wiganvillain Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 ... You won the FA cup as a non-league side in 1901. So don't talk crap. You were allowed to compete ... Yes we did win the FA Cup in 1901, and remain the only non-league club ever to have done so. But we were discussing the 19th century, not the 20th. And we were discussing the 4 "league titles" that Villa won in that era (league titles that the vast majority of today's clubs were not able to compete for), not to mention the three 19th century FA Cup trophies won by Villa. I have decided that you are to be pitied by us all instead of pilloried Why? I hear the audience cry The reason is simple. We must all pity those suffering from OCD and after all this time it's blatantly **** obvious you suffer from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Yes we did win the FA Cup in 1901, and remain the only non-league club ever to have done so. But we were discussing the 19th century, not the 20th. And we were discussing the 4 "league titles" that Villa won in that era (league titles that the vast majority of today's clubs were not able to compete for), not to mention the three 19th century FA Cup trophies won by Villa. Meh, Rod Laver was the greatest player of his or any generation, but he played when most tennis players were amateurs and professionalism didn't kick in. Would you argue that that is all irrelevant and his victories were cheapened because of the time period he played in? The great Real Madrid team with Alfedo di Stefano won the majority of their EC trophies when the majority of teams around Europe were dwarfed by Madrids finances, would you say their victories are cheapened and not as important as victories in recent times? Your point is invalid because as much as you would blatantly like, you cannot re-write history to favour Spurs, just accept it and move on. Your a cup team, a decent league team, and you aren't as big as you think you are. Grow the **** up and stop posting your inane wank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMilnereatsnails Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Have you won the European Cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 So, If we won the league in 1899 it wouldn't count, but it would count if we won it in 1900? great logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 ... You won the FA cup as a non-league side in 1901. So don't talk crap. You were allowed to compete ... But we were discussing the 19th century, not the 20th. You're at it again Glaston. Is there a black & white difference between 1900 (the final year of the 19th century) and 1901 (the first year of the 20th century)? No there isn't. You are simply re-drawing the line because it suits you even to the tune of 1 single year. And we were discussing the 4 "league titles" that Villa won in that era (league titles that the vast majority of today's clubs were not able to compete for), not to mention the three 19th century FA Cup trophies won by Villa. No, I was countering your suggestion that you were not allowed to compete. You specifically said non-league clubs could not compete. I have proven that you were talking shit on that point. You could compete. The fact you did not win anything while plenty of other clubs were winning things - of which we were one - doesn't sit with your argument so you dismiss or ignore it. Anyway, I've made my point. If we get back to your definition of relevance, you haven't won the league in 50 years. We've won it in 29 and followed it with a European Cup. You basically have no defence other than that which you manufacture based on your own criteria. To sum up. If we take the entire history of both clubs, ours is better. If we take recent history (say 1 generation) ours is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 So, If we won the league in 1899 it wouldn't count, but it would count if we won it in 1900? great logic. Well technically no, it would count in 1901 though ;-) [/pedant] (and yes I realise that the world therefore seemingly celebrated the millennium a year early but they wouldn't listen either!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 **** hell he's got to be on the windup now, no-one can seriously think that standpoint has a leg to stand on, surely. Theres delusion and theres seeing fairies at the bottom of the garden... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 (and yes I realise that the world therefore seemingly celebrated the millennium a year early but they wouldn't listen either!) Pet peeve "Cultural" century as opposed to ordinal (read - proper) century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 (and yes I realise that the world therefore seemingly celebrated the millennium a year early but they wouldn't listen either!) Pet peeve "Cultural" century as opposed to ordinal (read - proper) century. Yes you and me know that but any excuse for a party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 So, If we won the league in 1899 it wouldn't count, but it would count if we won it in 1900? great logic. Well technically no, it would count in 1901 though ;-) [/pedant] (and yes I realise that the world therefore seemingly celebrated the millennium a year early but they wouldn't listen either!) I did actually think of writing that, especially as it would