What our opponents' fans are saying about us 17/18

[Croftwoodspurs]

Just reading back on my neg ratings, it seems a lot of people don't watch much football and are taken in by dabbing and advertising. Pogba is a very average footballer. The appropriate question is whether or not he is better than Sissoko, I would say Pogba just shades that. It's not even a comparison with Alli, who is a far, far superior player. Rolling over inferior opposition in a pub league like Italy doesn't make you a great player, is a bit like Janssen being a top scorer in the Dutch league.

Just gave you the final one for the ratings bingo... Lol

 

[UncleBuck]

Thought either them or Villa at the time.

It was 'big six' and I'm pretty sure Villa were in it as well

 

[Marty]

Are you complaining?

He's one of the best signings we've ever made. It's how easy we got him and how low the fee was that still baffles me. But complain? Never.

 

[Bulletspur]

He's one of the best signings we've ever made. It's how easy we got him and how low the fee was that still baffles me. But complain? Never.

It was tongue in cheek @Marty. I agreed with every word you said. All is good!!

 

[yiddopaul]

Here's the thing with City, against teams that sit back, they are god awful but are very good against teams that dont. Thats what worries me here. We dont sit back so City will have an easier time to begin with even without looking for a response to getting smashed.

I agree, but then we have beaten them convincingly over the past three meetings, while deploying these tactics. It won't be a stroll in the park (though it could!), but right now, they are a mess. Best time to be playing them. I don't think this Spurs team will be getting complacent, Poch won't allow it.

We just beat the best team in the league. We didn't tear them apart, but we were solid and professional, and looked in total control. Chelsea are a much much better team than City right now. If we continue the way we've been playing, I certainly can't see us losing, would be OK with the draw.

 

[Gringospur]

They seem really amazed at how we put such a good team together for the price.

http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/spurs-h-pre-match-thread.326419/page-11

-Their entire starting 11 for less than we paid for Stones and Sané
-Thats depressing isnt it.

Haha, I really laughed at this one : )

 

[absolute bobbins]

It was 'big six' and I'm pretty sure Villa were in it as well

Stan Collymore is that you?

 

[UncleBuck]

Stan Collymore is that you?

Not quite! Early 80's though, I'm not going mad, there was an unofficial big six of us & arse, Liverpool & Everton and two others...I'm sure Villa were in it but can't remember if the other was Man U or Forest...

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I'm getting a little bit niggled by the number of versions of the 70s/80s 'big five' that we are getting here.

I'm old enough to remember: I started following football in the mid-70s. There was only one 'big five' and it was an established cliché, mentioned by commentators routinely and every week, over a period of a couple of decades, perhaps longer.

Not Nottingham Forest - they crashed the party for a few years thanks to the brilliance of Brian Clough, but they have a small ground and modest support. Not Aston Villa, although they were a large and established club dating back to the 19c. (not sure why they weren't included, but they weren't). Not Derby or Stoke or Leeds or any of the clubs that had success for a few years.

It wasn't primarily based on on-field success, it was based mainly on size: sustained large-scale support and catchment area. There were five clubs that were much bigger than the others. Not more successful. Bigger. Hence the 'big five'.

Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and Everton.

The other candidates being proposed are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's an historical fact.

 

[tiger666]

The only big 5 I remember was us everton pool united and arsenal

Here. This was when football was invented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_of_the_Premier_League

 

[Japhet]

I'm getting a little bit niggled by the number of versions of the 70s/80s 'big five' that we are getting here.

I'm old enough to remember: I started following football in the mid-70s. There was only one 'big five' and it was an established cliché, mentioned by commentators routinely and every week, over a period of a couple of decades, perhaps longer.

Not Nottingham Forest - they crashed the party for a few years thanks to the brilliance of Brian Clough, but they have a small ground and modest support. Not Aston Villa, although they were a large and established club dating back to the 19c. (not sure why they weren't included, but they weren't). Not Derby or Stoke or Leeds or any of the clubs that had success for a few years.

It wasn't primarily based on on-field success, it was based mainly on size: sustained large-scale support and catchment area. There were five clubs that were much bigger than the others. Not more successful. Bigger. Hence the 'big five'.

Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and Everton.

The other candidates being proposed are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's an historical fact.

You don't think Leeds under Don Revie were big at the time then?

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

You don't think Leeds under Don Revie were big at the time then?

Think you covered it yourself.

 

[guiltyparty]

You don't think Leeds under Don Revie were big at the time then?

No, he's saying that they weren't part of a thing called The Big Five. That refers to a specific thing. Like Sky4 or whatever

 

[Shadydan]

West Ham were apart of the big five weren't they?

 

[nightgoat]

They certainly did. It wasn't a park-the-bus exercise in pig-headed negativity, but they played a deep-lying defence, allowed Man City to pass the ball in front of defence and dared them to try to penetrate the defensive line, which Man City's attacking players were too lethargic to do. Then they scored on the counter-attack from their first two shots.

What else do you call that?

The first two goals came from Everton pressing Man City high and winning the ball inside the City half. Only the third goal you could really claim was a counter attack.

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

West Ham were apart of the big five weren't they?

Yep. The big 5 clubs in East London. West Ham, Leyton Orient, Canning Town Bingo Club, Beckton Socialists Club, Dagenham Ford Workers Sewing Club.

 

[dagraham]

West Ham were apart of the big five weren't they?

No. They were part of the "we won the World Cup one" .

As others have said, The "Big Five" pre PL era was us, the gooners, Utd, Liverpool and Everton. There were other big clubs, but those 5 were part of a football establishment group of clubs like the Sky 4.

It doesn't matter whether certain people considered it to be merited or not. That's how it was.

 

[riggi]

Yep. The big 5 clubs in East London. West Ham, Leyton Orient, Canning Town Bingo Club, Beckton Socialists Club, Dagenham Ford Workers Sewing Club.

Forgot millwall

 

[eViL]

So.. what are the opposition fans saying about us?

 

[tiger666]

So.. what are the opposition fans saying about us?

They reckon @riggi smells