Stevo985 Posted May 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 8, 2013 and then I think its actually Martinez....not 100% sure Nope Martinez was appointed in 2009. Stoke have been in the Premier League (under Pulis) since 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 I meant that for the comment which said Pulis was going to be 2nd longest serving manager. so it meant Martinez was next after him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 8, 2013 Ohhhh I see what you mean. I thought you meant the 2nd longest wasn't Pulis and was in fact Martinez. I misread it, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I meant that for the comment which said Pulis was going to be 2nd longest serving manager. so it meant Martinez was next after him I think Arsene Wenger may have something to say about that, having been at Arsenal for nearly 17 years now. Anyway, Fernando Torres has not scored in 2013. Not interesting, more ominous considering how benvolant we are to struggling strikers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 9, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 9, 2013 I meant that for the comment which said Pulis was going to be 2nd longest serving manager. so it meant Martinez was next after him I think Arsene Wenger may have something to say about that, having been at Arsenal for nearly 17 years now. Hence why Martinez is 2nd Wenger is obviously 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8pints Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Is Lambert joint 14th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I meant that for the comment which said Pulis was going to be 2nd longest serving manager. so it meant Martinez was next after him I think Arsene Wenger may have something to say about that, having been at Arsenal for nearly 17 years now. Hence why Martinez is 2nd Wenger is obviously 1st. Oops, my bad! I read it as 2nd behind Ferguson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 9, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 9, 2013 Nope Martinez was appointed in 2009. Stoke have been in the Premier League (under Pulis) since 2008 I think Arsene Wenger may have something to say about that, having been at Arsenal for nearly 17 years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 who is Big 4 though, is that Sky 4? I remember his team winning at Etihad about 2 years ago and I think they won at Highbury when Rooney scored that goal but that was a long time ago The traditional big 4 of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea & Liverpool. Rooney's goal at Highbury was in a 2-1 loss. His winner in Goodison was, naturally, not away from home. It's not a traditional "big four" though, is it? It probably existed as an entity for about five or six seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 9, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 9, 2013 Of those 4 you could only argue Chelsea's inclusion in a 'traditional' big 4 but given that they're the 2nd most successful side in the Premier League era then that's probably the logic that was used. The stat still stands no matter how you wish to label them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 But even then you are using an arbitrary measure to define a period. '92/93 was a landmark year in English football, but Chelsea have been mid table also rans for most of their history and it wasn't really until Matthew Harding turned them into a top six club with his money that anybody really started to notice them. Their position at the top really only happened due to events which took place a full ten years after the Premier League was founded. Should we really revise history and say they have always been a dominant force in the Premier League? Their rise to prominence seems to have coincided with the decline of Liverpool (this is the fourth season in a row they have failed to qualify for the big cup) and to a lesser extent, Arsenal. There is no denying that for a period of time the "big four" did exist, those four clubs were England's representatives in the Champions League for six seasons in a row but it was a brief period which is now gone, but the phrase "big four" just has a nice ring to it in the media because the big four banks and big four railway companies helped shape British life for the best part of a hundred years in the 20th century. The stat calling into question David Moyes record against them as Everton manager annoys me somewhat because they didn't exist as an entity when he took the Everton job and they haven't existed for at least three years as of today. If you need a group of opposition clubs as a benchmark to compare his results against then why not include Manchester City or Tottenham Hotspur who are more relevant today? Is it because he has good results there and therefore there is less of a story or is it because the "big four" make a better soundbite because they are (or were) a clearly identifiable group? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 9, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 9, 2013 Oi! The stat is interesting. Your beef is with the label Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 I feel it's a worthy tangent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 who is Big 4 though, is that Sky 4? I remember his team winning at Etihad about 2 years ago and I think they won at Highbury when Rooney scored that goal but that was a long time ago The traditional big 4 of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea & Liverpool. Rooney's goal at Highbury was in a 2-1 loss. His winner in Goodison was, naturally, not away from home. 'Traditional Big 4' is a term I hoped I'd never hear again. Now they're just 4 sides that are in the top half of the table where he never won away at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Oh. Nayson said what I was saying far better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 9, 2013 Moderator Share Posted May 9, 2013 Oh. Nayson said what I was saying far better Some things have been like that since forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted May 10, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 10, 2013 The stat calling into question David Moyes record against them as Everton manager annoys me somewhat because they didn't exist as an entity when he took the Everton job and they haven't existed for at least three years as of today. If you need a group of opposition clubs as a benchmark to compare his results against then why not include Manchester City or Tottenham Hotspur who are more relevant today? Is it because he has good results there and therefore there is less of a story or is it because the "big four" make a better soundbite because they are (or were) a clearly identifiable group? Big Six is probably warranted... the PL seems content now to pretend that they're the only clubs in the league (see the plan for NBC Sports to show an hour of Man Utd highlights followed by an hour of Man City highlights every Monday night and a half hour each of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Spurs highlights on Tuesday nights). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 The stat calling into question David Moyes record against them as Everton manager annoys me somewhat because they didn't exist as an entity when he took the Everton job and they haven't existed for at least three years as of today. If you need a group of opposition clubs as a benchmark to compare his results against then why not include Manchester City or Tottenham Hotspur who are more relevant today? Is it because he has good results there and therefore there is less of a story or is it because the "big four" make a better soundbite because they are (or were) a clearly identifiable group? Big Six is probably warranted... the PL seems content now to pretend that they're the only clubs in the league (see the plan for NBC Sports to show an hour of Man Utd highlights followed by an hour of Man City highlights every Monday night and a half hour each of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Spurs highlights on Tuesday nights). Oho! Don't tell me, Villa get a 90-second slot at 5am on Thursday mornings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Paolo Ferreira has 2 Champions League and 2 UEFA Cup/Europa League medals has a player ever stole such a better trophy haul in their career Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted May 15, 2013 Author Share Posted May 15, 2013 He's getting on a bit now, but he was a bloody good player back in the day. Massively harsh to say he doesn't deserve his winners medals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts