Are we currently in our rightful position?

[Bovril 218]

In an alternative to the ''big club'' question, I''ve split the current top 2 divisions and other selected clubs into my own personal opinion as to how big a club is to see who hypothetically is over and under-achieving..a place in the top 10 in the championship, anything higher are we over-achieving?

Pool 1 -

Manchester United

Chelsea

Arsenal

Liverpool

Pool 2 -

Tottenham

Everton

Aston Villa

Manchester City

Leeds United

Newcastle United

Pool 3 -

Blackburn Rovers

Nottingham Forest

Sheffield Wednesday

West Ham

Sunderland

Pool 4 -

Southampton

Norwich City

Ipswich Town

Derby County

Wolves

Coventry

Charlton

Leicester

Crystal Palace

Stoke

Birmingham

Bolton

West Brom

Cardiff

Burnley

Reading

Middlesborough

Sheff Utd

Pool 5 -

Wigan

Hull

Bradford

Fulham

Millwall

Portsmouth

Bristol City

Blackpool

Barnsley

QPR

Burnley

Swansea

Watford

Preston

Huddersfield

Brighton

Pool 6 -

Doncaster

Scunthorpe

Plymouth

Swindon

[Lambo 0]

The League table''s don''t lie IMO. If your top of the PL it''s because you deserve to be, if your struggling to stay in The Championship it''s because you deserve to be.

[John 0]

[quote user="The Lord"]In an alternative to the ''big club'' question, I''ve split the current top 2 divisions and other selected clubs into my own personal opinion as to how big a club is to see who hypothetically is over and under-achieving..a place in the top 10 in the championship, anything higher are we over-achieving?

Pool 1 -

Manchester United

Chelsea

Arsenal

Liverpool

Pool 2 -

Tottenham

Everton

Aston Villa (Pool 1)Manchester City

Leeds United

Newcastle United

Pool 3 -

Blackburn Rovers

Nottingham Forest

Sheffield Wednesday

West Ham

Sunderland

Pool 4 -

Southampton

Norwich City

Ipswich Town (Pool 3)Derby County

(Pool 3)Wolves

Coventry

Charlton

Leicester

Crystal Palace (Pool 5)

Stoke

Birmingham

Bolton

West Brom

(Pool 3)Cardiff

(Pool 5)Burnley

Reading (Pool 5)

Middlesborough

Sheff Utd

Pool 5 -

Wigan

Hull

Bradford

Fulham

Millwall

Portsmouth

(Pool 4/3)Bristol City

Blackpool

(Pool 4)Barnsley

QPR (Pool 4)

Burnley

(Pool 4/3 - However you already put it in Pool 4 as well?)Swansea

Watford

Preston

Huddersfield (Pool 4)

Brighton

Pool 6 -

DoncasterScunthorpe

Plymouth

Swindon[/quote]I wouldn''t agree with this i''m afraid.At a glance, i''d contest the ones i''ve highlighted in red.Funnily enough i did something very similar to this on BBC 606, though focusing only on the Championship. I briefly studied the history of each club and every club, and i believe i came up with a fairly accurate portrayal of the rankings...

[quote user="Sussex_King_Canary"]In terms of the size of clubs in the League, i''d look at it as something

like this, with more recent history the more highly considered, as

opposed to early/pre-20th century stuff (though i''m expecting a lot of

hell fire in response to this). Club''s are put into groups that, in

themselves, are not necessarily put into any specific order :--- 1 ---LeedsForestDerby--- 2 ---IpswichPortsmouthBurnleyMiddlesborough--- 3 ---LeicesterNorwichSheffield UnitedQueens Park RangersCoverntry--- 4 ---PrestonWatfordCardiffCrystal Palace--- 5 ---BarnsleyBristol CitySwanseaReadingHull CityMillwall--- 6 ---DoncasterScunthorpeLike

Forest and Derby were stumble upon a great manager that was responsible

for a lot of their history, in the same respect, Ipwsich were too (or

in their case, two).As for Portsmouth, Preston and Sheffield

United, it seemed the richest part of their history was prior to the

Second World War. As a result, i''m not sure how much of that can trickle

down into the considered size of them now against the likes of Leeds

and Forest.However, i feel there are bigger elements than

history, such as the fanbases and the current state of clubs, that make

for much bigger factors, rendering much of my list a bit meaningless.

