Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittmann 44
We’re not comparing like with like. It’s like saying the Rolling Stones are a better band than Arctic Monkeys. Maybe they were 20 years ago but they’ve done nothing artistically valid for years. Great musical history but I wouldn’t buy an album by them now. Sure the Arctic Monkeys have only two albums but right now they’re a " border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" />
|
I like a lot of what you say Wittman but I disagree entirely with that paragraph.
Quote:
|
It’s like saying the Rolling Stones are a better band than Arctic Monkeys
|
This discussion isn't about "better" it's about "bigger". Are the Rolling Stones a "bigger" band than the Arctic Monkeys. Obviously, yes.
We
are comparing like with like. We are looking at a club over the course of its history and making judgements on their greatness. Obiously our judgement has to be made from a certain location in time and that may influence our individual opinions but my view is that to qualify as a "Big club" a team must have been a success in more than one decade, otherwise they're more akin to a one hit wonder. People have mentioned Nottingham Forest but all their success came over the same few years and went to prove how great "The Man" was, rather than how big that club was. All proven by what went on before and what has happened since. Likewise with Portsmouth. Two league titles and an FA cup in the 40s I think but fuck all since.
I have my own opinions on whether Arsenal and Chelsea can be classed as big in regard to this discussion but I can see how people might put forward arguments to say that they are. As for Newcastle
that just baffles me.