• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Levy's Plan

MartyFunkhouser said:
Ohhhh I just used AI to count them up.
Click to expand...

So did I. Haha I think we are both wrong then. Here are our top four finishes before Levy

  • 1921–22: 2nd
  • 1933–34: 3rd
  • 1950–51: 1st (Champions)
  • 1951–52: 2nd
  • 1956–57: 2nd
  • 1959–60: 3rd
  • 1960–61: 1st (Champions - The Double)
  • 1962–63: 2nd
  • 1970–71: 3rd
  • 1984–85: 3rd
  • 1986–87: 3rd
  • 1989–90: 3rd [1, 2, 3, 6]
And here they in the levy era

  • 2009–10: 4th
  • 2011–12: 4th
  • 2015–16: 3rd
  • 2016–17: 2nd
  • 2017–18: 3rd
  • 2018–19: 4th
  • 2021–22: 4th [1, 2]

So not quite as good as thought, but still massively impressive considering the different time frames
 
DTA said:
So did I. Haha I think we are both wrong then. Here are our top four finishes before Levy

  • 1921–22: 2nd
  • 1933–34: 3rd
  • 1950–51: 1st (Champions)
  • 1951–52: 2nd
  • 1956–57: 2nd
  • 1959–60: 3rd
  • 1960–61: 1st (Champions - The Double)
  • 1962–63: 2nd
  • 1970–71: 3rd
  • 1984–85: 3rd
  • 1986–87: 3rd
  • 1989–90: 3rd [1, 2, 3, 6]
And here they in the levy era

  • 2009–10: 4th
  • 2011–12: 4th
  • 2015–16: 3rd
  • 2016–17: 2nd
  • 2017–18: 3rd
  • 2018–19: 4th
  • 2021–22: 4th [1, 2]

So not quite as good as thought, but still massively impressive considering the different time frames
Click to expand...

I think ultimately it frames well the club we were TBH. The Cup wins in our history are ABSOLUTELY iconic and we have had those truly glory glory nights, but we have never ever sustained a consistent league campaign in batches, its really odd given the players we have had and our history. I think the closest we can to building a mini dynasty was the 80s when we made some fabulous signings but we never managed to keep the band together and in doing so also saw about our financial woes later in the decade. History full of sliding door moments in truth
 
DTA said:
I love how you are trying to frame it within the time period you want only, didn’t we finish top 2 or 3 in the 20s and 30s? So not like we were non league until the 50s

We were talking about 7 year periods that @Jurgen the German set as a time scale but you changed it to decades.

Let me put it another way under Levy we had 7 top four finishes in our entire history before that…. Just 8.

I might have to double check that stat… because fùck me

If that stat is correct, then in our entire history Levy’s reign accounted for almost half of our top 4 finishes.
Click to expand...
Why are you focused on top 4 finishes. A top 4 finish didn't even mean anything before 99. You might as well say Top 5 finishes or top 2 finishes or top 6. Your fixation on top 4 is only because of the CL qualification and that only became a thing since 99.

Do you see what I was saying about people talking about Top 4 finishes when they didn't even mean anything until 1999. @billyiddo
 
Bishop said:
Why are you focused on top 4 finishes. A top 4 finish didn't even mean anything before 99. You might as well say Top 5 finishes or top 2 finishes or top 6. Your fixation on top 4 is only because of the CL qualification and that only became a thing since 99.

Do you see what I was saying about people talking about Top 4 finishes when they didn't even mean anything until 1999. @billyiddo
Click to expand...

No it actually illustrates my point 😂

You're the one bringing CL in to the discussion here, @DTA is talking league position.

You may not have recieved a 'reward' for finishing at the top end of the table, but of course the aim every league season for teams was/is to do the best you can and finish as high as possible.
 
Bishop said:
Why are you focused on top 4 finishes. A top 4 finish didn't even mean anything before 99. You might as well say Top 5 finishes or top 2 finishes or top 6. Your fixation on top 4 is only because of the CL qualification and that only became a thing since 99.

Do you see what I was saying about people talking about Top 4 finishes when they didn't even mean anything until 1999. @billyiddo
Click to expand...
Even though finishing in the top 4 didn't - as a category - give the direct reward last century that it does today, it is still an objective measure of success in the league.
 
@bil
billyiddo said:
No it actually illustrates my point 😂

You're the one bringing CL in to the discussion here, @DTA is talking league position.

You may not have recieved a 'reward' for finishing at the top end of the table, but of course the aim every league season for teams was/is to do the best you can and finish as high as possible.
Click to expand...
But why pick top 4 and not top 5 or top 6 or top 3 or top 2. Don't be naive, you know why it's top 4 and not any other number and that top 4 is only relevant since 1999.
 
Going round and round in circles to try and prove a point, Levy has gone yet a lot of those that thought he did a poor job can not move on. Or that is how it seems.:rolleyes:
 
Bishop said:
@bil

But why pick top 4 and not top 5 or top 6 or top 3 or top 2. Don't be naive, you know why it's top 4 and not any other number and that top 4 is only relevant since 1999.
Click to expand...

No doubt it's a carry over from the top 4 era of modern football but you can't escape the fact that being one of the best teams in the country is a positive and something teams would be striving for each season - i honestly don't know why you'd be hung up on this.
 
billyiddo said:
No doubt it's a carry over from the top 4 era of modern football but you can't escape the fact that being one of the best teams in the country is a positive and something teams would be striving for each season - i honestly don't know why you'd be hung up on this.
Click to expand...

