GlastonSpur Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlastonSpur Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 ... No it isn't, it's an accurate reflection on your posting style. You either acknowledge history, or you don't. .. Are you actually able to read and comprehend what you've read? It's not a question of my refusing to acknowledge Villa's Victorian era trophies - I have simply put these achievements into their proper historical context, namely that of big fish in a small pond. You are the one who is refusing to acknowledge the reality of things - by pretending that winning the league title in the 1890s is as big an achievement as it became when the league became fully formed, when in truth it doesn't even come close: all the proof needed for this view is provided by the fact that Villa won the title 5 times in 6 years during the Victorian era, but have won it only once more since WW1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 No glaston you've got it wrong, less is more is more competitive, like i said before gartsides prem, top 12 teams, if they made it like scotland and you play 4 times you think that wouldnt be harder? Then again you think the CL is harder than the european cup so maybe not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlastonSpur Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 And this is the crux of the argument. To deny a period of history is ludicrous and often dangerous. It's widely regarded that the Bugatti Veyron is one of, if not the finest car ever built. Opinions on the best car vary. But, just because the Veyron is a massive advancement in technology and is such a marvel, it does not eliminate the amazing history of the automotive industry since the internal combustion engine was introduced in 1885. Basically, he's being a cock again. Again, putting a period of history into its proper context is not the same as denying that it existed ... sorry if this is a difficult concept for you to grasp. The Bugatti analogy is a false one. It's not that Villa were the most advanced team of their era, it's that the majority of today's teams weren't in the league structure to compete in the first place. PS. Breaking news: peppering your posts with childish insults doesn't increase the strength of your argument. Sorry if this comes as a shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 16, 2010 Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2010 Villa won the title 5 times in 6 years during the Victorian era, but have won it only once more since WW1. And Spurs have only won it twice in their whole **** history. I even put it in bold for you seeing as you like it so much, give it a bloody rest would you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Glaston, are you actually able to read and comprehend what you have written? He's simply putting your posting style into it's proper context. You are being a cock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Glaston, Wolves have won the FA cup 4 times, are you on their message board claiming that 2 of those don't count and should be removed from the clubs honours? You really do sum up why spurs fans are disliked by many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 ... No it isn't, it's an accurate reflection on your posting style. You either acknowledge history, or you don't. .. Are you actually able to read and comprehend what you've read? It's not a question of my refusing to acknowledge Villa's Victorian era trophies - I have simply put these achievements into their proper historical context No you haven't, and I'm not taking you seriously until you do. Bellend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Breaking news: peppering your posts with childish insults doesn't increase the strength of your argument. Sorry if this comes as a shock. Breaking news: Peppering your posts with bullshit doesn't increase the strength of your argument. Sorry if this comes as a shock. Bellend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Having no teams from London or the South meant that any such teams were not even able to compete for the league title. There was me thinking Arsenal were in the football league then Outside 1950 to 1963 I think I'm right in saying Tottenham have been one of the top teams in the main two competitions once. As was shown by Spurs finishing above Villa four times before the 1950's the 4th tier was a good place for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted September 16, 2010 Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2010 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. No, YOU obviously don't get it. In Villa's first league winning season 9 of the 12 teams in the then First Division are in the Premier League now, including Manchester United (under their old name of Newton Heath). Liverpool, Arsenal and Manchester City were in the Second Division. By the time we won our 4th league title there were 18 teams in the First Division and a further 18 in the Second Division. When we won the league in 1909/10 there were 20 teams in the First Division, including Spurs who finished 15th. If you're going to re-write history, at least know what it is you're attempting to re-write. Otherwise one tends to make oneself look a fool. And on internet messageboards that's one type of history you CAN'T re-write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted September 16, 2010 Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2010 Having no teams from London or the South meant that any such teams were not even able to compete for the league title. In 121 years of top flight football in England teams from London or the South have won it 22 times. That's once for Ipswich, twice for yourselves and Portsmouth, four times for Chelsea and thirteen times for Arsenal. So having southern teams in the league is largely irrelevant anyway because on the whole they're just not as good. With Portsmouth having won the league twice, and during the same era as Spurs, that makes them as good as you in the league - according to your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Having no teams from London or the South meant that any such teams were not even able to compete for the league title. In 121 years of top flight football in England teams from London or the South have won it 22 times. That's once for Ipswich, twice for yourselves and Portsmouth, four times for Chelsea and thirteen times for Arsenal. So having southern teams in the league is largely irrelevant anyway because on the whole they're just not as good. With Portsmouth having won the league twice, and during the same era as Spurs, that makes them as good as you in the league - according to your logic. Portsmouth are actually better because they have won the FA cup more recently than Spurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Never have I seen so much drivel, absolute drivel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carew_villa Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Having no teams from London or the South meant that any such teams were not even able to compete for the league title. And whose fault was that? Stop embarassing yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 1874-1881 We were superior to Spurs as they were unable to put up a team 1882-1887 The top competition was the FA Cup - we got further than Spurs every season 1888-2010 The top competition was the league with 79 years out of 122 spent with a superior league status to Spurs! Therefore in Villa's 136 year history 93 of them have been spent being superior to a team that have won 2 league titles (the last one half a century ago) and no big European trophy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Fa Cup Final vs Coventry, 1987. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 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. It's laughable. You say you wouldn't swap your European trophies for a European Cup because they were still difficult to win. Then slag Villa's early titles off because they were against lesser sides. The titles back then were still difficult to win. Easier than todays? Sure, but that still doesn't mean they were a gien, oterhwise we'd have won plenty more. Funny how you'll criticise our 'easy' wins, but then you'll defend Spurs 'easy' wins, saying you'd rather keep them than be Champions of Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMilnereatsnails Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I like it how Glaston claims to have put Villa's historical honours into "their proper historical context" - like he is an authority on the matter. lol Wind-up merchant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 17, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted September 17, 2010 Gladston's slept with more women than Russell Brand, because Brand slept with his when their weren't as many women around therefore his conquests have less meaning. Glaston shagged his cousin after the war therefore it counts double. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts