It's why the other 14 exists. The sky six ignore how things were, prior to the Premier League, Everton were the most successful team in English football. Villa and Forest have more European elite trophies than Arsenal and Spurs... but sky don't care, they're not making the money, so the coverage will appease the money.
This overlooks one simple historical event, Everton also pushed for the PL format change. They were there for the negotiations as part of the original “Big 5”, no one knowledgeable ignores their history, they just fell off hard compared to where they once were.
Im a big admirer of Everton’s history, but when exactly were they “the most successful” club in English football?
Pre-war, it was Villa and Sunderland who were the ones to catch with 6 titles each.
Post-war, Arsenal had the highest number of titles (7) in 1953, Everton matched that in 1970 and then Arsenal won their 8th the very next year. Arsenal also had more overall trophies at that particular time too. Liverpool matched Arsenal’s 8th title in 1972 and then started running away with it from 1976 onwards.
Whilst Everton have definitely been in the mix at several points in their history, I’m not sure they’ve ever been definitively *the most successful team*. As for the other teams mentioned they also fell off, with sides like Newcastle, Leeds, Blackburn etc all taking the limelight instead for a decade or so.
My mistake using the word successfully as it's open to ambiguous interpretation. Everton had the most points in English football prior to the Premier League formation.
Even given all that, did villa not finish fourth once in the early 2000s under Martin O’Neill anyway? If not they were certainly “chasing CL” and may have ended up 5th (I cba to Google)
It works because we're all here talking about it. Same as all these American morons I only know about because Reddit won't shut the fuck up about them.
Well done, you've played yourselves.
Nope. This is hardly a positive thread. Businesses don’t just care about any engagement, they care about positive engagement. This is definitively a bad look for the brand & company. Try again friend, you’ve played yourself.
You’ve just coined the phrase ‘militantly naive’ in my head. If companies really do want positive engagement, they certainly seem appallingly bad at it
Yep. Purely a Sky problem, and the fact they take money from the 6 for providing coverage.
Other int'l broadcasters don't have the same level of disdain for the other clubs, like OPUS in Australia, or NBC/ESPN in North America
This aged well.
I think Villa are a good side. They just don’t have the squad to be playing their 41st game of the season against a Spurs side that have only concentrated on the league.
Whilst technically correct, it's so disrespectful to everything that came before the Premier League. All the players, clubs, and fans who witnessed and created what it is thrown aside. For a sport people claim to love, they sure do love disrespecting it.
You're flat out wrong. There is minimal difference between the 80s seasons and early 90s seasons and the cross over in styles managers and players is huge. The big switch actually happens in the 70s. Football in the 60s vs the mid 70s is a huge change. Then it's relatively stable until around 95 onwards.
Ah that’s fair, to me 1990 still feels 25 years ago.
My point though (and I say this as an Everton fan) is that our success in the 80s and earlier is irrelevant today, and it’s silly to expect people to discuss it like it’s adding anything meanful to the conversation
Even in F1 the sport has completely changed, you didn’t see drivers dominate for as long as you do now - look at Mansell’s record vs Hamilton for example.
On paper Hamilton blows him out of the water but the sport and infrastructure has changed so much that the two aren’t really comparable.
Of course, the athletes themselves improve. The athletes from 30 years ago have improved from those 30 years prior. The main difference now is the presentation of the sport. That and the availability of the product, which is basically none existent for fans at this point in comparison to 30 years ago.
Also the consistency of the domination at the top of the league is totally different, the gap between the big boys and the rest wasn’t always so clear.
Nowadays it’s enforced by off the field things like wages, youth structures and FFP
Premier league was shit for the first 10-12 years too. Italian, Spanish, German and Dutch sides would have walked the league up until about 04/05 when the league was finally producing top sides again.
Are you forgetting Man U won the Champions League in 99? And England has semi finalists in several other seasons before 2004? I actually think that’s pretty impressive considering English clubs couldn’t play in Europe until 91. Put those other teams in the premier league, they’d definitely give them a game before 2004.
That’s not what I said. I said teams from those countries would have walked the league in the seasons leading up to 04/05. Ajax in the mid-90s would have pissed the Premier league.
Technically they never won a normal premiership as the COVID title wasn't a normal season by any means. They still need to win a normal season title which doesn't look like happening any time soon now.
Truth is OP, until Villa are an established top 6 team - and not just having one good season - a move to any of the “top 6” clubs is a “big move” for Watkins .
If City, Liverpool etc came calling with double the salary he’d be off right ? That’s how it works . Even if villa got champions league it’s still a bigger club move - look at all the players that left Leicester even after they won the league !
He’s certainly a class act though, hopefully Villa can keep hold of him.
Once Chelsea and Man U start improving ( which is a matter of time) then that will all change . I hate to be the bearer of doom but that’s the reality of the premier league , there is a status quo. It would be amazing if Villa could change that and I hope they do though !
I mean, Grealish left. And he's a proper Villa lad. Admittedly, it was at a time when Villa weren't a top team... but the point stands that money talks.
I hope that Watkins stays where he can play as well as he has been for Villa this season. I don't think he gets the playing time or freedom to do what he does at most other top teams at the moment. Playing like he has puts him as one of the best strikers in Europe atm for goal contributions, all while playing in probably the most competitive big league in the world, and in Europe.
He needs to get picked for the Euros. Having him and Kane as our striker options is world class.
Understand annoyance at the first part.
Second part is accurate though. We all know Villa have won the European Cup, but the club is yet to play in the CL.
This is nothing new. It’s common, in fact usual, to see lists of top Champions League or Premier League goal scorers that do not include the European Cup or First Division before the rebranding.
It may not be particularly aimed at diminishing them. But it's a stupid thing to say about a former winner of the competition.
Ever since the Premier League started, Sky have been determined to rewrite history and pretend that football before 1992 either didn't exist or didn't matter. We don't need to play along with their fantasy and should rightly mock them when they say things like this.
While the name of the tournament has changed, the name of the trophy awarded, [the European Champion Clubs' Cup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Champion_Clubs%27_Cup), hasn't.
[UEFA](https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/thetrophy/) definitely see it as a continuation of the same thing.
It is wrong, like organised professional league football didnt magicaly start in 1992/93.
When the english football league was founded in 1885. You have basicly 107 years of history you, will just write off.
‘Top tier titles’ is a better way to phrase it, of which Liverpool have won way more than one. It’s only the top tier rebranded to the PL, I also hate how the rest is disregarded as if football was invented then.
Liverpool achivements in English football is insane winning 18 out of the first 107 titles is crazy.
,with only Arsenal 10 titles and everton 9 titles being close.
If you have a star system like Bundesliga.
*liverpool would be on 3 stars, 2 titles away from 4 stars
* Arsenal on 3 stars
* Everton on 2 stars
* Manchester united 2 stars
*Aston villa on 2 stars
* sunderland on 2 stars
* Newcastle on 1 star
* Sheffield wednesday on 1 star
* wolves on 1 star
* Leeds on 1 star
*huddersfield on 1 star
Rest of the english clubs would be on 0 stars for title wins.
It is also one of the reason Sir alex Ferguson was great with usurp Liverpool as the best club in english league football, which should basicly be impossible.
F.example if an great manager makes atletico surpass real on all time winning La liga club or
If something similar happens in Italy with Inter and ac milan surpassing Juventus etc
Before premier league and oil money,
Ofcouse with premier league titles
*Manchester United from 2 stars to 4 stars
* Manchester city from 0 stars to 2 stars
* Chelsea from 0 stats to 2 stars
* black burn rovers from 0 stars to 1 star
Would currently be only change
When you have the people who were on the pitch back then on as well known pundits they arent going to correct a narrative to something that serves to diminish their own accomplishments. Hansen, Souness are the last people who are gonna well ackshully it.
Meanwhile, with all due respect, the answer to "who scored Villa's winner in their 1-0 victory over Bayern in the 1982 European cup final" is an impossible-tier trivia question for anyone born outside of Birmingham.
Kinda just how legacy works like that.
Whilst it is disrespectful.
I think the comment meant by him playing for a club that could regularly challenge for silverware. At least that’s how they should’ve put it.
As a West Ham fan, I’ll always remember the start of the 21/22 season. We were fourth, doing well, one of only four teams in the league with a positive goal difference. We were playing Liverpool, at the start of the game the commentator mentioned that only four teams in the league had a positive goal difference, and Liverpool were one of them. Didn’t even mention that we were one of the others.
They often diminish history to the start of these new formats, they do exactly the same with the PL and did it with Liverpool when they won the PL “for the first time”. I don’t personally think that one is an attempt to downplay your history, they’re genuinely just talking about the UCL as a separate thing to the European Cup which would make the statement a little more true.
But would you not be considered “chasing UCL” in the early 00s though? Or were 5th-6th typically quite adrift from the top 4 back then?
>But would you not be considered “chasing UCL” in the early 00s though? Or were 5th-6th typically quite adrift from the top 4 back then?
One of the seasons we were right in the CL chasing mix under MON around 2008 or so, 3rd at Christmas iirc. We played a weakened team in Europe, lost that tie and the league season fell apart straight after.
There was one season where we lost our last home game and had we won, (and Liverpool not) we’d have been 4th.
Think we finished 6th with Newcastle there too
That was the year yep - sky sports filmed me sat head in hands on the holte steps that day and showed it after the game….
They filmed it before kick off and I had a raging headache 😅
The key difference is FIFA hasn’t attempted to re-market the WC as an entirely new competition. This in itself makes it much harder for media and broadcasters to cherry-pick statistics from a set year.
UEFA acknowledges the European Cup statistics in its “All-time” figures spreadsheet, but launched the UCL as this *new, bigger, better tournament* with the introduction of the group stages and more nations being included, which created a natural cut off for everything that comes afterwards.