And if people like it or not, the footballing landscape moved in that being in the CL is alot more impactful on your ambitions than if you are not in it. DL and Tottenham Hotspur were not unique in the importance placed on making the competition, a legacy of which we are seeing in the revenues which impacted YOY to be the club thats able to do what it has done this window.
 
billyiddo said:
No doubt it's a carry over from the top 4 era of modern football but you can't escape the fact that being one of the best teams in the country is a positive and something teams would be striving for each season - i honestly don't know why you'd be hung up on this.
Click to expand...
Because it's such an arbitrary number to decide on. Success would really be Top 1 or Top 2, Top 3 at a stretch. Top 4 literally only started being regarded as anything once the CL place was added. No one paid any attention to who came 4th versus 5th or 6th before 99 that's why I'm hung up on it. It was never a sign of success before 99.
 
Bishop said:
Because it's such an arbitrary number to decide on. Success would really be Top 1 or Top 2, Top 3 at a stretch. Top 4 literally only started being regarded as anything once the CL place was added. No one paid any attention to who came 4th versus 5th or 6th before 99 that's why I'm hung up on it. It was never a sign of success before 99.
Click to expand...

Football changes though, seems weird not to acknowledge that TBH. The whole makeup of football has changed. Winning the LC meant more before football was diluted, even winning the EC last season has been questioned because of the dilution of quality within the comp. So I think we have to look at the landscape of football to determine what means success in modern football and if we like it or not, commercial success means a HUGE chunk on the game. Just look at the arguments about Spurs and Villa PSR etc etc
 
Bishop said:
Because it's such an arbitrary number to decide on. Success would really be Top 1 or Top 2, Top 3 at a stretch. Top 4 literally only started being regarded as anything once the CL place was added. No one paid any attention to who came 4th versus 5th or 6th before 99 that's why I'm hung up on it. It was never a sign of success before 99.
Click to expand...

It's not a sign of success now either, it's just evidence that you were one of the best teams in the league, same as it ever was.

If we were historically, consistently finishing at the higher end of the table it absolutely would be used as an argument for us being one of the biggest teams in the country - historical points tallies are often used in such debates to measure teams. Being a consistent, high performing team over a long period has always been a marker. I don't know why you think this is a modern phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
MartyFunkhouser said:
Football changes though, seems weird not to acknowledge that TBH. The whole makeup of football has changed. Winning the LC meant more before football was diluted, even winning the EC last season has been questioned because of the dilution of quality within the comp. So I think we have to look at the landscape of football to determine what means success in modern football and if we like it or not, commercial success means a HUGE chunk on the game. Just look at the arguments about Spurs and Villa PSR etc etc
Click to expand...
I accept the change although I don't like it (I'm old school enough to think the Champions League should only be for the champions of the league). What I'm critiquing is people retrospectively applying the standards of today to the past.

Talk about top 4 positions since 99, I have no issue with that because that is the era that it became relevant but pre 99 it was not so it's not relevant to those eras.

Again I'll say it, there was no benefit to finishing 4th versus 6th pre 99 so towards the end of a season a team who might be able to finish 4th would not striving to do so because there was no benefit to doing it unlike today where that top 4 and now top 5 finish actually matters and has weight, pressure and a degree of accomplishment attached to it.

Comparing top 4 finishes post 99 and pre 99 is like comparing apples to oranges.
 
Bishop said:
I accept the change although I don't like it (I'm old school enough to think the Champions League should only be for the champions of the league). What I'm critiquing is people retrospectively applying the standards of today to the past.

Talk about top 4 positions since 99, I have no issue with that because that is the era that it became relevant but pre 99 it was not so it's not relevant to those eras.

Again I'll say it, there was no benefit to finishing 4th versus 6th pre 99 so towards the end of a season a team who might be able to finish 4th would not striving to do so because there was no benefit to doing it unlike today where that top 4 and now top 5 finish actually matters and has weight, pressure and a degree of accomplishment attached to it.

Comparing top 4 finishes post 99 and pre 99 is like comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

But as Billy says, finishing as high as you can should always be the aim and shows a marker, given the difficulty of the PL that we improved drastically as a football team in those years post 99, regardless of CL places or not.

The aim 100% should be to do better in all comps too and the lack of silverware is a mark against Levy, but vast improvements as a PL team week in week out can not and should not be ignored or as easily washed away as some make it
 
Last edited:
billyiddo said:
It's not a sign of success now either, it's just evidence that you were one of the best teams in the league, same as it ever was.

If we were historically, consistently finishing at the higher end of the table it absolutely would be used as an argument for us being one of the biggest teams in the country - historical points tallies are often used in such debates to measure teams. Being a consistent, high performing team over a long period has always been a marker. I don't know why you think this is a modern phenomenon.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. If the conversation was top half finishes then cool and you wouldn't see me saying anything. But that wasn't the conversation, the conversation was top 4 as some sort of identifier of high league finishes. Post 99 that is really clear and obvious, pre 99 top 5 or even top 6 had pretty much the same weight as 4th because there no real benefit to finishing 4th versus 5th or 6th.

Pre 99 we should really be talking top 3 finishes. 4th never came into it.
 
Bishop said:
You're missing the point. If the conversation was top half finishes then cool and you wouldn't see me saying anything. But that wasn't the conversation, the conversation was top 4 as some sort of identifier of high league finishes. Post 99 that is really clear and obvious, pre 99 top 5 or even top 6 had pretty much the same weight as 4th because there no real benefit to finishing 4th versus 5th or 6th.

Pre 99 we should really be talking top 3 finishes. 4th never came into it.
Click to expand...

Why is top half finishes any more palatable/less arbitary than top 4?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back