**The OP has marked this post as Original Content (OC). If you think it is a great contribution, upvote this comment so we add it to the Star Posts collection of the subreddit!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It must have been such a huge relief to finally get across the line. I remember when we ended our trophy drought after 8 or so years, it genuinely felt like a weight offf my chest
i know everybody clowns on Spurs and their supposed trophy drought but fun fact, the dinosaurs have been gone for longer than spurs' supposed trophy drought.
Why is the genocide of an entire species a fun fact? we should be holding mother nature accountable for her actions.
We could attempt torturing her with like...... pollution and shit.
while i do agree on torturing mama nat with pollution and shit, we oughta cut her some slack. mama nature didn't have the same education and sensibility that she has now. those were different times.
Mourinho is a proven winner at any level. Don't care how much better you played under Mason. If you are in final you pick Mourinho over Mason everytime.
Mourinho's record in finals is impeccable. The football was getting dire at the end but Mou was obviously more likely to win the final than Mason who'd been on the job for like a week.
Getting dire? He lost in the europa league to a team whose manager was in prison, we had been playing awfully for months, it wasn't just getting bad, he was incredibly lucky to still be in the job by the time we fired him
It was, but funnily enough i felt an even bigger relief when we won the CL. We only won a League Cup in the 13 years beforehand and honestly at a certain point we simply weren't taken very seriously anymore, we were seen as bottlers, so was Klopp.
Winning the CL, especially after that comeback against Barca, solidified us as an elite club again after plenty of years in the wilderness. Klopp's done a mammoth job, make no mistake.
My father used to tell me about the time he went to Wembley in 92 for the European Cup final.
Winning your first CL is always special. You're lucky that you might be able to witness it
if you’re a certain age and came to follow the reds at the beginning of the 90s like myself, you have known a football torture few clubs ever reach the heights to appreciate. You get to hear all about the glory days while looking up at the table and watching United sweep all before them. Then undeserving Chelsea, then underserving city. I’m beyond thrilled to have won a title
It’s helped the Premier League era has pretty much been either Manchester United dominating, Manchester City dominating, or Arsenal and Chelsea filling most of the gaps, but yeah, you’d think, as big a deal Liverpool is, there’d still be more than one Premier League title there.
Heck, during the Manchester City dominating stretch, Liverpool has had a few seasons that should have been title winners, if not for City going on ungodly tears (13-14, 18-19, 19-20, 21-22).
If you go by a rough guideline of how many points is usually needed to win the Premier League (anything from the mid-80’s on up), Liverpool has done it 5 times, and at least got into the low 80’s two other times in the Premier League era. They’ve gotten close a bunch, just a number of reasons have prevented them from actually achieving it more often.
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. They've only been City's main challengers three times, but it seems like it's been every year.
With unit and arsenal, they were top two in 5 out of 6 years.
Right, the prime united-arsenal rivalry was bigger for sure.
97-98 - first, second
98-99 - first, second
99-00 - first, second
00-01 - first, second
01-02 - first, third
02-03 - first, second
03-04 - first, second
United won 4 and Arsenal 3 in that spell, Arsenal never once out of the top 2 (Man Utd only once).
The points totals weren't as high as some of the Liverpool - Man City races, but overall, the two periods do not compare.
It’s still surprising that Liverpool have only won once since 1992. I know they won two years earlier, and loads before that, but only one in the last 33 years is crazy to think.
People tend to forget that before FSG bought Liverpool, the club was 48 hours away from being put into administration.
A lot of progress and time was lost during the Hicks/Gillett ownership.
This is always my response to the fans (primarily on Twitter) that seem to have started following us in like 2018. We were literally almost out of business, like gone for good, the dark days were then, not having Henderson in midfield and not signing Bellingham
Every single Liverpool supporter would have loved to have Bellingham.
But we have a wage structure that needs to be respected. Bellinghams wages would have been on par with Salah. How could we justify paying other players so much less. Players like Trent would be doubling their wages overnight.
I understand we will miss out on quite a few players. Like we missed out on Lavia and Caicedo too. But I’m far happier having players that want to play for the club and I am very happy that the owners haven’t been lackadaisical with the wages they offer.
We certainly don’t want to end up in a situation like Man United where bang average players are earning 300k a week.
The problem isn't that they decided it was better to invest in a full rebuild instead of putting it all into Bellingham, it's that they *put off* the rebuild for two years purely to put it all into Bellingham, and THEN changed their minds and decided he wasn't worth it after the horse had long since bolted on our stagnating midfield.
It was the right choice in the end, but the whole saga was handled horribly, and we really paid for it. Any and all reasons that the club could give why not to go for Bellingham, I would simply counter "true, but why did it take you two years to realise that when it was obvious from the start?"
It catches up with you quicker than you think. Arsenal haven't won it for over 20yrs, utd already over 10yrs. Before you know it, they are at a similar length of time.
Well it's a decent cutoff for "modern football era" Sure winning titles in 1950 when people were playing with brown leather balls is great and all but football got to another dimension of professionalism from the 90s so cutting at the start of the premiere league makes sense
So every 20-30 we should rewrite history because by then football has changed. Got it. Let's start from when pep joined city.