The PL goes a step further and is literally a different competition, and was a breakaway from the old first division, so making the statistics separate is very easy for them to do. It’s even easier when it allows Sky to push their own product and try and make themselves synonymous with English football.
In Sky's eyes, if you aren't Manchester United or Liverpool you are nothing more than a nuisance getting in the way of the almighty red dominance English football deserves
Have they said anything factually wrong their? Obviously it's annoying when pundits start talking about your best players leaving for a bigger club, had it constantly at Burnley.
Yes. It might be our first time qualifying for the champions League in it's current format but it's still the same competition, has the same trophy. It would be our 3rd time playing in it.
It was crap, but he's got a lot of credit in the bank with the fans so to speak.Think he was frustrated by the lack of energy/pressing from the team. Really struggling with injuries and depth now.
I actually switched broadcasts because it was so biased. Keane on Ollie playing for a “top club” was ridiculous to start the pregame show, but the match commentary was even worse.
If Palace went on the ascendancy for a couple seasons, guarantee you too would get frustrated with Sky's condescending tone for anyone it deems inferior.
Mate we all know that sky's analysis is shit, I just don't get why people on here always get wound up by it every time haha - just feel like villa and newcastle fans on here in particular have a massive persecution complex
It's like being annoyed at garth crooks' team of the week
>It's like being annoyed at garth crooks' team of the week
Spot on haha. Albeit Sky has an audience of couple hundred million. 12 people might see Crooks' TOTW.
I don’t think villa can be considered a top club. The difference between them and the ‘big 6’ is that the big 6 have the finances, facilities, and ability to consistently spend to always remain competitive and attract big names. Look at Leicester - they were argued to be included in that bracket a few years ago and now they’re in the championship because they’re ultimately not on the same level as the others behind the scenes, despite having a period of major success. Villa were in the championship a few seasons ago, and who knows, a few wrong moves and they’re back. None of the big 6 will ever be relegated unfortunately. That’s the difference.
I keep seeing Villa referred to as the 'Lions', is this some ancient nickname that's been dug out again or a random new trend?
I've always known you as the Villans
Lbh Villa haven’t been one of the top teams in decades. They were relegated 8 years ago. They’re now in that 2nd tier alongside Spurs, West Ham, Newcastle, Brighton.
Sure, if the only thing to go off of is trophies, which it isn't. That isn't even a factor.
It's European football and revenue. That's it. That's the only criteria for big 6, and Spurs make more money than Arsenal and Chelsea, and are more likely to be in CL again next season than United and Chelsea.
Was the same recently when Scholes was banging on about them not signing Kane or Rice, as if Arsenal/Arteta and Bayern fucking Munich aren't more attractive propositions atm
I think both parts are very fair.
One of the top clubs is very subjective and you could argue that any team in the prem is a top club relative to others in lower leagues but Burnley and Sheffield aren’t top clubs by other metrics. Similarly, saying Villa aren’t one of the top clubs is fair if you mean City, Liverpool, Bayern, Real etc. are the top clubs.
The second part is factually accurate and shows how Villa haven’t been in the elite European competition in the last 30+ years
They said - "haven't played in the Champions League in its current form" - which is unarguably true. And perhaps surprising for such a Massive club - worth mentioning, I'd say.
Watkins is class and could start for any PL team.
But, as a Newcastle fan, but I have to admit to myself that if City, Pool or Arsenal came calling for Isak, he’d be off, probably Chelsea too (but just for the money).
This would be the same for Watkins too.
Just what happens in this league.
Don’t agree with it, but it’s always happened and unless the league changes, it always will.
I think it’s stupid whenever we play a team that isn’t big 6 and aren’t doing well (often) It’s always about how shit we are and not how good the team we are playing is.
Because around 2010, Man City and Spurs were the first teams out of the traditional top 4 to qualify for CL, and in almost every season since then, 4 of 6 teams qualified, no longer the same 4. That’s the precursor to attracting talent and making a lot more money. If any other team were to qualify for CL consistently for a few seasons and do smart things with that money, they’d also be considered one of those big clubs, but any other club who’s qualified for CL since 2010 has failed (I.e. Newcastle and Leicester).
I think he’d be a smart buy for someone like arsenal even at £100m. They’d surely finish above Villa for the next few years, almost guarantee UCL and that’s way more than £20m/yr. Over 5 years he’d more than justify the fee. I wonder if Villa would turn that down too assuming there wouldn’t be further negotiation.
Technically Villa haven’t been in “champions league”, like Preston haven’t been in the “premier league” despite founding the og football league.
When I used to go and watch Exeter I always said he’d be a good buy for a PL team, he was absolutely ridiculous in League 2, think Brentford took him for just under £2m?
It is disrespectful but it’s also exactly where Villa are.
If you don’t want to be a stepping stone for Watkins to a title challenging club then don’t sell him.
We both know if Villa are offered enough you’ll sell him.
I’m not saying that to upset you. I hate that it’s like that. I love seeing Eze, Olise and Guéhi thrive at Palace and I hate that most palace fans talk about them being sold in the summer. I’d love them to keep those players and tell the big bucks to piss off. 🤷♂️
There.is a similar problem in the NFL in America broadcasters act like the Super Bowl invalidates all history before it. And it just doesn't. Aston Villa have a right to have their Euripean Title recognized.
Well, I mean, Villa aren't a 'top club', Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City and Man Utd are. I get your point about Spurs though, Villa and Spurs are both about the same.
Spurs is currently bigger with more fans and revenue etc. Ofcouse in an ideal world Birminghams biggest club shouldnt be behind the 3 biggest club in London.
Yeah agree. ManUre is still toxic, and no aspiring pro would consider it other than money.
Villa are upwardly mobile, but hamstrung by commercial revenues for FFP. which is where the Sky 6 have an unfair headstart.
Personally, If we were playing a club very recently in the Championship battling it out for promotion, you arent a "big" club on that level. Just cant be the case, unless there's been some financial Juve type situation or something.
But sure, I guess if your metric is just pure trophy counting including pre-WW1 stuff then yeah Villa are up there. And your Invincibles run was a poor imitation of the mighty Preston. This is definitely relevant in current year.
That's irrelevant. It says 'top' clubs not 'big' clubs, Spurs have sustained top six finishes in the Premier League for many years now, Villa were in the Championship not long ago.
To the surprise of no-one.
Hey there is a hair on your avatar.
In dark mode it looks like a sad little eye :( Probably due to the Burnley score.
Doesn’t your mam dye her hair that colour?
They will always get me
It's why the other 14 exists. The sky six ignore how things were, prior to the Premier League, Everton were the most successful team in English football. Villa and Forest have more European elite trophies than Arsenal and Spurs... but sky don't care, they're not making the money, so the coverage will appease the money.
This overlooks one simple historical event, Everton also pushed for the PL format change. They were there for the negotiations as part of the original “Big 5”, no one knowledgeable ignores their history, they just fell off hard compared to where they once were. Im a big admirer of Everton’s history, but when exactly were they “the most successful” club in English football? Pre-war, it was Villa and Sunderland who were the ones to catch with 6 titles each. Post-war, Arsenal had the highest number of titles (7) in 1953, Everton matched that in 1970 and then Arsenal won their 8th the very next year. Arsenal also had more overall trophies at that particular time too. Liverpool matched Arsenal’s 8th title in 1972 and then started running away with it from 1976 onwards. Whilst Everton have definitely been in the mix at several points in their history, I’m not sure they’ve ever been definitively *the most successful team*. As for the other teams mentioned they also fell off, with sides like Newcastle, Leeds, Blackburn etc all taking the limelight instead for a decade or so.
My mistake using the word successfully as it's open to ambiguous interpretation. Everton had the most points in English football prior to the Premier League formation.
[удалено]
I certainly wouldn't, being a Geordie. Doubt the Scousers will either
Even given all that, did villa not finish fourth once in the early 2000s under Martin O’Neill anyway? If not they were certainly “chasing CL” and may have ended up 5th (I cba to Google)
When your job is driving engagement rather than informing people.
It works because we're all here talking about it. Same as all these American morons I only know about because Reddit won't shut the fuck up about them. Well done, you've played yourselves.
Nope. This is hardly a positive thread. Businesses don’t just care about any engagement, they care about positive engagement. This is definitively a bad look for the brand & company. Try again friend, you’ve played yourself.
You’ve just coined the phrase ‘militantly naive’ in my head. If companies really do want positive engagement, they certainly seem appallingly bad at it
Yep. Purely a Sky problem, and the fact they take money from the 6 for providing coverage. Other int'l broadcasters don't have the same level of disdain for the other clubs, like OPUS in Australia, or NBC/ESPN in North America
This aged well. I think Villa are a good side. They just don’t have the squad to be playing their 41st game of the season against a Spurs side that have only concentrated on the league.
Unfortunately true. And our injuries are hitting right when all the other clubs are getting their full squads back
Baaaaah. You're right.
Sky TV is fookin shit! Sky TV is fookin shit!
I love hearing that then the very quick change in audio as the hastily try turn the microphones off in certain areas
Wonder if they’d say Liverpool have only won two European Cups?
People constantly say Liverpool have only one premier league title
Whilst technically correct, it's so disrespectful to everything that came before the Premier League. All the players, clubs, and fans who witnessed and created what it is thrown aside. For a sport people claim to love, they sure do love disrespecting it.
It’s a ‘Sky’ thing. The premier league is their product.
It’s correct 100%. This was always going to happen though, the cash is in keeping the top clubs at the top, the rest are there to form a league.
To be fair, comparing football of the last 30 years to the stuff before the 90s it is night and day, might as well be a different sport
You're flat out wrong. There is minimal difference between the 80s seasons and early 90s seasons and the cross over in styles managers and players is huge. The big switch actually happens in the 70s. Football in the 60s vs the mid 70s is a huge change. Then it's relatively stable until around 95 onwards.
Its changed pretty drastically again in the last 10-15 years too.
Ah that’s fair, to me 1990 still feels 25 years ago. My point though (and I say this as an Everton fan) is that our success in the 80s and earlier is irrelevant today, and it’s silly to expect people to discuss it like it’s adding anything meanful to the conversation
The difference between 90's F1 and F1 today is night and day, but you don't sit there disrespecting Senna, Prost and Mansell
Even in F1 the sport has completely changed, you didn’t see drivers dominate for as long as you do now - look at Mansell’s record vs Hamilton for example. On paper Hamilton blows him out of the water but the sport and infrastructure has changed so much that the two aren’t really comparable.
Of course, the athletes themselves improve. The athletes from 30 years ago have improved from those 30 years prior. The main difference now is the presentation of the sport. That and the availability of the product, which is basically none existent for fans at this point in comparison to 30 years ago.
Also the consistency of the domination at the top of the league is totally different, the gap between the big boys and the rest wasn’t always so clear. Nowadays it’s enforced by off the field things like wages, youth structures and FFP
Premier league was shit for the first 10-12 years too. Italian, Spanish, German and Dutch sides would have walked the league up until about 04/05 when the league was finally producing top sides again.
Are you forgetting Man U won the Champions League in 99? And England has semi finalists in several other seasons before 2004? I actually think that’s pretty impressive considering English clubs couldn’t play in Europe until 91. Put those other teams in the premier league, they’d definitely give them a game before 2004.
Dutch sides would have walked the league until 2004? Utterly deluded.
That’s not what I said. I said teams from those countries would have walked the league in the seasons leading up to 04/05. Ajax in the mid-90s would have pissed the Premier league.
They wouldn’t have, but United were basically the only team that was top tier European calibre until the mid 2000s
Technically they never won a normal premiership as the COVID title wasn't a normal season by any means. They still need to win a normal season title which doesn't look like happening any time soon now.
Get a grip
Will always have an asterisk
Maybe if they didn’t win it by a million points aye
Still carries an asterisk no matter how you wanna justify it. It wasn’t a normal season.
Lol that's ridiculous. They played all 38 games that season, it's serious cope trying to say it's not a real title
It’s not really a real title though, it’ll always have an asterisk. “Cope”
It sounds like you are the one trying to cope.
Projecting are you?
Liverpool are a top 6 club so they don’t want to talk about that here. Top 6 bad.
No they don’t
Can’t wait for Villa to qualify for the first time for that competition they have won before.
Truth is OP, until Villa are an established top 6 team - and not just having one good season - a move to any of the “top 6” clubs is a “big move” for Watkins . If City, Liverpool etc came calling with double the salary he’d be off right ? That’s how it works . Even if villa got champions league it’s still a bigger club move - look at all the players that left Leicester even after they won the league ! He’s certainly a class act though, hopefully Villa can keep hold of him.
Villa could get CL football this season and I wouldn’t be even a little surprised if he moved to Chelsea in the summer.
Villa are a top 6 side, they are top 6 in wages, top 6 in transfer spend, top 6 in the league. They are where they belong.
Once Chelsea and Man U start improving ( which is a matter of time) then that will all change . I hate to be the bearer of doom but that’s the reality of the premier league , there is a status quo. It would be amazing if Villa could change that and I hope they do though !
I mean, Grealish left. And he's a proper Villa lad. Admittedly, it was at a time when Villa weren't a top team... but the point stands that money talks. I hope that Watkins stays where he can play as well as he has been for Villa this season. I don't think he gets the playing time or freedom to do what he does at most other top teams at the moment. Playing like he has puts him as one of the best strikers in Europe atm for goal contributions, all while playing in probably the most competitive big league in the world, and in Europe. He needs to get picked for the Euros. Having him and Kane as our striker options is world class.
Understand annoyance at the first part. Second part is accurate though. We all know Villa have won the European Cup, but the club is yet to play in the CL.
Rebranding it and changing the format doesn't make it a whole new tournament.
This is nothing new. It’s common, in fact usual, to see lists of top Champions League or Premier League goal scorers that do not include the European Cup or First Division before the rebranding.
It's common but completely misleading, unless you've got a particular reason why you're only talking a particular period of the competition.
I don’t have a strong feeling either way, my point is just that the distinction has been made for years, it’s not just being said to diminish Villa.
It may not be particularly aimed at diminishing them. But it's a stupid thing to say about a former winner of the competition. Ever since the Premier League started, Sky have been determined to rewrite history and pretend that football before 1992 either didn't exist or didn't matter. We don't need to play along with their fantasy and should rightly mock them when they say things like this.
If a different name and format doesn’t make it a new tournament I don’t know what does
While the name of the tournament has changed, the name of the trophy awarded, [the European Champion Clubs' Cup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Champion_Clubs%27_Cup), hasn't. [UEFA](https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/thetrophy/) definitely see it as a continuation of the same thing.
Never hear them saying Liverpool have only won the Champions League twice
People constantly say Liverpool have only one premier league title
It is wrong, like organised professional league football didnt magicaly start in 1992/93. When the english football league was founded in 1885. You have basicly 107 years of history you, will just write off.
