|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2020 17:19:59 GMT
Wasn't The Victoria the oldest professional league ground in the world at time of us leaving? To be fair it showed in parts
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Apr 15, 2020 17:44:28 GMT
Hitler’s main war aim being to deny Stoke the 1940 league championship.
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Apr 15, 2020 17:47:14 GMT
Isn't it something to do with stoke ramblers being or not being the prequel to stoke city? In his Encyclopedia of Stoke City Tony Matthews concedes there is no actual evidence of a football club before 1868. My mate, who has a doctorate in the Victorian origins of the league, and gives regular lectures on the subject, is adamant that Stoke were formed in 1868.
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Apr 15, 2020 17:58:57 GMT
The creation of Hairy Potter. No mate 😂
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 15, 2020 18:06:29 GMT
Isn't it something to do with stoke ramblers being or not being the prequel to stoke city? In his Encyclopedia of Stoke City Tony Matthews concedes there is no actual evidence of a football club before 1868. There is no evidence that there wasn’t a football club before 1868. If the received view from the 19th Century is that we were formed in 1863 then it is probably correct.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 15, 2020 18:08:39 GMT
In his Encyclopedia of Stoke City Tony Matthews concedes there is no actual evidence of a football club before 1868. There is no evidence that there wasn’t a football club before 1868. If the received view from the 19th Century is that we were formed in 1863 then it is probably correct. definitely how verifying history works
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 15, 2020 18:08:43 GMT
In his Encyclopedia of Stoke City Tony Matthews concedes there is no actual evidence of a football club before 1868. My mate, who has a doctorate in the Victorian origins of the league, and gives regular lectures on the subject, is adamant that Stoke were formed in 1868. And he is wrong. Or is he? That is the question. There was no documentary evidence of when we were formed. All we know is that the first written evidence of us playing a game was 1868. Big deal, it is our date of formation in question not when our first game was worth of being recorded.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 15, 2020 18:10:41 GMT
There is no evidence that there wasn’t a football club before 1868. If the received view from the 19th Century is that we were formed in 1863 then it is probably correct. definitely how verifying history works Very true, but using the first written evidence of us playing a game isn’t documentary evidence of our formation. I prefer to believe those Victorians who formed the club and gave the date as 1863.
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Apr 15, 2020 18:17:23 GMT
My mate, who has a doctorate in the Victorian origins of the league, and gives regular lectures on the subject, is adamant that Stoke were formed in 1868. And he is wrong. Or is he? That is the question. There was no documentary evidence of when we were formed. All we know is that the first written evidence of us playing a game was 1868. Big deal, it is our date of formation in question not when our first game was worth of being recorded. Don’t get me wrong, march, I would sincerely love to find proof of our founding as 1863: if nothing else, to spike the guns of all those annoying Forest fans who would lay claim to being the oldest club still in the league (est.1865). But surely there would be a snippet in the local press of 1863 if a football club had been established? History without evidence is not history - it’s legend. Heck, I’m quite happy to support a legendary club!
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Apr 15, 2020 18:20:46 GMT
My mate, who has a doctorate in the Victorian origins of the league, and gives regular lectures on the subject, is adamant that Stoke were formed in 1868. And he is wrong. Or is he? That is the question. There was no documentary evidence of when we were formed. All we know is that the first written evidence of us playing a game was 1868. Big deal, it is our date of formation in question not when our first game was worth of being recorded. Were the events involving the football club prior to 1868 missed by "The Sentinel"?
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 15, 2020 18:22:36 GMT
And he is wrong. Or is he? That is the question. There was no documentary evidence of when we were formed. All we know is that the first written evidence of us playing a game was 1868. Big deal, it is our date of formation in question not when our first game was worth of being recorded. Don’t get me wrong, march, I would sincerely love to find proof of our founding as 1863: if nothing else, to spike the guns of all those annoying Forest fans who would lay claim to being the oldest club still in the league (est.1865). But surely there would be a snippet in the local press of 1863 if a football club had been established? History without evidence is not history - it’s legend. Heck, I’m quite happy to support a legendary club! Dozens of football clubs were being formed in the period. They were small scale affairs not worthy of mention in the Sentinel. Do the Sentinel report every Dungeons and Dragons group created or every badminton team. Do they highlight the early stages of every upcoming sport. I think not. We were formed in 1863 and until someone can prove otherwise we always were.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 15, 2020 18:23:36 GMT
And he is wrong. Or is he? That is the question. There was no documentary evidence of when we were formed. All we know is that the first written evidence of us playing a game was 1868. Big deal, it is our date of formation in question not when our first game was worth of being recorded. Were the events involving the football club prior to 1868 missed by "The Sentinel"? What events? Kick abouts where the rules weren’t even agreed? This wasn’t formally evolved sport.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Apr 15, 2020 18:24:16 GMT
Wasn't The Victoria the oldest professional league ground in the world at time of us leaving? To be fair it showed in parts Opened 1878 so I’d imagine so yeah. Boothen bogs smelt like they’d never been cleaned in the 119yrs either.
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Apr 15, 2020 18:26:12 GMT
Don’t get me wrong, march, I would sincerely love to find proof of our founding as 1863: if nothing else, to spike the guns of all those annoying Forest fans who would lay claim to being the oldest club still in the league (est.1865). But surely there would be a snippet in the local press of 1863 if a football club had been established? History without evidence is not history - it’s legend. Heck, I’m quite happy to support a legendary club! Dozens of football clubs were being formed in the period. They were small scale affairs not worthy of mention in the Sentinel. Do the Sentinel report every Dungeons and Dragons group created or every badminton team. Do they highlight the early stages of every upcoming sport. I think not. We were formed in 1863 and until someone can prove otherwise we always were. Sorry, mate. That doesn’t quite cut it as a historian’s argument. It fits as a convenient reason to sustain a myth, however.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Apr 15, 2020 18:26:45 GMT
And he is wrong. Or is he? That is the question. There was no documentary evidence of when we were formed. All we know is that the first written evidence of us playing a game was 1868. Big deal, it is our date of formation in question not when our first game was worth of being recorded. Don’t get me wrong, march, I would sincerely love to find proof of our founding as 1863: if nothing else, to spike the guns of all those annoying Forest fans who would lay claim to being the oldest club still in the league (est.1865). But surely there would be a snippet in the local press of 1863 if a football club had been established? History without evidence is not history - it’s legend. Heck, I’m quite happy to support a legendary club! You already do!
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 15, 2020 18:30:13 GMT
Dozens of football clubs were being formed in the period. They were small scale affairs not worthy of mention in the Sentinel. Do the Sentinel report every Dungeons and Dragons group created or every badminton team. Do they highlight the early stages of every upcoming sport. I think not. We were formed in 1863 and until someone can prove otherwise we always were. Sorry, mate. That doesn’t quite cut it as a historian’s argument. It fits as a convenient reason to sustain a myth, however. I thought the victor’s determined history irrespective of what historians think. Seriously, if history is based on evidence why do historians disagree on so many matters?
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Apr 15, 2020 18:47:14 GMT
Don’t get me wrong, march, I would sincerely love to find proof of our founding as 1863: if nothing else, to spike the guns of all those annoying Forest fans who would lay claim to being the oldest club still in the league (est.1865). But surely there would be a snippet in the local press of 1863 if a football club had been established? History without evidence is not history - it’s legend. Heck, I’m quite happy to support a legendary club! Dozens of football clubs were being formed in the period. They were small scale affairs not worthy of mention in the Sentinel. Do the Sentinel report every Dungeons and Dragons group created or every badminton team. Do they highlight the early stages of every upcoming sport. I think not. We were formed in 1863 and until someone can prove otherwise we always were. Read Tony Matthews excellent Encyclopedia of Stoke City it sets out all of the founding myth claims and debunks them with actual evidence. We would all love it to be true but unfortunately it's not.
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Apr 15, 2020 18:47:26 GMT
Were the events involving the football club prior to 1868 missed by "The Sentinel"? What events? Kick abouts where the rules weren’t even agreed? This wasn’t formally evolved sport. I was of course joking about the Sentinel coverage. Mind you I have got a Wade Commemorative Stoke mug from 1867!
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Apr 15, 2020 19:15:09 GMT
I love the stuff that I've read on here and take as gospel but can't find anywhere else. The FA's first office was in Stoke somewhere? Extra time was created because of a game involving us? The first game under floodlights? I may have made them up or someone on here has I believe the Football League had its first HQ in Etruria.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 15, 2020 19:15:35 GMT
Sorry, mate. That doesn’t quite cut it as a historian’s argument. It fits as a convenient reason to sustain a myth, however. I thought the victor’s determined history irrespective of what historians think. Seriously, if history is based on evidence why do historians disagree on so many matters? Because sometimes different pieces of evidence are contradictory. In the case of 1863, it isn't contradictory, it's just entirely absent. The few early references to 1863 - which is literally a couple of people remembering the event in ambiguous terms many years later - are demonstrably inaccurate, particularly in the case that two of the supposed founders would have been 13 years old at the time and attending the Charterhouse School in Surrey. As for media coverage, there were plenty of references to minor football events before and during the 1860s, such as kids being given a ball at a church, police ticking off kids for playing in the street and informal games being organised on parks and commons. But absolutely no reference whatsoever in contemporary local or national publications of the Potteries' only formal club, for five years. Nothing, not even a minor passing comment. Then suddenly in 1868 various publications made mention of "a new club formed this year" called Stoke Ramblers. The club themselves have even tried in the past to uncover some evidence for 1863 and failed... it might be unpalatable to us but it really is just a myth.
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Apr 15, 2020 19:18:20 GMT
Isn’t the 71 first teams games in the 71-72 season a Top flight record?
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Apr 15, 2020 19:28:01 GMT
I thought the victor’s determined history irrespective of what historians think. Seriously, if history is based on evidence why do historians disagree on so many matters? Because sometimes different pieces of evidence are contradictory. In the case of 1863, it isn't contradictory, it's just entirely absent. The few early references to 1863 - which is literally a couple of people remembering the event in ambiguous terms many years later - are demonstrably inaccurate, particularly in the case that two of the supposed founders would have been 13 years old at the time and attending the Charterhouse School in Surrey. As for media coverage, there were plenty of references to minor football events before and during the 1860s, such as kids being given a ball at a church, police ticking off kids for playing in the street and informal games being organised on parks and commons. But absolutely no reference whatsoever in contemporary local or national publications of the Potteries' only formal club, for five years. Nothing, not even a minor passing comment. Then suddenly in 1868 various publications made mention of "a new club formed this year" called Stoke Ramblers. The club themselves have even tried in the past to uncover some evidence for 1863 and failed... it might be unpalatable to us but it really is just a myth. As regards to how evidence is regarded, historians would happily use the spoken evidence for 1863 as a primary source despite it being years later. So For example if you watch ‘The World At War’ you may see spoken witness evidence, never written down before, but regarded as the truth. Tacitus the Roman Historian wrote about his father in law (the Roman general Agricola), many years after his exploits in Britain. Again, this work isn’t disregarded because it was put down decades after the event.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2020 19:32:44 GMT
Wasn't The Victoria the oldest professional league ground in the world at time of us leaving? To be fair it showed in parts Opened 1878 so I’d imagine so yeah. Boothen bogs smelt like they’d never been cleaned in the 119yrs either. I think the Drillfield was the oldest ground still in use back then, we were the oldest professional ground Yeah those toilets smelt like a French tramp
|
|
|
Post by richardparker on Apr 15, 2020 19:45:33 GMT
Pele came to Stoke! Taken from a Guardian article by Nick Miller 2015 entitled The forgotten story of … when Pelé and the Santos circus came to England www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jul/14/the-forgotten-story-of-pele-and-the-santos-touring-circusThe tours continued, taking in all manner of locations around the globe, including the occasion when, so the story goes, civil war in Congo was put on hold so the people could watch Pelé in peace (“It is said that there really was a 48-hour ceasefire in the war, made just for us … I’m not sure that is completely true,” he wrote, spoiling the story slightly), but by 1969 they were back on English soil, this time to play Stoke City, the only club to stump up the supposed £12,000 appearance fee, a sum that came with it a guarantee Pelé would appear. He was again the star, scoring a goal that Michael Carey in the Guardian called “of quite outstanding individual brilliance”, weaving past three defenders before slotting past Gordon Banks, a year or so before their rather more famous encounter in Mexico. “The fame of the man was reflected at the final whistle,” wrote the great correspondent Geoffrey Green, “when his sturdy, almost squat frame disappeared under a wave of youthful spectators as they surged on to the pitch to engulf him in admiration.”
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Apr 15, 2020 20:02:25 GMT
Not a Stoke thing, but something of a Staffordshire oddity, which I thought I'd throw in for a bit of fun.