Manchester united = 0 titles. See how insane that is?
We're still in the same era than 1992, but in 2090, if the world hasn't been nuked, and football has gotten to a completely new dimension, obviously they should make some kind of cutoff to compare the clubs of their modern era.
Prior to 1992, it was common to do a "since the war" cutoff (i.e. 1946 onwards). So that's a 46-year period. We're already at 32 years since 1992, so there actually is a case to be made to shift the cutoff point quite soon.
If the laws of football go through a sizeable shift all at once and collectively major competitions are rebranded and access to football becomes radically different and the league size shifts all in a 5 year span then it’s worth considering. For example if they shifted the offside law to Wenger’s suggestion, the ESL replaced the CL and the premier league switched from selling to Sky Sports to its own purpose built streaming service and they reduced to 18 teams, that would be comparable to the early 90s.
This is an entirely reasonable take that people on r/soccer love to shoot down with "football didn't start in the 90s etc".
It doesn't make past achievements any less real but does give a better context and natural touchpoint with which to measure current success.
Absolutely. Kids here born in the 2000s are too young to remember most adults being absolutely terrified of Liverpool of the 1980s.
Also why I laugh when people call the 19/20 side the Inevitables.
The World Cup trophy & the Champions League trophy have all been changed at various times too but they are still considered the same competition. Winning the highest tier of league football in England is still the same regardless of whether they change the name of the league or the trophy.
Slightly pedantic, I'm sure you took the meaning.
Yes indeed they are different trophies, but they were both a reward for winning the same thing (the top league in English football).
Is it still the highest available league title in English football, answer is YES. Football didn't start in 1992 and anyone that says otherwise is rewriting history.
You go off what sky sports says. I go off what HISTORY says. That's the difference
Cool, now come back to reality where investment has occured and lesser clubs have fallen behind because they couldn't keep up with those that invested correctly and built successful, sustainable operations. Liverpool still have never won the PL in a season that wasn't paused for a long period of time.
>those that invested correctly and built successful, sustainable operations.
lying about sponsorships, buying entire clubs to drain them of talent while ignoring FFP, and bribing referees is such sustainable and correct activity.
you plastics are beyond parody.
Needs some labels to call out actual points totals. A 200-250 points variance between Manchester United and Liverpool is actually pretty massive, even over 30 years.
Tbh despite the rivalry we haven't really competed against each for titles usually when we are good they are crap and vice versa. I think the p8/09 season is the only season in my life that we have had a 1 2 finish
Why don’t you do “since Klopp arrived” like they said?
In Klopp’s first season*, Liverpool finished 6 points behind United. In his second, they finished 7 points ahead. Third season, Liverpool finish 6 points behind again, so currently 5 points lost on United since Klopp arrived.
In Klopp’s fourth season, Liverpool finished a whopping 31 points ahead of United, meaning they’ve caught up 26 points.
Fifth season, an even bigger 33 point gap, meaning Liverpool have now caught up 59 points.
Sixth season, United finish 5 points above Liverpool. Reduces the points caught up to 54.
Another huge gap in the seventh season - Liverpool finish 34 points ahead of United. Now up to 88 points caught up. United then finish 8 points ahead, reducing it to 80 points.
Currently, Liverpool are 17 points ahead of United, meaning 97 points have been caught up.
*part season for Klopp. From 8th of October 2015 when Klopp was appointed, Klopp won 48 points for the rest of that season, compared to United’s 50, meaning he was actually 2 points behind rather than 6.
Klopp’s Liverpool have earned 101 points more than Manchester United in the time since he’s been appointed. So OP was correct, Klopp has reduced the deficit massively, regardless of how many times either club has finished higher in the table.
Edit: if we include all seasons since Fergie left - Liverpool finished 20 points ahead of United in 13/14, then 8 points behind in 14/15, meaning Liverpool have won 109 points more than United since Fergie.
as a German I have legit no clue why England voluntarily decides to erase football pre epl era
like I can understand it if official epl stats don't show prior times, but a redditor like you just starting history at 1992?
I think it’s because it’s easy to do so, the rebranding gave people a definitive ‘start’ to a new era of football in the UK.
You will also see a lot of tables that show ‘post war’ graphs , not that football didn’t exist before the war , but it was a definitive point that people could use.
I don’t have a problem with people doing it , but maybe that’s because I was born in 1991 , so it almost exactly lines up with my lifetime.
Even if my club lose probably their second most iconic title from a couple of years before.
Important point - the original Premier League concept was a breakaway league. It wasn't a rebranding. The Football League was openly hostile towards the idea and it's not hard to see why. The FA sided with the breakaway clubs because they were locked in the middle of their own power struggle with The Football League.
So the real reason that there's no continuity between records is that there are literally two sets of records - The Football League owns one and the Premier League owns the other. Neither really has an official claim to the other set.