This, in my mind, would have the likes of Sheffield United, Norwich, and

Leicester higher, and the likes of Burnley and Portsmouth lower. [/quote]I''d say that in the grand scheme of things, the pinnacle of expected achievement for us in alignment with our size is, concerning us as a "Pool 4" club, upon inspection of my ratings, 1st in the Championship conveniantly. Anything over that is "over-achievement". Our absolute minimum is 16th in the Championship. Anything under that, and we are "under-achieving".

Interesting thread.[Y]

[John 0]

Oh, and i have a feeling i''m going to be making a bit of a habit of correcting you and myself in that table, but Nottingham Forest are a "Pool 2" club.

[If wed kept Howie.. 199]

Other than "your own opinion", could you explain the criteria you have used to rank these teams?

Table positions? Ave attendances? Income? Cup wins? Local population/catchment area?

I''d really like to understand why Blackburn Rovers are higher than Birmingham City? or Stoke are lower than Sheffield Wednesday?

[John 0]

[quote user="If wed kept Howie"]Other than "your own opinion", could you explain the criteria you have used to rank these teams?

Table positions? Ave attendances? Income? Cup wins? Local population/catchment area?

I''d really like to understand why Blackburn Rovers are higher than Birmingham City? or Stoke are lower than Sheffield Wednesday?[/quote]Those assumptions are more than understandable on a number of accounts in my opinion. However, outside of history though i tend to find that the waters become too muddy, especially when comparing clubs. It might be because of a bias, or an honest opinion built upon small hints of ignorance, but the esteem that each individual may value anything from attendance, the quality of a stadium, media focus, ticket prices, locations and their populations, to off the field accolades, and food served at grounds in respect to the size of a club, leaves it all varying to utterly absurd extents. This is up until the point where it goes beyond the possibility of this side of the discussion ever becoming remotely amiable unfortunately.It''s interesting, but far too numerical in it''s points of view and dynamic that we''ll find ourselves caught in an eternal cycle of arguing.If you want to look at it from a purely historical basis, look on the "Footymad" websites for a good collective source, like :http://www.birminghamcity-mad.co.uk/footydb/loadlghs.asphttp://www.blackburnrovers-mad.co.uk/footydb/loadinfo.asp"Honours" & "League History" sections proving the most useful in this type of subject matter.

I usually find in these discussions that fans have grown up with an array of misconceptions about certain clubs. I certainly haven''t been exempt from this, where that i use to underrate the likes of Aston Villa, QPR, Blackpool and Derby quite severely, and overrate clubs like Coventry, Leicester, Southampton and Birmingham.

[Jacko 0]

Just thought I would add a breakdown based on attendance averages so far this season (obviously we''ve only played a handful of games so its wildly unscientific but interesting). In theory this shows that Arsenal and Manchester United should be streets ahead of everyone else. Can we regard being in the championship as underachievement. Not really. The reality is these days that a lot of clubs attract 20,000+ crowds and have a nice ground. We are far from alone in that respect

Tier 1

Man United (75141)

Tier 2

Arsenal (60032)

Tier 3

Man City (47087)

Newcastle (43546)

Liverpool (42958)

Chelsea (41260)

Tier 4

Sunderland (38500)

Everton (37767)

Aston Villa (35665)

Spurs (35515)

West Ham (32533)

Tier 5

Wolves (27798)

Stoke (27243)

Leeds (25914)

Fulham (25643)

Derby (25489)

Blackburn (25464)

Norwich (24100)

WBA (23624)

Nottingham Forest (23438)

Cardiff (22300)

Birmingham (21394)

Sheff Utd (21172)

Hull City (20952)

Sheff Wed (20878)

Leicester City ( 20599)

Southampton (20455)

[Excited Canary 19]

[quote user="If wed kept Howie"]Other than "your own opinion", could you explain the criteria you have used to rank these teams?

Table positions? Ave attendances? Income? Cup wins? Local population/catchment area?

I''d really like to understand why Blackburn Rovers are higher than Birmingham City? or Stoke are lower than Sheffield Wednesday?[/quote]65% history/cup wins etc , 35% current standings at a guess.

[. 0]

[quote user="The Lord"]In an alternative to the ''big club'' question, I''ve split the current top 2 divisions and other selected clubs into my own personal opinion as to how big a club is to see who hypothetically is over and under-achieving..a place in the top 10 in the championship, anything higher are we over-achieving?