On 11 December 2007 Chasetown became the smallest team ever to reach the FA Cup third round. The Southern League Division One Midlands side stunned League One Port Vale as Danny Smith's last-minute goal sealed a 1–0 win after Port Vale missed two penalties. There was a five division gap between the two teams.
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Apr 15, 2020 20:15:01 GMT
Pele came to Stoke! Taken from a Guardian article by Nick Miller 2015 entitled The forgotten story of … when Pelé and the Santos circus came to England www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jul/14/the-forgotten-story-of-pele-and-the-santos-touring-circusThe tours continued, taking in all manner of locations around the globe, including the occasion when, so the story goes, civil war in Congo was put on hold so the people could watch Pelé in peace (“It is said that there really was a 48-hour ceasefire in the war, made just for us … I’m not sure that is completely true,” he wrote, spoiling the story slightly), but by 1969 they were back on English soil, this time to play Stoke City, the only club to stump up the supposed £12,000 appearance fee, a sum that came with it a guarantee Pelé would appear. He was again the star, scoring a goal that Michael Carey in the Guardian called “of quite outstanding individual brilliance”, weaving past three defenders before slotting past Gordon Banks, a year or so before their rather more famous encounter in Mexico. “The fame of the man was reflected at the final whistle,” wrote the great correspondent Geoffrey Green, “when his sturdy, almost squat frame disappeared under a wave of youthful spectators as they surged on to the pitch to engulf him in admiration.” I was there. Didn’t know about the £12,000 appearance fee, though. Again, mythology over reality has always supposed it was a sportsman arrangement between Pele and Banks following the WC game and ‘that save’.
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Apr 15, 2020 20:21:39 GMT
In season 1954-55 Stoke were involved in what was then the longest FA Cup tie ever. Stoke were drawn with Bury in the third round and after four draws the tie went to a fourth replay with Stoke finally beating Bury 3–2 in extra time. In total the tie took 9 hours and 22 minutes of football and had an aggregated scoreline of 10–9. Unfortunately for Stoke it was all in vain as in the next round they were defeated by Swansea Town.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Apr 15, 2020 21:21:52 GMT
Pele came to Stoke! Taken from a Guardian article by Nick Miller 2015 entitled The forgotten story of … when Pelé and the Santos circus came to England www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jul/14/the-forgotten-story-of-pele-and-the-santos-touring-circusThe tours continued, taking in all manner of locations around the globe, including the occasion when, so the story goes, civil war in Congo was put on hold so the people could watch Pelé in peace (“It is said that there really was a 48-hour ceasefire in the war, made just for us … I’m not sure that is completely true,” he wrote, spoiling the story slightly), but by 1969 they were back on English soil, this time to play Stoke City, the only club to stump up the supposed £12,000 appearance fee, a sum that came with it a guarantee Pelé would appear. He was again the star, scoring a goal that Michael Carey in the Guardian called “of quite outstanding individual brilliance”, weaving past three defenders before slotting past Gordon Banks, a year or so before their rather more famous encounter in Mexico. “The fame of the man was reflected at the final whistle,” wrote the great correspondent Geoffrey Green, “when his sturdy, almost squat frame disappeared under a wave of youthful spectators as they surged on to the pitch to engulf him in admiration.” I was there. Didn’t know about the £12,000 appearance fee, though. Again, mythology over reality has always supposed it was a sportsman arrangement between Pele and Banks following the WC game and ‘that save’. Seeing as it was 1969 then it definitely wasn't 😀 Santos toured England, they didn't do that for any other reason than money knowing their games would draw huge crowds because if Pele.
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Apr 15, 2020 21:32:34 GMT
Mine is all the facts about Abdoulaye Faye.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 15, 2020 22:02:52 GMT
I see that our involvement in the invention of extra time for a penalty kick has already been mentioned. We, by which I mean Sir Stanley Matthews, invented dribbling with the ball by taking on a defender. Prior to Matthews, the accepted style was to wait for the defender to tackle you, then try to beat them. Somebody once told me that Stoke vs West Brom is the oldest league fixture in history because we kicked off ten minutes earlier than everybody else, but I've no idea where that came from. If anybody would like to see an academic work on our foundation date written (as I recall) by a poster on here, then the link is below: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14660970.2016.1276247All I will say on the subject is that if the Football League really had officially decreed that we were founded in 1868, then the Nottingham press would have done better than 'a spokesman for the Football League confirmed that Nottingham Forest are the oldest club'.
|
|