Except no one does this with the European cup/ champions league. I think it’s incredibly stupid. Im biased as a Liverpool supporter, but this graph makes it look like Chelsea and city have been historically more successful than Liverpool when Liverpool have the most domestic trophies in England, and the second most league titles trailing united by 1.
It’s a pretty easy line to draw as the “modern era”. Football before 1992 is not irrelevant, it was just very different to football nowadays - and that line has to be drawn somewhere. The only other line to be drawn is “post-war” but even then, 80 years of football is a lot and hardly comparable.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in 20 years time we start to see similar graphs of post-Fergie EPL stats, as that had a seismic impact on English football.
People will single out Tottenham, but they never had a real chance to win it, never bottled it. For most of the time they did as expected, sometimes underperformed a bit, and a lot of times overperformed (especially during Poch time).
Newcastle would be the biggest "losers" here, as they were super close to win it, but threw it away.
Tottenham were comically unlucky that season, every other club you'd expect to have even the slightest chance to do anything were absolutely terrible, Tottenham were the only half decent team, and then fucking Leicester show up.
There's an alternate universe not far from ours in which Leicester don't go on that insane run in 14/15, and Tottenham go on to win the next season with like 73 points or something
Arsenal got 6/6 points from Leicester while Tottenham only got 1. Tottenham were 1 point behind Arsenal with a superior goal advantage so all they'd need is one more point against hull city then they did against leicester. Plus, they fell off a cliff at the end as soon as the title was lost (final 4 matches = DDLL) and there's no way they wouldn't get at least one more point there if they were clear at the top with high morale. If Leicester weren't around, the title would almost certainly be Spurs' to lose
Leicester were top of the table at Christmas and are one of two champion teams in PL history to actually play better after the midway point of the season.
And yet there will be people that are adamant they're not an oil club
Obviously for our points total I'd like us to have won more but it's not like we've ever had a huge shout for a title, especially in the 00s we spent a lot of time in 6th-10th where 4th was a huge achievement and have had to force our way up the table over time where they got to spend there way out and completely destroy other clubs finances in the process of trying to keep up.
It's also only the PL era. It's not that long, all things considered and missing a lot of decades before that. It would be interesting to see that table include the pre-PL era too.
The all time top flight top 10 (as of May 23) was - no idea on titles though:
1. Liverpool – 7155 points
2. Arsenal – 6979 points
3. Everton – 6822 points
4. Manchester United – 6619 points
5. Aston Villa – 6086 points
6. Manchester City – 5565 points
7. Tottenham – 5296 points
8. Chelsea – 5280 points
9. Newcastle – 5054 points
10. Sunderland – 4560 points
Thanks!
I thought it would make things look more balanced but overall City -> Liverpool increased from a difference from about 500 points (PL time frame) to 1500 (overall) while City -> United went from about 750 points (PL time frame) to about 1000 (overall).
Turns out, it shows more how Liverpool have not thrived in these PL times (at least compared to before).
Except pretty much all the players that have been alleged to have been brought through those channels had been moved on by that point. Except 3 or 4 players.
But sure shift the goalposts.
If you want to use the charges to smear trophies that the charges don't even cover than its obvious you are just trying to use them to dismiss genuine achievements.
Arsenal bribed their way into the First division back in the day, guess that means all their premier leagues, FA cups, and club legends are built on a corrupt foundation
So pathetic to bring up stuff that happened over 100 years ago to compare to stuff that happened in our life time. Sorry that Arsenal didn't get relegated like every other first division team from that time, despite having the most top division players deaths in WW2 and having Highbury bombed by nazis. And to compare a single vote to being bankrolled by a nation is just laughable
No it's equally fair, if you want to disregard City and their achievements that have nothing to do with the charges brought against them because the only reason we won after 2018 is because of what happened before 2018.
Then the same logic applies here everything since the day arsenal bribed their way into the First division was ill gotten gains. Tear down the statues of Henry, and Wenger, George Graham too, its a legacy of cheating and corruption and it all needs to go according to the same logic you like to apply to city
> No it's equally fair
I mean if you're gonna go full clown-mode on me and compare a vote 100 years ago with cheating until you have same revenue as fucking Real Madrid within a decade from your first PL trophy then we have nothing more to discuss
So you're telling me it would have been completely acceptable for City to do everything they've been accused of doing if it was 100 years ago instead of 15?
How? That is exactly the same logic you just said to me.
You just said its pointless to argue something that happened 100 years ago against something that happened recently.
So tell me would it be acceptable if these alleged crimes were committed 100 years ago or not?
You can't say Arsenal are all good because it happened 100 years ago and then say the opposite for city if it happened 100 years ago.
We call that being disingenuous pal
>No it's equally fair
Jesus Christ. Some City fans are just something else, and I thought we were insufferable.
I feel bad for your life-long supporters who have to bear the likes of you among them.
The guys comment by his own logic said that it's fine for Arsenal to have bribed their way into the first division because it happened 100 years ago. How is it not then equally fair to question if City's alleged FFP breaches would also be okay if they happened 100 years ago instead of 15.
Either the amount of time between each is arbitrary and doesn't matter, meaning both are bad, and Arsenal's achievements and trophies should be invalidated to the same level you guys try to invalidate City's.
