GlastonSpur

On the contrary, less clubs means that there are more good players in each of the teams in the league. If 82 teams disbanded now and the best players were spread across the remaining 12 the league would be a lot more even and thus harder to win. ...

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.

... Having no teams in London is irrelevant as there were still players from London in the teams that existed.

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.

... Just take this quote, you have said your 3 European Trophies is as good as Villa's 1 European Cup, effectively your saying your European Trophy haul is then equivalent to Man Uniteds 3.

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.

.... having more clubs doesn't automatically make the league more competitive ...

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.

Glaston you half talk some shite, you would replace all of your European Trophies for being the true Champions of Europe ...

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.

... so if we take what your saying about your European Trophies, does that make your 3 European Trophies as equivalent to Man United's 3 European Cups? ...

No, obviously not ... and nor have I suggested any such thing.

The champions league more difficult! **** right off!

I dont remember dead rubbers against hard to spell teams who finished 3rd in a league poorer than the championship with a £500k bonus for battering them

i remember straight knock out no seeding, real madrid 1st round? Tough shit, if spurs had drawn inter 1st round would you still be a knob saying how easy it is? Would you bollocks

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.

Would people please stop feeding the troll so we can get back to some normal discussion on this thread.

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.

... Today's clubs didn't exist but there were other clubs of the era who were as powerful as the powerful clubs are now....

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.

... If Portsmouth go out of business never to return will we look back in 10 years and say that Chelsea's FA Cup win last season doesn't count any more?

...

Yet again, no one is saying that Villa's Victorian era trophies don't count.

.... One thing that CAN be argued is with European football. If by some miracle Spurs won the Champions League this year it'd be less valuable than Villa's win because in 1982 every team in it had won their respective leagues. These days the competition is weaker because some teams in it only finished 4th to qualify.

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.

... Thats assumes that 1 League Cup or FA cup is equivalent to European Champions, it clearly isn't

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.

... I guess the holocaust never happened either, as it was reported before Sir Candleface's apointment.

Glaston, you are the Kim Jong Il of football message boards. :

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.

... So Spurs overall less successful in both the main competitions ...

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.

You've just hailed 6 points in the league as better than 25...

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.

... while failing to acknowledge the horrendously bad refereeing decision that cost us our own League Cup.

If Vidic had been sent off, as any self respecting human would agree was the correct decision, either Owen or Berbaspud would have come off to make way for another CB. The two players that made Manure's equaliser ....

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.

... In the past three seasons, Villa have accumulated 186 points, while Spuds accumulated 167...

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?

Telling facts to you about Spurs is like .... [blah blah]

... the fact that you are a prick - something you've acknowledged as fact based on responding to my thread directly.

...

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.

Nice to see you dodge last nights game glaston and go back to comparing villa to spurs on a time period that suits your arguement

And whilst i agree with you, thanks for also reminding me that finishing 4th in the league is now a better achievement than 2 wembley appearances

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.

well do the job and ban the prick.

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?

This is not correct. This thread has been going for nearly 12 months, when Spuds were bottom of the league. The previous thread was going for about three years. Spuds finished a mere six points above Villa last season, but for the previous two seasons Villa had finished 11 and 14 points above Spuds.

You can't have an inferiority complex with a club achieving less.

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?

And here's another fact, Glaston. We could go out and lose 6-0 tonight at Stoke and still be above Spuds in the league.

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.

... Here's the line Glaston: You're not a PR for Spuds and nobody is going to change their opinions about your club because of the crap you spout on here. ...

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.

... If you want to talk about Villa, go and do it in the VillaTalk section of the board. ...

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.

Yet you list "Runners Up" as a team's achievement.

Almost as deluded as a fan of a team trying to convince himself that they're a massive club because they won the league a few times in the 1800s ....

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.

Your manager is a despicable piece of shit who will turn his back on you given half a chance ....

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.

... How would you feel if he accepted the England job in 2 years time? ...

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.

What a nice way to answer what seems like a pretty genuine and reasonable question.

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.

Someone ban him already.

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?

How do Spurs fans feel about Redknapp essentially saying that he wants to quit the job in 2 years time?

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 read on here that Delph is apparently much better than Dawson.

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.