have fitted in with Glaston's ludicrous argument better (seeing as Spurs won a trophy in 1901). But I assumed if he's keeping up this ridiculous argument that his brain wouldn't comprehend the pedantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 .. the clubs were there, they were just non league clubs at the time. .. I see. It's "just" that the vast majority of current clubs were non-league clubs at the time. So the fact that this meant they weren't able to compete for all these 19th century trophies is entirely irrelevant to Villa's winning them is it? Pull the other one. M.K Dons were founded in 2004... .. The MK Dons are essentially Wimbledon FC re-named and re-located. So what, change it ot AFC-Wimbledon then or any other recently formed club. The point still remains. "AFC-Wimbledon are as big a club as Spurs because they have won the same number of league titles and FA Cups as each other since 2004. You can't go back any further than that beacause AFC Wimbledon were not around then so that era can not be compared..." :bonk: This really is the stupidest aregument you have come out with yet. I'm not sure why I am bothering posting a reply to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'm not sure why I am bothering posting a reply to it... I'm the same, yet... strangely... compelled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'm not sure why I am bothering posting a reply to it... I'm the same, yet... strangely... compelled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'm not sure why I am bothering posting a reply to it... I'm the same, yet... strangely... compelled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2010 Chance would be a fine thing. The missus calling me to bed at half five in the evening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Absolute drivel. Have you got a head like a **** orange by any chance? It is Glaston's monkey news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_villa Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 eh,can you's not learn to stop reacting to this gobshits crap talk??..as you all know,we are shit spuds are great it'll never change with this rent boy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 Glaston you are using subjective criteria to manipulate the argument in your favour. You can not dismiss achievements based on when they happened. It is equally valid for us to say that Villa managed to achieve at a time when all clubs including Villa were considerably less developed and that in that age of relative-amateur football we stood head and shoulders above the rest. There was no good reason or divine right for us to do so other than that we were the powerhouse at the time because we succeeded in doing it on the pitch. Just as you did in 61 and as we did in 81 & 82. It is quite telling that teams with little or no history will dismiss history quite easily when it suits them. It doesn't reflect well on you though. I would accept the argument if you were applying an exponential decay function... e.g. an FA Cup 40 years ago is worth half an FA Cup 20 years ago which is in turn worth half of this years FA Cup (so winning the 1969-70 FA Cup is worth a quarter of the 2009-10 FA Cup). Of course if you're applying that metric (and having reasonable initial valuations for the various bits of silverware, e.g. 1 point for league cups, 2 points for FA Cup, 3 points for the league and UEFA and Cup Winners cups, and 4 points for The European Cup, with runner-up placings being worth half points) then the difference in history becomes much less significant, because there isn't a lot of difference in terms of relevance to today between something won in 1900 and something won in 1960. Applying that we get The European Cup: Villa 1.52 points to Spurs 0.00 League: Villa 3.53 points to Spurs 1.74 (5.05 - 1.74 to Villa) Minor European cups: Villa 0.00 points to Spurs 2.45 (5.05 - 4.19 to Villa) FA Cup: Villa 1.41 points to Spurs 4.31 (8.50 - 6.46 to Spurs) League Cup: Villa 2.72* points to Spurs 3.20 (11.70 - 9.18/9.68 to Spurs) *: will be 3.22 if we win this year Obviously selection of different weights can produce different results, but I suspect that there's no reasonable weighting that will give either club much of a leg up on the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2010 Glaston you are using subjective criteria to manipulate the argument in your favour. ... It's not subjective criteria, it's objective criteria because it's objective fact concerning the small number of clubs in the league structure in the 19th century. .... You can not dismiss achievements based on when they happened. ... I don't dismiss them. I merely put them in their true context, a context which considerably reduces - but doesn't completely dismiss - their objective value as a benchmark of club success in relation to many other clubs. Limiting the benchmark to post-WWI does effectively value pre-WWI achievements at nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussG Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 eh,can you's not learn to stop reacting to this gobshits crap talk??..as you all know,we are shit spuds are great it'll never change with this rent boy.. I can't believe people still reply to this utter clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts