|
Post by werrington on Mar 26, 2015 10:46:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 26, 2015 11:14:53 GMT
I love the fact we're above Leicester, another team who claim to be a bigger club than us
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 26, 2015 11:29:56 GMT
Another shite piece of journalism. "No bias whatsoever." Aston Villa player quality 8 West Brom player quality 10 Stoke player quality 14 Edit: for those who can't be arsed to follow the link, lower is better Agreed - it is a bit of a bizarre method they have used in allocating points. I'm a great believer that the league table is as good a method as any for determining which clubs are biggest. The Daily Mail way of looking at things certainly throws up a lot of anomalies Take a look at Wolves' position in the top 50 and compare it with Swansea's. Swansea fans will have a good laugh at that when they look at the league tables.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 26, 2015 11:35:52 GMT
Another shite piece of journalism. "No bias whatsoever." Aston Villa player quality 8 West Brom player quality 10 Stoke player quality 14 Edit: for those who can't be arsed to follow the link, lower is better Agreed - it is a bit of a bizarre method they have used in allocating points. I'm a great believer that the league table is as good a method as any for determining which clubs are biggest. The Daily Mail way of looking at things certainly throws up a lot of anomalies Take a look at Wolves' position in the top 50 and compare it with Swansea's. Swansea fans will have a good laugh at that when they look at the league tables. Player Quality is judged by the following criteria if you bother to read We counted the number of players from each club who have played for England, all-time, ranking the clubs by total. This reflects historic ‘bigness’. We then ranked the clubs by the number of players provided to the 2014 World Cup — a measure of modern ‘bigness’. The overall ranking is an aggregate of these two. Of course it depends on allocation of points and that is always going to be open to question but your reply suggests that they have allocated points according to their opinions ( hence the word bias) but that is not so here though ther may be several questionable aspects to the study.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 26, 2015 11:54:25 GMT
Agreed - it is a bit of a bizarre method they have used in allocating points. I'm a great believer that the league table is as good a method as any for determining which clubs are biggest. The Daily Mail way of looking at things certainly throws up a lot of anomalies Take a look at Wolves' position in the top 50 and compare it with Swansea's. Swansea fans will have a good laugh at that when they look at the league tables. Player Quality is judged by the following criteria if you bother to read We counted the number of players from each club who have played for England, all-time, ranking the clubs by total. This reflects historic ‘bigness’. We then ranked the clubs by the number of players provided to the 2014 World Cup — a measure of modern ‘bigness’. The overall ranking is an aggregate of these two. Of course it depends on allocation of points and that is always going to be open to question but your reply suggests that they have allocated points according to their opinions ( hence the word bias) but that is not so here though ther may be several questionable aspects to the study. I haven't used the word bias - that was upthefud. I understand perfectly how they have done their caluculations - I still find the methodology "odd". If historical data is to be included then the founder members of the football league should get extra points for having a longer history than the upstarts like Manchester United who came on the scene years later! For me the size of a club is judged by a combination of its league positions and silverware over quite a short period, its current fan base and its income.
|
|
|
Post by stokemanusa on Mar 26, 2015 12:06:43 GMT
It's all the conversions and hardwork overseas...
|
|
|
Post by mosquito on Mar 26, 2015 12:08:55 GMT
What Port Vale not in the top 50. Now I know they must have screwed up the calculations
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Mar 26, 2015 12:19:39 GMT
Agreed - it is a bit of a bizarre method they have used in allocating points. I'm a great believer that the league table is as good a method as any for determining which clubs are biggest. The Daily Mail way of looking at things certainly throws up a lot of anomalies Take a look at Wolves' position in the top 50 and compare it with Swansea's. Swansea fans will have a good laugh at that when they look at the league tables. Player Quality is judged by the following criteria if you bother to read We counted the number of players from each club who have played for England, all-time, ranking the clubs by total. This reflects historic ‘bigness’. We then ranked the clubs by the number of players provided to the 2014 World Cup — a measure of modern ‘bigness’. The overall ranking is an aggregate of these two. Of course it depends on allocation of points and that is always going to be open to question but your reply suggests that they have allocated points according to their opinions ( hence the word bias) but that is not so here though ther may be several questionable aspects to the study. Using the England team to measure player quality? Having a laugh aren't they?!
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Mar 26, 2015 12:24:17 GMT
We do not have a better global fanbase than Leeds. We do not even have a better UK fanbase than Leeds.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 12:56:13 GMT
We do not have a better global fanbase than Leeds. We do not even have a better UK fanbase than Leeds. Yeh but we've got more Facebook followers
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 26, 2015 13:15:11 GMT
Player Quality is judged by the following criteria if you bother to read We counted the number of players from each club who have played for England, all-time, ranking the clubs by total. This reflects historic ‘bigness’. We then ranked the clubs by the number of players provided to the 2014 World Cup — a measure of modern ‘bigness’. The overall ranking is an aggregate of these two. Of course it depends on allocation of points and that is always going to be open to question but your reply suggests that they have allocated points according to their opinions ( hence the word bias) but that is not so here though ther may be several questionable aspects to the study. I haven't used the word bias - that was upthefud. I understand perfectly how they have done their caluculations - I still find the methodology "odd". If historical data is to be included then the founder members of the football league should get extra points for having a longer history than the upstarts like Manchester United who came on the scene years later! For me the size of a club is judged by a combination of its league positions and silverware over quite a short period, its current fan base and its income. I agree, the methodology is questionable. There are possibilities for several methodologies which would produce different results. It's a bit random tbh but I don't think anyone is out to get at Stoke here as suggested by previous poster.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 26, 2015 13:20:32 GMT
I haven't used the word bias - that was upthefud. I understand perfectly how they have done their caluculations - I still find the methodology "odd". If historical data is to be included then the founder members of the football league should get extra points for having a longer history than the upstarts like Manchester United who came on the scene years later! For me the size of a club is judged by a combination of its league positions and silverware over quite a short period, its current fan base and its income. I agree, the methodology is questionable. There are possibilities for several methodologies which would produce different results. It's a bit random tbh but I don't think anyone is out to get at Stoke here as suggested by previous poster. Oh, I quite agree that it isn't aimed at Stoke - those that think it is are just exhibiting typical, routine, everyday, common or garden Stokie paranoia!
|
|
|
Post by stokiesteve on Mar 26, 2015 13:34:51 GMT
We could do with a few more trophies then!
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 26, 2015 13:51:31 GMT
That table looks fair enough to me, and the research seems pretty extensive and neutral.
If anything, I'm surprised we're ranked quite a bit higher than Forest and Derby who have been miles more successful than us.
EDIT: The most telling thing of all is how crap we have been at winning trophies from the beginning of time. 40th place overall, which puts us at the bottom of the second division, behind Bury, Notts County, Bradford and Barnsley.
Every other comparably sized club (except Middlesbrough) and many much smaller clubs, seem to have had a spell where they have enjoyed some success, albeit a long time ago for some of the likes of Wolves, West Brom and Sunderland. But from 1863 to 2015, we've never had that moment in the sun.
I wonder why that is. Can we really blame it on Hitler who intervened when we had our truly great team?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 26, 2015 14:27:24 GMT
That table looks fair enough to me, and the research seems pretty extensive and neutral. If anything, I'm surprised we're ranked quite a bit higher than Forest and Derby who have been miles more successful than us. EDIT: The most telling thing of all is how crap we have been at winning trophies from the beginning of time. 40th place overall, which puts us at the bottom of the second division, behind Bury, Notts County, Bradford and Barnsley. Every other comparably sized club (except Middlesbrough) and many much smaller clubs, seem to have had a spell where they have enjoyed some success, albeit a long time ago for some of the likes of Wolves, West Brom and Sunderland. But from 1863 to 2015, we've never had that moment in the sun. I wonder why that is. Can we really blame it on Hitler who intervened when we had our truly great team? Well, the roof blowing off the Butler Street stand also stopped a great team in its tracks.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 26, 2015 14:37:51 GMT
That table looks fair enough to me, and the research seems pretty extensive and neutral. If anything, I'm surprised we're ranked quite a bit higher than Forest and Derby who have been miles more successful than us. EDIT: The most telling thing of all is how crap we have been at winning trophies from the beginning of time. 40th place overall, which puts us at the bottom of the second division, behind Bury, Notts County, Bradford and Barnsley. Every other comparably sized club (except Middlesbrough) and many much smaller clubs, seem to have had a spell where they have enjoyed some success, albeit a long time ago for some of the likes of Wolves, West Brom and Sunderland. But from 1863 to 2015, we've never had that moment in the sun. I wonder why that is. Can we really blame it on Hitler who intervened when we had our truly great team? Well, the roof blowing off the Butler Street stand also stopped a great team in its tracks. Yes, and all those broken legs when we had a chance of winning the league in 1975. The fates have definitely conspired against us. I think we will have another chance at some point. The mega clubs have got a stranglehold at the moment, but their dynasty will end eventually, they always do. We need to make sure we're well placed to take advantage when it happens.
