The Managerial Merry Go Round™ - Van Nistelrooy to Leicester

[TheBrownBottle]

3 hours ago, KaKa said:

Their stadium is going to be deathly silent.

 

Going from the exciting brand of Biesla and even Marsch's football, to just watching their players camped in their own box while Allardyce bellows out instructions from the sideline and plays for set pieces. Delightful.

 

They don't really have a big physical striker and so it will be interesting to see which centre back he plays upfront.

 

 

 

Anyone who has been to a Leeds vs Newcastle match will confirm that the crowd are unlikely to be quiet

 

Agree on everything else though  

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Here's why I don't get the Leeds hype. Less top flight games than clubs like Derby, WBA, Burnley, Boro, Leicester, Birmingham, Stoke...

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the clubs on that list had around 30 years head start on them - they didn’t exist pre-WWI.  They’ve spent the majority of seasons in the top division since then.  For anyone my dad’s age, they were the biggest side in the country for several years.  They get big crowds and are the only club in a (relatively) huge northern city. 
 

The list above should give some indication.  They’ve played 500 fewer top flight games than West Ham but only got 150 fewer points.  Look at their all-time GD.  Traditionally when Leeds are in the top flight they’re a powerful side - football has changed so much in the past couple of decades that big crowds no longer mean much, though.  Their relegation in 2004 saw them become a phrase - ‘doing a Leeds’.  No-one talks about ‘doing a Stoke’ or ‘doing a Boro’.  It’s the warning that even a massive club - if mismanaged as badly as Leeds were - can fall to pieces.

 

I still hate the fuckers  and tbf anyone under 30-ish will likely wonder what the fuss is about.  But Leeds to me are a much bigger club than half the current clubs in the top flight. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Most of the clubs on that list had around 30 years head start on them - they didn’t exist pre-WWI.  They’ve spent the majority of seasons in the top division since then.  For anyone my dad’s age, they were the biggest side in the country for several years.  They get big crowds and are the only club in a (relatively) huge northern city. 
 

The list above should give some indication.  They’ve played 500 fewer top flight games than West Ham but only got 150 fewer points.  Look at their all-time GD.  Traditionally when Leeds are in the top flight they’re a powerful side - football has changed so much in the past couple of decades that big crowds no longer mean much, though.  Their relegation in 2004 saw them become a phrase - ‘doing a Leeds’.  No-one talks about ‘doing a Stoke’ or ‘doing a Boro’.  It’s the warning that even a massive club - if mismanaged as badly as Leeds were - can fall to pieces.

 

I still hate the fuckers  and tbf anyone under 30-ish will likely wonder what the fuss is about.  But Leeds to me are a much bigger club than half the current clubs in the top flight. 

 

They were great mid 60s to mid 70s, won that title in 92 and had a few decent seasons either side of the millennium. 15 good years. 

[Nobody]

2 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Here's why I don't get the Leeds hype. Less top flight games than clubs like Derby, WBA, Burnley, Boro, Leicester, Birmingham, Stoke...

 

 

 

 

 

Reckon we might overtake Chelseas goal difference this season

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

They were great mid 60s to mid 70s, won that title in 92 and had a few decent seasons either side of the millennium. 15 good years. 

On that basis our history post-WWII doesn’t sound great tbh.

 

I know where you’re saying in the original post, and there are some elements of what I wrote which are disputable in terms of how big they are (e.g. their ‘one club one city’ thing - always cited by Leeds supporters - isn’t the same as NUFC’s; we aren’t a rugby league city, but Leeds is a huge RL place).

 

They’re a big club by my reckoning, in the same way that Villa, Everton and Sheff Wed are too - there’s around a dozen clubs in England that are ‘big clubs’ in my mind. 

[Wolfcastle]

They spent almost all the 80s outside the top division and until just now been out of it since 2004.

So depends on when the individual started watching football. Anybody who started in the early 80s will see their top flight stay 90-04 as an oasis, anybody that started watching in the early 00's will see them in the top flight as an anomoly.

 

 

Just happens with me, my first full season was the start of a hot spell - promotion, top 4, title and probably briefly the best atmosphere in the country at the time, so I always thought of them as bigger than they probably are.

Their attendances over the years aren't too hot either and Elland Road, certainly pre cantaliver stand was a surprsingly small looking stadium that perhaps told a story.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Wolfcastle

[Kid Icarus]

2 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Here's why I don't get the Leeds hype. Less top flight games than clubs like Derby, WBA, Burnley, Boro, Leicester, Birmingham, Stoke...

 

 

 

 

 

Being champions/challengers in the '60s and '70s then again in the '90s/early 00s?

 

None of those others have been up there across a few generations, most of them haven't at all.

[Wolfcastle]

btw that all-time table, pre Ashley we were probably 6th or 7th

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

Being champions/challengers in the '60s and '70s then again in the '90s/early 00s?

 

None of those others have been up there across a few generations, most of them haven't at all.

 

It's when you get people saying they're a bigger club than the likes of Man City and Chelsea too though. Those two clubs had similar histories (if not even better) before the money came in. 

[Kid Icarus]

7 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

It's when you get people saying they're a bigger club than the likes of Man City and Chelsea too though. Those two clubs had similar histories (if not even better) before the money came in. 

The big club thing is obv shite anyway but I definitely take the argument that Leeds were traditionally bigger than both clubs, especially Chelsea.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

The big club thing is obv shite anyway but I definitely take the argument that Leeds were traditionally bigger than both clubs, especially Chelsea.

 

Leeds weren't bigger than either?

[midds]

9 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

It's when you get people saying they're a bigger club than the likes of Man City and Chelsea too though. Those two clubs had similar histories (if not even better) before the money came in. 

Mid 90's QPR were the best team in London. Chelsea's top striker was Paul Furlong and they played in front of 2 barns a stand and a shed. Chelsea were decent in the 70s and totally irrelevant until Matthew Harding bought Bates out. They've been a machine for the last 25 years admittedly 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Leeds weren't bigger than either?

Leeds were definitely considered bigger than Chelsea for the vast majority of the 20th Century

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Leeds weren't bigger than either?

I think Leeds were bigger than both before their money came in, yeah. For whatever that's worth. 

[gbandit]

Accidentally posted in here when I meant to post in ‘other games’ thread. Didn’t have anything else to add here so…

 

Allardyce is a cunt 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by gbandit

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

I think Leeds were bigger than both before their money came in, yeah. For whatever that's worth. 

 

Odd one given both Chelsea and City had won more even before both takeovers. Pretty much goes with my view that Leeds are overrated as a club. 

[Wolfcastle]

Leeds had to be bigger than Chelsea until the late 90s. Chelsea were the epitome of a nothing club until then.

Only guessing but I'd say by every parameter Leeds would have been ahead - trophies, Europe, all time table, attendances, away support, vibe

 

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Wolfcastle

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Odd one given both Chelsea and City had won more even before both takeovers. Pretty much goes with my view that Leeds are overrated as a club. 

Before 1997, West Ham had won more major trophies than Chelsea - and Leeds comfortably had won more.  As Wolfcastle pointed out above, pre-Harding Chelsea were a club who had a glamours side in the early 70s and that was pretty much it for the entirety of football history. 

[KaKa]

56 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Anyone who has been to a Leeds vs Newcastle match will confirm that the crowd are unlikely to be quiet

 

Agree on everything else though  

 

Once they get an eyeful of his football and they fully realise how far they've fallen from Biesla, they'll be stunned into silence 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, KaKa said:

 

Once they get an eyeful of his football and they fully realise how far they've fallen from Biesla, they'll be stunned into silence 

Ugly football and Leeds goes hand-in-glove to me  - but what a comedown from Bielsa-ball

[Wolfcastle]

7 minutes ago, midds said:

Mid 90's QPR were the best team in London. Chelsea's top striker was Paul Furlong and they played in front of 2 barns a stand and a shed. Chelsea were decent in the 70s and totally irrelevant until Matthew Harding bought Bates out. They've been a machine for the last 25 years admittedly 

Pretty sure one year Wimbledon were. Joe Kinnear's Wimbledon.

[Kid Icarus]

6 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Odd one given both Chelsea and City had won more even before both takeovers. Pretty much goes with my view that Leeds are overrated as a club. 

Leagues? They hadn't like.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said:

Pretty sure one year Wimbledon were. Joe Kinnear's Wimbledon.

Kinnear’s Wimbledon were definitely second best London team when we came back under Keegan - I think they finished 6th from memory

[The Bonk]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Ugly football and Leeds goes hand-in-glove to me  - but what a comedown from Bielsa-ball

 

I'm still pissed at that 5-2 down there from the '20 season. They ran right through us.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Leagues? They hadn't like.

 

Leeds had 3 titles, 1 FA Cup, 1 League Cup and 2 Fairs Cups before Roman arrived. 6 of the 7 trophies came within an 8 year window.

 

Pre-Roman Chelsea had won 1 title, 3 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and 2 Cup Winners Cups.

 

Pre Abu-Dhabi City had won 2 titles, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and the Cup Winners Cups.

 

Three similar looking honours lists but not one where you could really say Leeds were a bigger club than both.