Pool 1 -

Manchester United

Chelsea

Arsenal

Liverpool

Pool 2 -

Tottenham

Everton

Aston Villa

Manchester City

Leeds United

Newcastle United

Pool 3 -

Blackburn Rovers

Nottingham Forest

Sheffield Wednesday

West Ham

Sunderland

Pool 4 -

Southampton

Norwich City

Ipswich Town

Derby County

Wolves

Coventry

Charlton

Leicester

Crystal Palace

Stoke

Birmingham

Bolton

West Brom

Cardiff

Burnley

Reading

Middlesborough

Sheff Utd

Pool 5 -

Wigan

Hull

Bradford

Fulham

Millwall

Portsmouth

Bristol City

Blackpool

Barnsley

QPR

Burnley

Swansea

Watford

Preston

Huddersfield

Brighton

Pool 6 -

Doncaster

Scunthorpe

Plymouth

Swindon[/quote]Not much room in there if you fancy a swim.

[I am a Banana 0]

people who put ippy below us is only because they are rival. All in all us and ippy are probably the most even teams who have a derby game i can think of.

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

[quote user="Lambo"]The League table''s don''t lie IMO. If your top of the PL it''s because you deserve to be, if your struggling to stay in The Championship it''s because you deserve to be.[/quote]

Not in my opinion, the top four are only there because of money!

Take away the money and look at Leeds, the more I think about it the more it annoys me.

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

[quote user="Lambo"]The League table''s don''t lie IMO. If your top of the PL it''s because you deserve to be, if your struggling to stay in The Championship it''s because you deserve to be.[/quote]

Not in my opinion, the top four are only there because of money!

Take away the money and look at Leeds, the more I think about it the more it annoys me.

[Lambo 0]

To be fair to them... Fergie & Wenger both built great teams without massive amounts of money.

[Bovril 218]

only there because of money? Never get this debate, it''s the same with any other business sector, if you have more money than your competitor the likelihood is your going to attract the better talent and in most instances the better end results....

Back to my original post, I didn''t rank them with any particular research at all, purely my gut feeling on how I view how big a club is in my opinion and in each pool I didn''t rank them in order, just that the clubs were similar size.

Effectively, I''ve put them in order that If I saw the fixture being advertised in the paper, whether or not I would view it as a big match or not.

[Legend Iwan 30]

[quote user="Lambo"]To be fair to them... Fergie & Wenger both built great teams without massive amounts of money.[/quote]

Fergie may not have spent as much as Real Madrid or Chelsea on players in quick succession, but don''t be fouled to think he hasn''t spent a lot of money. Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick and Berbetov. Before them you also have Saha, Ronaldo, Veron and Van Nistelrooy.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="Legend Iwan"]

[quote user="Lambo"]To be fair to them... Fergie & Wenger both built great teams without massive amounts of money.[/quote]

Fergie may not have spent as much as Real Madrid or Chelsea on players in quick succession, but don''t be fouled to think he hasn''t spent a lot of money. Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick and Berbetov. Before them you also have Saha, Ronaldo, Veron and Van Nistelrooy.

[/quote]

It''s true that Man Utd have spent big on some players, but he usually only makes one big signing a season and Man U haven''t done what Chelsea or Man City are doing in radically altering the squad in one or two seasons. Also a large part of Man U''s team has been from their own academy. Few players have been more important for them than Scholes and Giggs, while the likes of Fletcher and Jonny Evans are likely to become important parts of their team for the next few years. You would have to say that Man U are the model of success, faith in a manager, good home grown talent, and buying young players and developing them. The £16m Fergie paid for Ronaldo was hardly wasted money, neither was the £20m for Rooney.

[If wed kept Howie.. 199]

"....Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick and Berbetov. Before them you also have Saha, Ronaldo, Veron and Van Nistelrooy...."

Ferdinand was signed before Ronaldo and Saha...

Anyway - i think you have to look into the balance of transfers (Ronaldo went for a profit 68 million). Also - wages play a big part.

[Boyo 0]

[quote user="I am a Banana"]people who put ippy below us is only because they are rival. All in all us and ippy are probably the most even teams who have a derby game i can think of.[/quote]

If this pool thing that is going here is done on history then they deserve to be in a higher pool than us.  If it is done not looking at history and the present then us and them would both be in the same pool.

So yes we are even now but, if you are going by history then it is hard for me to say but, they are above us by a fair bit.

[Boyo 0]

If you guys who are putting teams in these pools are doing on a bit of history then don''t Nottingham Forest deserve to be pool 1?

They have won the old First Division once, the FA Cup twice, the League Cup four times and the old European Cup twice and then also to follow on from that, the UEFA Super Cup once.

Compare this to Chelsea and there is not a whole lot of difference.  The big thing though is that they have won the main European Cup two times more than Chelsea which even if Chelsea have won more FA Cups and First Divisions (whether that be Premiership or the old one) deserves to put Forest on a par with Chelsea size wise IMO.