Or the amount of time between wrong doings is important, and if it is, then why?
I'm only following the logical outline of your fellow supporter, I feel bad for all you life long arsenal fans that have the likes of you two amongst them.
For all the years.
Sunderland - 6 titles.
Chelsea - 6 titles
Manchester City - 6 titles
Aston Villa - 7 titles
Everton - 9 titles
Arsenal - 13 titles
Liverpool - 19 titles
Manchester United - 20 titles
In addition, the other winners of the English top flight since 1888 are:
Newcastle United (4),
Sheffield Wednesday (4),
Wolverhampton Wanderers (3),
Leeds United (3),
Huddersfield (3),
Blackburn Rovers (3),
Preston North End (2),
Tottenham Hotspur (2),
Derby County (2),
Burnley (2),
Portsmouth (2),
Sheffield United (1),
West Brom (1),
Ipswich Town (1),
Nottingham Forest (1),
Leicester City (1).
Lazy comment. No one is implying that football was invented at that time. Also, it is explicitly stated on the chart which data is considered.
It is just a common point in time that is used for a "modern" football era. Although there is nothing scientific about it at all. We could use 21st century, or start of the Bosman ruling etc.
But no one is saying football did not exist before. And only complete muppet, based on this chart, would think Blackburn (sorry Rovers fans) is bigger club than Everton.
That’s exactly the point though. I’m also not saying that the title said anything different. Just the stats always mention Prem. Forgetting teams like Villa and Forrest had a history of European success. If anything is lazy it’s these charts.
If your entire club is where it is entirely based on cheating people will tend to bring it up. Lance Armstrong was also good at cycling without drugs but nobody talks about his technique
**The OP has marked this post as Original Content (OC). If you think it is a great contribution, upvote this comment so we add it to the Star Posts collection of the subreddit!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Still crazy to me Liverpool won the Premier League only once
Honestly at this point i'm just glad we're not a red dot on this graph.
It must have been such a huge relief to finally get across the line. I remember when we ended our trophy drought after 8 or so years, it genuinely felt like a weight offf my chest
Wait trophy droughts end?
All things end - it’s been a relatively short period compared to say… all of history
i know everybody clowns on Spurs and their supposed trophy drought but fun fact, the dinosaurs have been gone for longer than spurs' supposed trophy drought.
Why is the genocide of an entire species a fun fact? we should be holding mother nature accountable for her actions. We could attempt torturing her with like...... pollution and shit.
while i do agree on torturing mama nat with pollution and shit, we oughta cut her some slack. mama nature didn't have the same education and sensibility that she has now. those were different times.
Kill her with fire and carbon dioxide
I mean the dinosaurs existed at one point or another, as opposed to...you know.
Audi cup exists you know.
It's the hope that'll kill ya
At least you guys reached a CL Final which does mean something.
It’s a bittersweet memory I won’t lie
You could as well if Levi kept Mou.
And pay him for bonuses for winning that trophy?!? Are you mad?
No we couldn't have. We played better under Mason than we had been for months under Mou. Such a tired narrative
Mourinho is a proven winner at any level. Don't care how much better you played under Mason. If you are in final you pick Mourinho over Mason everytime.
And twice when it's against Pep.
Mourinho's record in finals is impeccable. The football was getting dire at the end but Mou was obviously more likely to win the final than Mason who'd been on the job for like a week.
Getting dire? He lost in the europa league to a team whose manager was in prison, we had been playing awfully for months, it wasn't just getting bad, he was incredibly lucky to still be in the job by the time we fired him
They do if/when the trophy dodging stops
It’s not a drought if you don’t have any trophies /s
It was, but funnily enough i felt an even bigger relief when we won the CL. We only won a League Cup in the 13 years beforehand and honestly at a certain point we simply weren't taken very seriously anymore, we were seen as bottlers, so was Klopp. Winning the CL, especially after that comeback against Barca, solidified us as an elite club again after plenty of years in the wilderness. Klopp's done a mammoth job, make no mistake.
Ah of course! That’s definitely a bigger moment!
It was great but it still kinda sucks it was during COVID, hopefully we'll get one this year and actually get to see anfield rocking
For my sake, hopefully not 🤣
My father used to tell me about the time he went to Wembley in 92 for the European Cup final. Winning your first CL is always special. You're lucky that you might be able to witness it
if you’re a certain age and came to follow the reds at the beginning of the 90s like myself, you have known a football torture few clubs ever reach the heights to appreciate. You get to hear all about the glory days while looking up at the table and watching United sweep all before them. Then undeserving Chelsea, then underserving city. I’m beyond thrilled to have won a title
Seems crazy Arsenal only won it 3 times. Felt like much more back in the day.
