Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea...

[robbiesavagehasbreasts]

...won nothing this season. Second season in a row for Liverpool and I do believe this was the third season in a row Arsenal won nothing?

Man Utd took two titles. And Spurs and Portsmouth each grabbed a cup.

What do you think? Is is acceptable for a "BIG 4" club to be two or three seasons without winning a title?

 

[Fordy]

i always wind up my gooner mates by saying Wenger should have been sacked by now for going 3 years without a trophy!

 

[KentuckyYid]

I'm sure none of Chelsea, Arsenal or L'pool would swap their season for our Carling Cup win & 11th position.

Despite our piece of silverware (which only hid the cracks) the others season was far more successful than ours so lets not get too carried away (yet).

 

[robbiesavagehasbreasts]

I'm sure none of Chelsea, Arsenal or L'pool would swap their season for our Carling Cup win & 11th position.

Despite our piece of silverware (which only hid the cracks) the others season was far more successful than ours so lets not get too carried away (yet).

I was in no way implying that our season was better. I was just pointing it out, without wanting to bring Spurs into this, and wondering if it was acceptable for these clubs to go a couple of seasons without a title.

 

[nidge]

...won nothing this season. Second season in a row for Liverpool and I do believe this was the third season in a row Arsenal won nothing?

Man Utd took two titles. And Spurs and Portsmouth each grabbed a cup.

What do you think? Is is acceptable for a "BIG 4" club to be two or three seasons without winning a title?

Now you see this is the problem. The "BIG 4" as you put it are only the big 4 (top 4 would probably be a better term although I dislike both to be honest) due to their league finishes and has absolutely nothing to do with winning cups.

Edit: Of course it is acceptable to go a couple of season without winning a trophy as long as they continue to qualify for a the cash cow that is the Champions League.

 

[chinaman]

Now you see this is the problem. The "BIG 4" as you put it are only the big 4 (top 4 would probably be a better term although I dislike both to be honest) due to their league finishes and has absolutely nothing to do with winning cups.

Edit: Of course it is acceptable to go a couple of season without winning a trophy as long as they continue to qualify for a the cash cow that is the Champions League.

But would you like the term if we achieved it? Obviously not as much as if we were Champions.

 

[PT]

The way European competition is going, what with the standard of club that has fallen in to the UEFA cup for next season, I'd have no problem making that Sky induced top four valhalla in to a top three. The Champions would automatically go through to Champions League and then the second and third club having to qualify. The second placed club would have the net of the UEFA Cup if they lost.

It would make Champions League more elite with less games but more interest in the formative rounds and the UEFA Cup would carry more weight, to include automatic entry for the following season for the winners.

For our domestic league the monies could be distributed according to qualification to the European competitions and propmote more intense battles for the places.

 

[nidge]

But would you like the term if we achieved it? Obviously not as much as if we were Champions.

Actually I would dislike the term if we were to finish in one of the top 4 positions in the league. The term is a meaningless media invention that does nothing but promote a select few when in fact the league is made up of 20 teams and not the 4 the media would have you believe. A prime example of this is the latest sky sports idea of having "Grand Slam Sunday" is cringe worthy in the extreme. :-|