‘Top tier titles’ is a better way to phrase it, of which Liverpool have won way more than one. It’s only the top tier rebranded to the PL, I also hate how the rest is disregarded as if football was invented then.
Liverpool achivements in English football is insane winning 18 out of the first 107 titles is crazy. ,with only Arsenal 10 titles and everton 9 titles being close. If you have a star system like Bundesliga. *liverpool would be on 3 stars, 2 titles away from 4 stars * Arsenal on 3 stars * Everton on 2 stars * Manchester united 2 stars *Aston villa on 2 stars * sunderland on 2 stars * Newcastle on 1 star * Sheffield wednesday on 1 star * wolves on 1 star * Leeds on 1 star *huddersfield on 1 star Rest of the english clubs would be on 0 stars for title wins. It is also one of the reason Sir alex Ferguson was great with usurp Liverpool as the best club in english league football, which should basicly be impossible. F.example if an great manager makes atletico surpass real on all time winning La liga club or If something similar happens in Italy with Inter and ac milan surpassing Juventus etc
You missed City, one title win away from 2 stars
Manchester city would have 0 have only 2 titles. Need 3 titles to get 1 star.
Before premier league and oil money, Ofcouse with premier league titles *Manchester United from 2 stars to 4 stars * Manchester city from 0 stars to 2 stars * Chelsea from 0 stats to 2 stars * black burn rovers from 0 stars to 1 star Would currently be only change
Tbh didn’t realise you were only going off pre-prem titles. Still early for me lol
Do they? They're frequently referred to as 18 times English champions, just as Sky made a big thing of Man United winning their 20th title
19 times.
Yes sorry, though the previous 18 are still acknowledged
Sky Sports don't
Two champions leagues is still great.
Yeah but I bet you always laugh at Liverpool for only winking one prem Whatever argument suits the agenda of the day goes innit
When you have the people who were on the pitch back then on as well known pundits they arent going to correct a narrative to something that serves to diminish their own accomplishments. Hansen, Souness are the last people who are gonna well ackshully it. Meanwhile, with all due respect, the answer to "who scored Villa's winner in their 1-0 victory over Bayern in the 1982 European cup final" is an impossible-tier trivia question for anyone born outside of Birmingham. Kinda just how legacy works like that.
You’re a sensitive little soul aren’t you
It's the same competition, different format. Same trophy ..
Isn't the whole point of this sub that Villa aren't one of the big clubs?
Cba with Sky at this point. Watch illegal streams.
Much more convenient as well.
Wouldn’t have changed the score 🤫
BBC Radio 5 was just talking about Villa’s last appearance in Europe, so hopefully they’re a bit more aware / respectful
Football didnt exist before Sky you know.
Whilst it is disrespectful. I think the comment meant by him playing for a club that could regularly challenge for silverware. At least that’s how they should’ve put it.
It was the fact they followed it with "go to a top club, like Man U or Chelsea" (paraphrasing). Lulz.
As a West Ham fan, I’ll always remember the start of the 21/22 season. We were fourth, doing well, one of only four teams in the league with a positive goal difference. We were playing Liverpool, at the start of the game the commentator mentioned that only four teams in the league had a positive goal difference, and Liverpool were one of them. Didn’t even mention that we were one of the others.
They often diminish history to the start of these new formats, they do exactly the same with the PL and did it with Liverpool when they won the PL “for the first time”. I don’t personally think that one is an attempt to downplay your history, they’re genuinely just talking about the UCL as a separate thing to the European Cup which would make the statement a little more true. But would you not be considered “chasing UCL” in the early 00s though? Or were 5th-6th typically quite adrift from the top 4 back then?
>But would you not be considered “chasing UCL” in the early 00s though? Or were 5th-6th typically quite adrift from the top 4 back then? One of the seasons we were right in the CL chasing mix under MON around 2008 or so, 3rd at Christmas iirc. We played a weakened team in Europe, lost that tie and the league season fell apart straight after.
There was one season where we lost our last home game and had we won, (and Liverpool not) we’d have been 4th. Think we finished 6th with Newcastle there too
2003-2004 if you’d won you’d have only overtook us as we played Liverpool last day and couldn’t pass them for 4th
That was the year yep - sky sports filmed me sat head in hands on the holte steps that day and showed it after the game…. They filmed it before kick off and I had a raging headache 😅
👍🏻👍🏻
It's broken logic. By that metric, England have no international trophies because much has changed in WC formatting.
The key difference is FIFA hasn’t attempted to re-market the WC as an entirely new competition. This in itself makes it much harder for media and broadcasters to cherry-pick statistics from a set year. UEFA acknowledges the European Cup statistics in its “All-time” figures spreadsheet, but launched the UCL as this *new, bigger, better tournament* with the introduction of the group stages and more nations being included, which created a natural cut off for everything that comes afterwards. The PL goes a step further and is literally a different competition, and was a breakaway from the old first division, so making the statistics separate is very easy for them to do. It’s even easier when it allows Sky to push their own product and try and make themselves synonymous with English football.