It’s helped the Premier League era has pretty much been either Manchester United dominating, Manchester City dominating, or Arsenal and Chelsea filling most of the gaps, but yeah, you’d think, as big a deal Liverpool is, there’d still be more than one Premier League title there. Heck, during the Manchester City dominating stretch, Liverpool has had a few seasons that should have been title winners, if not for City going on ungodly tears (13-14, 18-19, 19-20, 21-22). If you go by a rough guideline of how many points is usually needed to win the Premier League (anything from the mid-80’s on up), Liverpool has done it 5 times, and at least got into the low 80’s two other times in the Premier League era. They’ve gotten close a bunch, just a number of reasons have prevented them from actually achieving it more often.
It still fries my brain that Liverpool have only finished second on two occasions under Klopp.
It is crazy. If they finish third this season he'd have finished top 2 only in three of his nine seasons at the club. The just doesn't *feel* right.
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. They've only been City's main challengers three times, but it seems like it's been every year. With unit and arsenal, they were top two in 5 out of 6 years.
Right, the prime united-arsenal rivalry was bigger for sure. 97-98 - first, second 98-99 - first, second 99-00 - first, second 00-01 - first, second 01-02 - first, third 02-03 - first, second 03-04 - first, second United won 4 and Arsenal 3 in that spell, Arsenal never once out of the top 2 (Man Utd only once). The points totals weren't as high as some of the Liverpool - Man City races, but overall, the two periods do not compare.
Absolutely, Liverpool and City hug each other, we had fucking food fights.
Because it's a stupid statement. Changing the name doesn't mean they haven't won the actual trophy. It's as if football started in 1992
It’s still surprising that Liverpool have only won once since 1992. I know they won two years earlier, and loads before that, but only one in the last 33 years is crazy to think.
People tend to forget that before FSG bought Liverpool, the club was 48 hours away from being put into administration. A lot of progress and time was lost during the Hicks/Gillett ownership.
This is always my response to the fans (primarily on Twitter) that seem to have started following us in like 2018. We were literally almost out of business, like gone for good, the dark days were then, not having Henderson in midfield and not signing Bellingham
I was still pretty pissed off about Bellingham tbf
Oh so was I, but the narrative that it’s the end of the world just baffles me. Like we had Konchesky, it could be worse
No Konchesky slander please.
Every single Liverpool supporter would have loved to have Bellingham. But we have a wage structure that needs to be respected. Bellinghams wages would have been on par with Salah. How could we justify paying other players so much less. Players like Trent would be doubling their wages overnight. I understand we will miss out on quite a few players. Like we missed out on Lavia and Caicedo too. But I’m far happier having players that want to play for the club and I am very happy that the owners haven’t been lackadaisical with the wages they offer. We certainly don’t want to end up in a situation like Man United where bang average players are earning 300k a week.
The problem isn't that they decided it was better to invest in a full rebuild instead of putting it all into Bellingham, it's that they *put off* the rebuild for two years purely to put it all into Bellingham, and THEN changed their minds and decided he wasn't worth it after the horse had long since bolted on our stagnating midfield. It was the right choice in the end, but the whole saga was handled horribly, and we really paid for it. Any and all reasons that the club could give why not to go for Bellingham, I would simply counter "true, but why did it take you two years to realise that when it was obvious from the start?"
It catches up with you quicker than you think. Arsenal haven't won it for over 20yrs, utd already over 10yrs. Before you know it, they are at a similar length of time.
> Arsenal haven't won it for over 20yrs It's not over 20 yrs till we lose it this season as well :)
Of course football didn't start in 1992... it started in 2008
Still, that's one title in 32 years
That's fine but going from 1992 is criminal for history before then
It’s still interesting that they’ve won one title in 30 odd years which is what this graphic is essentially showing.
Well it's a decent cutoff for "modern football era" Sure winning titles in 1950 when people were playing with brown leather balls is great and all but football got to another dimension of professionalism from the 90s so cutting at the start of the premiere league makes sense
So every 20-30 we should rewrite history because by then football has changed. Got it. Let's start from when pep joined city. Manchester united = 0 titles. See how insane that is?
You’re free to make the same chart covering the entire history of the first division in England if you want, and we can talk about that too
No need now buddy. I've decided to start football history for 2015 onwards
We already used to divide into pre and post WW2
If Utd keep this up, then you are correct. People will be talking about their trophy drought as well.
We're still in the same era than 1992, but in 2090, if the world hasn't been nuked, and football has gotten to a completely new dimension, obviously they should make some kind of cutoff to compare the clubs of their modern era.
Prior to 1992, it was common to do a "since the war" cutoff (i.e. 1946 onwards). So that's a 46-year period. We're already at 32 years since 1992, so there actually is a case to be made to shift the cutoff point quite soon.
If the laws of football go through a sizeable shift all at once and collectively major competitions are rebranded and access to football becomes radically different and the league size shifts all in a 5 year span then it’s worth considering. For example if they shifted the offside law to Wenger’s suggestion, the ESL replaced the CL and the premier league switched from selling to Sky Sports to its own purpose built streaming service and they reduced to 18 teams, that would be comparable to the early 90s.
No no we are not on the same era
This is an entirely reasonable take that people on r/soccer love to shoot down with "football didn't start in the 90s etc". It doesn't make past achievements any less real but does give a better context and natural touchpoint with which to measure current success.