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Mar 26, 2015 14:38:40 GMT
In all honesty I think its about right
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 26, 2015 15:21:11 GMT
Well, the roof blowing off the Butler Street stand also stopped a great team in its tracks. Yes, and all those broken legs when we had a chance of winning the league in 1975. The fates have definitely conspired against us. I think we will have another chance at some point. The mega clubs have got a stranglehold at the moment, but their dynasty will end eventually, they always do. We need to make sure we're well placed to take advantage when it happens. Even with all the money in the game?
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 26, 2015 15:46:15 GMT
Yes, and all those broken legs when we had a chance of winning the league in 1975. The fates have definitely conspired against us. I think we will have another chance at some point. The mega clubs have got a stranglehold at the moment, but their dynasty will end eventually, they always do. We need to make sure we're well placed to take advantage when it happens. Even with all the money in the game? Yes I do. It sounds daft, but as increasingly ridiculous sums of money pour into the game at the top level, the whole thing is getting more and more imbalanced. I think at some point in the future we will look back and reflect how the bubble burst because all that money went into the wrong pockets. And if you look back over history, no regime lasts forever, in any walk of life. However unthinkable that sounds at the height of its dominance.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 26, 2015 16:14:31 GMT
Is there a team in the country that has underachieved more than us trophy wise?
|
|
|
Post by Roy Cropper on Mar 26, 2015 16:14:35 GMT
You could have a team full of Gareth Bale's and be bottom based on that player quality logic.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 26, 2015 16:44:55 GMT
Even with all the money in the game? Yes I do. It sounds daft, but as increasingly ridiculous sums of money pour into the game at the top level, the whole thing is getting more and more imbalanced. I think at some point in the future we will look back and reflect how the bubble burst because all that money went into the wrong pockets. And if you look back over history, no regime lasts forever, in any walk of life. However unthinkable that sounds at the height of its dominance. True.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Mar 26, 2015 18:38:45 GMT
Lakeland potter. [/quote]Oh, I quite agree that it isn't aimed at Stoke - those that think it is are just exhibiting typical, routine, everyday, common or garden Stokie paranoia! [/quote] I think that is most unfair to describe it as routine, everyday, common or garden Stokie paranoia. Some of us have worked very hard over a number of years to get to this heightened level. Please stop picking on us.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 26, 2015 19:14:04 GMT
Is there a team in the country that has underachieved more than us trophy wise? This research, which I think is pretty fair and extensive, suggests we are statistically the biggest underachievers. We are supposedly the 16th biggest club, but rank 40th for trophies. No other club is ranked so high for its size and so low for its success with trophies. You could probably make a case for Middlesbrough being a similar size to us, and they also have just the one League Cup to show for their efforts. Even teams like Notts County, Barnsley, Bradford and Bury can point to periods in their history that are more successful than the best periods in our history.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 26, 2015 20:39:25 GMT
The original 12 clubs should have started with a points allocation that measured their standing as the most important clubs in the history of the game.
Plastic clubs like ManUre, Liverpool, Chelsea etc are just playing catch up.
|
|