlos Puyol. You just put words in people's mouths and then use this for your arguments against nobody. These are your exact words concerning Dawson in comparison the Delph (I have not put them in your mouth): "... a much better talent and much better player like Delph". Then later, to cover your embarassment, you change it to saying you only meant he was only much better "technically" ... whatever that is supposed to mean for a player who has barely played yet against Prem opposition, whilst Dawson was a rock last season in a side that finished 4th. Now you follow it by saying that Maloney is better than Puyol, again "technically" I suppose. Well, technical or not, Maloney doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Puyol: your statements become ever more ridiculous. For Delph to be even considered in comparison to Dawson he first has to become a starting regular in Villa's team, and then he has cement that place through good performances. When he has done both these things, an attempted comparison in terms of player quality may become worthwhile and meaningful ... but right now it's absurd.