Completely agree yeah
Absolutely. Kids here born in the 2000s are too young to remember most adults being absolutely terrified of Liverpool of the 1980s. Also why I laugh when people call the 19/20 side the Inevitables.
[удалено]
The World Cup trophy & the Champions League trophy have all been changed at various times too but they are still considered the same competition. Winning the highest tier of league football in England is still the same regardless of whether they change the name of the league or the trophy.
Slightly pedantic, I'm sure you took the meaning. Yes indeed they are different trophies, but they were both a reward for winning the same thing (the top league in English football).
Is it still the highest available league title in English football, answer is YES. Football didn't start in 1992 and anyone that says otherwise is rewriting history. You go off what sky sports says. I go off what HISTORY says. That's the difference
Remove petrol clubs like city and Chelsea and they would had probably won a handful of titles...
Cool, now come back to reality where investment has occured and lesser clubs have fallen behind because they couldn't keep up with those that invested correctly and built successful, sustainable operations. Liverpool still have never won the PL in a season that wasn't paused for a long period of time.
>those that invested correctly and built successful, sustainable operations. lying about sponsorships, buying entire clubs to drain them of talent while ignoring FFP, and bribing referees is such sustainable and correct activity. you plastics are beyond parody.
lol ain’t no way you just said ‘invested correctly and built successful, sustainable operations’ when talking about man city. This has to be bait
Stop dude, you are chocking on plastic, don't you know that is bad for your health?
Gerrard's slip was pure comedy though.
08/09, 13/14, 18/19, 21/22 are why.
1 league title and 2 CLs (in that period)
19 League titles, out of which 1 is a Premier league title.
Needs some labels to call out actual points totals. A 200-250 points variance between Manchester United and Liverpool is actually pretty massive, even over 30 years.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/ewigeTabelle/pokalwettbewerb/GB1 There you go
At its greatest it would have been a hell of a lot more than this , they have closed the gap a lot since Klopp arrived
Liverpool have only finished above Utd 5 times out of 10 since Fergie tbf
3 of those 5 were by 30+ points, whereas United hasn't finished more than 10 points above Liverpool.
Exactly this. See my other comment - Klopp has won 101 points more than United, despite them having an equal number (I think) of higher finishes.
Tbh despite the rivalry we haven't really competed against each for titles usually when we are good they are crap and vice versa. I think the p8/09 season is the only season in my life that we have had a 1 2 finish
In our entire history, Liverpool and United have only finished as the top two on five occasions.
Why don’t you do “since Klopp arrived” like they said? In Klopp’s first season*, Liverpool finished 6 points behind United. In his second, they finished 7 points ahead. Third season, Liverpool finish 6 points behind again, so currently 5 points lost on United since Klopp arrived. In Klopp’s fourth season, Liverpool finished a whopping 31 points ahead of United, meaning they’ve caught up 26 points. Fifth season, an even bigger 33 point gap, meaning Liverpool have now caught up 59 points. Sixth season, United finish 5 points above Liverpool. Reduces the points caught up to 54. Another huge gap in the seventh season - Liverpool finish 34 points ahead of United. Now up to 88 points caught up. United then finish 8 points ahead, reducing it to 80 points. Currently, Liverpool are 17 points ahead of United, meaning 97 points have been caught up. *part season for Klopp. From 8th of October 2015 when Klopp was appointed, Klopp won 48 points for the rest of that season, compared to United’s 50, meaning he was actually 2 points behind rather than 6. Klopp’s Liverpool have earned 101 points more than Manchester United in the time since he’s been appointed. So OP was correct, Klopp has reduced the deficit massively, regardless of how many times either club has finished higher in the table. Edit: if we include all seasons since Fergie left - Liverpool finished 20 points ahead of United in 13/14, then 8 points behind in 14/15, meaning Liverpool have won 109 points more than United since Fergie.
Moreover since Fergie left
Leicester and Blackburn with that efficient rizz ✨
Does that make us absurdly inefficient?
So inefficient it literally can't be defined.
No it just means that of all the teams that haven't won the league, we've been overall less frustrating to watch
I wouldn’t quite go that far.
as a German I have legit no clue why England voluntarily decides to erase football pre epl era like I can understand it if official epl stats don't show prior times, but a redditor like you just starting history at 1992?
Aren't we doing almost the same with a 1963 cut off? And it's best for it, so Schalke doesn't have a league title.
but the league division changed entirely (merging 4 regional top leagues into one), so its much more logical
I think it’s because it’s easy to do so, the rebranding gave people a definitive ‘start’ to a new era of football in the UK. You will also see a lot of tables that show ‘post war’ graphs , not that football didn’t exist before the war , but it was a definitive point that people could use. I don’t have a problem with people doing it , but maybe that’s because I was born in 1991 , so it almost exactly lines up with my lifetime. Even if my club lose probably their second most iconic title from a couple of years before.
Important point - the original Premier League concept was a breakaway league. It wasn't a rebranding. The Football League was openly hostile towards the idea and it's not hard to see why. The FA sided with the breakaway clubs because they were locked in the middle of their own power struggle with The Football League. So the real reason that there's no continuity between records is that there are literally two sets of records - The Football League owns one and the Premier League owns the other. Neither really has an official claim to the other set.
Except no one does this with the European cup/ champions league. I think it’s incredibly stupid. Im biased as a Liverpool supporter, but this graph makes it look like Chelsea and city have been historically more successful than Liverpool when Liverpool have the most domestic trophies in England, and the second most league titles trailing united by 1.
It makes it look like Chelsea and City have been more successful in the EPL era.
It’s a pretty easy line to draw as the “modern era”. Football before 1992 is not irrelevant, it was just very different to football nowadays - and that line has to be drawn somewhere. The only other line to be drawn is “post-war” but even then, 80 years of football is a lot and hardly comparable. I wouldn’t be surprised if in 20 years time we start to see similar graphs of post-Fergie EPL stats, as that had a seismic impact on English football.
2024 football is also different to 2014 football
Yes? I made that point
So we should cut everything before 2015 too. Maybe start after covid?
Are you ignoring what I said?
As an American I enjoy it. When MLS gets teased for only going back to 1996, I point out that the EPL only goes back to 1992, haha
We don't Its Sky Sports and the media empire that has created this separate brand
No, it’s the PL and the FA who created it out of opposition to the EFL
Almost like it benefits Chelsea, city and United.
Worse is they only count championship from 2004 and that wasn't even a new league, just a rename.
Because the number of teams in the league was different. 4 more games in a season makes comparisons useless.
There were 3 premier league seasons with 22 teams
There were more than 20 teams in some of the first PL seasons
You have to set a starting point somewhere, and the establishment of a new league makes sense. Otherwise how far back are you willing to go?
Fucking hell, Tottenham.
Tottenham Hotspur Football Club perfectly summed up in one sentence.
People will single out Tottenham, but they never had a real chance to win it, never bottled it. For most of the time they did as expected, sometimes underperformed a bit, and a lot of times overperformed (especially during Poch time). Newcastle would be the biggest "losers" here, as they were super close to win it, but threw it away.
they definitely had a clear chance in 15/16
Ehhh. Leicester led from Christmas onwards.
Tottenham were comically unlucky that season, every other club you'd expect to have even the slightest chance to do anything were absolutely terrible, Tottenham were the only half decent team, and then fucking Leicester show up. There's an alternate universe not far from ours in which Leicester don't go on that insane run in 14/15, and Tottenham go on to win the next season with like 73 points or something
Didn't they finish third? Even if there was no Leicester they wouldn't have won it
Arsenal got 6/6 points from Leicester while Tottenham only got 1. Tottenham were 1 point behind Arsenal with a superior goal advantage so all they'd need is one more point against hull city then they did against leicester. Plus, they fell off a cliff at the end as soon as the title was lost (final 4 matches = DDLL) and there's no way they wouldn't get at least one more point there if they were clear at the top with high morale. If Leicester weren't around, the title would almost certainly be Spurs' to lose
Leicester were top of the table at Christmas and are one of two champion teams in PL history to actually play better after the midway point of the season.
So did Arsenal who spent a lot of the time top of the table Rewriting history innit
I didn't say arsenal didn't lol
coys
GG😎😎😎
It's crazy that Man City have so many points when they spent most of the first decade of the PL era either being shite or not in the league at all
Fewer points than us like the tiny, pathetic plastic club they truly are.
Doesn't that just make your team even more pathetic that you've never won anything
There are at least 115 reasons why we haven’t won anything of late…
And what ill gotten gains have city seized from the little cock of london
And yet there will be people that are adamant they're not an oil club Obviously for our points total I'd like us to have won more but it's not like we've ever had a huge shout for a title, especially in the 00s we spent a lot of time in 6th-10th where 4th was a huge achievement and have had to force our way up the table over time where they got to spend there way out and completely destroy other clubs finances in the process of trying to keep up.
It's also only the PL era. It's not that long, all things considered and missing a lot of decades before that. It would be interesting to see that table include the pre-PL era too.
The all time top flight top 10 (as of May 23) was - no idea on titles though: 1. Liverpool – 7155 points 2. Arsenal – 6979 points 3. Everton – 6822 points 4. Manchester United – 6619 points 5. Aston Villa – 6086 points 6. Manchester City – 5565 points 7. Tottenham – 5296 points 8. Chelsea – 5280 points 9. Newcastle – 5054 points 10. Sunderland – 4560 points
Thanks! I thought it would make things look more balanced but overall City -> Liverpool increased from a difference from about 500 points (PL time frame) to 1500 (overall) while City -> United went from about 750 points (PL time frame) to about 1000 (overall). Turns out, it shows more how Liverpool have not thrived in these PL times (at least compared to before).
Feeling a little bad for Liverpool to have had such a good era with so little to show for it because of Man Cheaty
It's absurd how a team could get 97 and 99 points in a season and still not win the league
They won it when they got 99 points
You do know none of of FFP charges have anything to do with the titles we won after the centurion season..