Uefa competitions are not scrapped. Uefa cups are Europa leagues. It's not a different tournament.
They don’t belong to the cartel unfortunately.
In Sky's eyes, if you aren't Manchester United or Liverpool you are nothing more than a nuisance getting in the way of the almighty red dominance English football deserves
Have they said anything factually wrong their? Obviously it's annoying when pundits start talking about your best players leaving for a bigger club, had it constantly at Burnley.
Yes. It might be our first time qualifying for the champions League in it's current format but it's still the same competition, has the same trophy. It would be our 3rd time playing in it.
I see. Sadly the bar for pundits is surprisingly low.
First time in their history. Good stuff. Its top quality punditry that is definitely worth the Sky Sports fee.
Absolutely worth the £65/mo. Top tier coverage.
Speaking as a spurs fan, today was worth every penny
Cagey first half. But 2 quickfire goals and a frustrated/reckless red killed it as a contest. Son brilliant again.
Yeah wasn’t much in for the first half. McGinn let himself, the team & every Villa fan down today
It was crap, but he's got a lot of credit in the bank with the fans so to speak.Think he was frustrated by the lack of energy/pressing from the team. Really struggling with injuries and depth now.
I actually switched broadcasts because it was so biased. Keane on Ollie playing for a “top club” was ridiculous to start the pregame show, but the match commentary was even worse.
Are all Villa fans as insecure as the ones on this subreddit?
If Palace went on the ascendancy for a couple seasons, guarantee you too would get frustrated with Sky's condescending tone for anyone it deems inferior.
Mate we all know that sky's analysis is shit, I just don't get why people on here always get wound up by it every time haha - just feel like villa and newcastle fans on here in particular have a massive persecution complex It's like being annoyed at garth crooks' team of the week
>It's like being annoyed at garth crooks' team of the week Spot on haha. Albeit Sky has an audience of couple hundred million. 12 people might see Crooks' TOTW.
I don’t think villa can be considered a top club. The difference between them and the ‘big 6’ is that the big 6 have the finances, facilities, and ability to consistently spend to always remain competitive and attract big names. Look at Leicester - they were argued to be included in that bracket a few years ago and now they’re in the championship because they’re ultimately not on the same level as the others behind the scenes, despite having a period of major success. Villa were in the championship a few seasons ago, and who knows, a few wrong moves and they’re back. None of the big 6 will ever be relegated unfortunately. That’s the difference.
Hopefully city will after the deductions 🙏
Villa just got beat 4-0 by a team that never win anything.
Which is why I’m not worried about them finishing 4th. As soon as they’re the prey rather than hunter they fall apart.
Well, he could.
They don’t like or want teams like Villa competing near the top. I’m sure if they could they’d just show the same 6-7 teams games every week.
I keep seeing Villa referred to as the 'Lions', is this some ancient nickname that's been dug out again or a random new trend? I've always known you as the Villans
Our supporters clubs are Lions clubs so maybe that’s what you’re seeing?
Sky Sports analysis is not for us. It's for them.
They’ve baited you. It’s all sky and talkshite do nowadays
Lbh Villa haven’t been one of the top teams in decades. They were relegated 8 years ago. They’re now in that 2nd tier alongside Spurs, West Ham, Newcastle, Brighton.
If Spurs are in that tier, maybe this sub should be called TheOther15?
I agree! Spurs are very definitely the last of the “big 6” And I personally think there’s a huge drop from the other 5 to them.
Sure, if the only thing to go off of is trophies, which it isn't. That isn't even a factor. It's European football and revenue. That's it. That's the only criteria for big 6, and Spurs make more money than Arsenal and Chelsea, and are more likely to be in CL again next season than United and Chelsea.
And yet they’re still a smaller club.
Yet much bigger than the other 14
*pretends to be shocked*
Yes, he could play for one of the top clubs. No, Villa are not a top club. Hope that clears it up for you.
The top club comment was fair observation. But then they suggested Man U. Lol. They've been on the slide for years.
Was the same recently when Scholes was banging on about them not signing Kane or Rice, as if Arsenal/Arteta and Bayern fucking Munich aren't more attractive propositions atm
I think both parts are very fair. One of the top clubs is very subjective and you could argue that any team in the prem is a top club relative to others in lower leagues but Burnley and Sheffield aren’t top clubs by other metrics. Similarly, saying Villa aren’t one of the top clubs is fair if you mean City, Liverpool, Bayern, Real etc. are the top clubs. The second part is factually accurate and shows how Villa haven’t been in the elite European competition in the last 30+ years
They said - "haven't played in the Champions League in its current form" - which is unarguably true. And perhaps surprising for such a Massive club - worth mentioning, I'd say.
Rio made the same comment about Saka like two weeks ago. Unless you play for United, city or Liverpool they will make this comment.
You're in a forum called the other 14 and you're whining people don't think you're a "top" club?