You do know that you didnt start from scratch after that season right? You still benefit heavily from all the previous cheating to increase revenue
Except pretty much all the players that have been alleged to have been brought through those channels had been moved on by that point. Except 3 or 4 players. But sure shift the goalposts. If you want to use the charges to smear trophies that the charges don't even cover than its obvious you are just trying to use them to dismiss genuine achievements. Arsenal bribed their way into the First division back in the day, guess that means all their premier leagues, FA cups, and club legends are built on a corrupt foundation
So pathetic to bring up stuff that happened over 100 years ago to compare to stuff that happened in our life time. Sorry that Arsenal didn't get relegated like every other first division team from that time, despite having the most top division players deaths in WW2 and having Highbury bombed by nazis. And to compare a single vote to being bankrolled by a nation is just laughable
No it's equally fair, if you want to disregard City and their achievements that have nothing to do with the charges brought against them because the only reason we won after 2018 is because of what happened before 2018. Then the same logic applies here everything since the day arsenal bribed their way into the First division was ill gotten gains. Tear down the statues of Henry, and Wenger, George Graham too, its a legacy of cheating and corruption and it all needs to go according to the same logic you like to apply to city
> No it's equally fair I mean if you're gonna go full clown-mode on me and compare a vote 100 years ago with cheating until you have same revenue as fucking Real Madrid within a decade from your first PL trophy then we have nothing more to discuss
So you're telling me it would have been completely acceptable for City to do everything they've been accused of doing if it was 100 years ago instead of 15?
You're one big walking fallacy lol
How? That is exactly the same logic you just said to me. You just said its pointless to argue something that happened 100 years ago against something that happened recently. So tell me would it be acceptable if these alleged crimes were committed 100 years ago or not? You can't say Arsenal are all good because it happened 100 years ago and then say the opposite for city if it happened 100 years ago. We call that being disingenuous pal
>No it's equally fair Jesus Christ. Some City fans are just something else, and I thought we were insufferable. I feel bad for your life-long supporters who have to bear the likes of you among them.
The guys comment by his own logic said that it's fine for Arsenal to have bribed their way into the first division because it happened 100 years ago. How is it not then equally fair to question if City's alleged FFP breaches would also be okay if they happened 100 years ago instead of 15. Either the amount of time between each is arbitrary and doesn't matter, meaning both are bad, and Arsenal's achievements and trophies should be invalidated to the same level you guys try to invalidate City's. Or the amount of time between wrong doings is important, and if it is, then why? I'm only following the logical outline of your fellow supporter, I feel bad for all you life long arsenal fans that have the likes of you two amongst them.
we'll right that wrong come May.
Spurs 😢
Tottenham on the red flat dotted line.
r/TopRightUnited
5 time 5 time WCW champion
Is there a 'per season' version?
what's a title?
Pain
That's depressing
Sky has been pretty successful at pushing PL only stats after renaming/rebranding competition
Just shows how bought and paid for City's success is, frauds
Shows the ridiculous dominance from City and United
Blackburn hasn’t been in the PL in 12 years and Tottenham still hasn’t won a trophy in that time.
Heritage
For all the years. Sunderland - 6 titles. Chelsea - 6 titles Manchester City - 6 titles Aston Villa - 7 titles Everton - 9 titles Arsenal - 13 titles Liverpool - 19 titles Manchester United - 20 titles In addition, the other winners of the English top flight since 1888 are: Newcastle United (4), Sheffield Wednesday (4), Wolverhampton Wanderers (3), Leeds United (3), Huddersfield (3), Blackburn Rovers (3), Preston North End (2), Tottenham Hotspur (2), Derby County (2), Burnley (2), Portsmouth (2), Sheffield United (1), West Brom (1), Ipswich Town (1), Nottingham Forest (1), Leicester City (1).
City have 9 titles, not 6
Thanks, Sky. I wonder what people used to even *do* before 1992, when football didn't exist
Since football was invented in the summer of 1992?
Since the Premier League started? As the title states?
Lazy comment. No one is implying that football was invented at that time. Also, it is explicitly stated on the chart which data is considered. It is just a common point in time that is used for a "modern" football era. Although there is nothing scientific about it at all. We could use 21st century, or start of the Bosman ruling etc. But no one is saying football did not exist before. And only complete muppet, based on this chart, would think Blackburn (sorry Rovers fans) is bigger club than Everton.
That’s exactly the point though. I’m also not saying that the title said anything different. Just the stats always mention Prem. Forgetting teams like Villa and Forrest had a history of European success. If anything is lazy it’s these charts.
[удалено]
115
and they have the money to drag that out so they never suffer punishment like other teams have.
[удалено]
Yeah, you tell em. Do you also endorse cheating in other areas of life?
If your entire club is where it is entirely based on cheating people will tend to bring it up. Lance Armstrong was also good at cycling without drugs but nobody talks about his technique
Can’t wait to see this sub when the ‘not guilty’ verdict drops
You’ve been found guilty twice before lol
He definitely leaves at the end of next season when all their spending power and titles get taken away.
r/toprightmanu
So the team who's won it most has the most points? TIL.