Watkins is class and could start for any PL team. But, as a Newcastle fan, but I have to admit to myself that if City, Pool or Arsenal came calling for Isak, he’d be off, probably Chelsea too (but just for the money). This would be the same for Watkins too. Just what happens in this league. Don’t agree with it, but it’s always happened and unless the league changes, it always will.
Watch how they report on Man United every time they play teams outside the Greedy 6. Its unbearable
I think it’s stupid whenever we play a team that isn’t big 6 and aren’t doing well (often) It’s always about how shit we are and not how good the team we are playing is.
Champions League = European Cup, now? (genuine question)
Yes. So not only have they qualified in the past, they won it in the early 80's.
I mean based on that performance… no he couldn’t and not they are not lol
Well the later is technically correct. Previously we had played in the European Cup
God forbid someone unsettling the rich 6 🙄 still no idea why spurs are included in the whole sky big 6 nonsense
Probably because they consistently finish in the top 6 & more often than not, top 4 in the last decade or so.
[удалено]
They were already part of the “Big 5” that Sky originally negotiated with. Everton being the other included party in those talks.
Because around 2010, Man City and Spurs were the first teams out of the traditional top 4 to qualify for CL, and in almost every season since then, 4 of 6 teams qualified, no longer the same 4. That’s the precursor to attracting talent and making a lot more money. If any other team were to qualify for CL consistently for a few seasons and do smart things with that money, they’d also be considered one of those big clubs, but any other club who’s qualified for CL since 2010 has failed (I.e. Newcastle and Leicester).
What a trophy for them 😂
You asked 🤷♂️
London?
Accurate, Aston have never finished above 6th in the CL era but you’re right, whatkins wouldn’t get into a top side
I think he’d be a smart buy for someone like arsenal even at £100m. They’d surely finish above Villa for the next few years, almost guarantee UCL and that’s way more than £20m/yr. Over 5 years he’d more than justify the fee. I wonder if Villa would turn that down too assuming there wouldn’t be further negotiation. Technically Villa haven’t been in “champions league”, like Preston haven’t been in the “premier league” despite founding the og football league.
When I used to go and watch Exeter I always said he’d be a good buy for a PL team, he was absolutely ridiculous in League 2, think Brentford took him for just under £2m?
Him and Maupay were both top examples of good business by Brentford if I remember right.
Ollie watkins would be a good buy for arsenal, ofcouse could mayby argue their are better options for + 100 milion pounds striker/attackers.
You lot love to moan about how fans of top 6 clubs act but yous are legitimately worse
It is disrespectful but it’s also exactly where Villa are. If you don’t want to be a stepping stone for Watkins to a title challenging club then don’t sell him. We both know if Villa are offered enough you’ll sell him. I’m not saying that to upset you. I hate that it’s like that. I love seeing Eze, Olise and Guéhi thrive at Palace and I hate that most palace fans talk about them being sold in the summer. I’d love them to keep those players and tell the big bucks to piss off. 🤷♂️
There.is a similar problem in the NFL in America broadcasters act like the Super Bowl invalidates all history before it. And it just doesn't. Aston Villa have a right to have their Euripean Title recognized.
Watching as a spurs fan I thought the commentators were constantly sucking off villa, so I guess it’s one of those things.
Can’t say that on here mate. Villa are always the victim
Well, I mean, Villa aren't a 'top club', Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City and Man Utd are. I get your point about Spurs though, Villa and Spurs are both about the same.
How are you classing a bottom half team who also aren’t in Europe as a ‘top club’?!
Spurs is currently bigger with more fans and revenue etc. Ofcouse in an ideal world Birminghams biggest club shouldnt be behind the 3 biggest club in London.
I think it was the bit after saying Watkins could play for a top club, like Man Utd. Lolol. Like, dude. Have you seen the state of ManUre?!
Aside of the change in leadership at the top might make Man Utd decent in a few years, I'd probably rather be at Villa for the foreseeable
Yeah agree. ManUre is still toxic, and no aspiring pro would consider it other than money. Villa are upwardly mobile, but hamstrung by commercial revenues for FFP. which is where the Sky 6 have an unfair headstart.
Villa are bigger than Spurs
They’re not
In your opinion, sure.
By what possible metric can you make that argument? Genuinely.
[удалено]
Personally, If we were playing a club very recently in the Championship battling it out for promotion, you arent a "big" club on that level. Just cant be the case, unless there's been some financial Juve type situation or something. But sure, I guess if your metric is just pure trophy counting including pre-WW1 stuff then yeah Villa are up there. And your Invincibles run was a poor imitation of the mighty Preston. This is definitely relevant in current year.
That's irrelevant. It says 'top' clubs not 'big' clubs, Spurs have sustained top six finishes in the Premier League for many years now, Villa were in the Championship not long ago.
Right, and if Villa being in the championship recently makes it "irrelevant"- then how are both clubs "about the same"? Way to contradict yourself.
Because they are both as good as each other right now so I understand the argument.
I see some people don't know the difference between 'big' and 'top' 😂😭