Other clubs' 'glory years'

[90sSpursBook]

It dawned on me the other day how since I've supported Spurs (late 80's) all of:

L'Arse ('89 - '94 and '98 - 2005)
Chelski ('05 - )
Man Utd ('90 - ) and
Emirates Marketing Project (2011 - )

have all had the most successful periods in their club histories and we've had to live through it. Is this just a coincidence or is it endemic of the way that clubs have been able to dominate nowadays?

I know Liverpool had their day in the 70s and 80s but our glory years between 61 and 67 saw us win 1 league title, 3 FA Cups and 1 European trophy. Hard to envisage us ever getting anywhere near that. '81 - '84 was our renaissance but again short lived.

 

[Baleforce]

not sure it's city's glory years yet, the late 60's team probably still edge it, they won a european trophy I think

 

[Neymar]

i think football's a bit different nowadays. i could be chatting total bs here, but it seems like it was 'easier' to win league titles in the past. and also once teams got promoted, i dont think they were as much of an underdog as they are now. the title seemed to have changed hands between more clubs too. i think thats why clough managed to acheive what he did. i'm not sure he could repeat that feat now tbh. the gap btween different sets of teams is probably to big to bridge now imo.

for a team like us to have another a 'successful period' (successful being winning nuerous titles), i think we probably need a buyout from a multi billionaire. football has changed too much now, and become too polarised even within the same league.

 

[SteveAWOL]

I've also been a fan since the late 1980s and (barring some miracle) doubt I'll ever see Spurs become regular title challengers in my lifetime but I still hold out hope of us ending that quarter century wait for a major trophy so we might at least re-establish our reputation of being a cup-team, like we were back in the days of Nicholson and Burkinshaw...

 

[Mr_B]

it could be worse, we could be supporting blackpool

 

[milo]

i think football's a bit different nowadays. i could be chatting total bs here, but it seems like it was 'easier' to win league titles in the past. and also once teams got promoted, i dont think they were as much of an underdog as they are now. the title seemed to have changed hands between more clubs too. i think thats why clough managed to acheive what he did. i'm not sure he could repeat that feat now tbh. the gap btween different sets of teams is probably to big to bridge now imo.

for a team like us to have another a 'successful period' (successful being winning nuerous titles), i think we probably need a buyout from a multi billionaire. football has changed too much now, and become too polarised even within the same league.

That's nonsense, the league was far harder to win in the past because the league was more evenly matched.

 

[Baleforce]

and for a long time a win was only 2 points, you didn't have subs, you didn't have 25 man squads

 

[Spurs7891]

it could be worse, we could be supporting blackpool

Or Saudi Sportswashing Machine ! Atleast teams like Blackpool don't have any more ambitions nowdays. But look at Saudi Sportswashing Machine. They always seems like being too ambitious despite not winning any major trophies since 1955.

 

[SteveAWOL]

Or Saudi Sportswashing Machine ! Atleast teams like Blackpool don't have any more ambitions nowdays. But look at Saudi Sportswashing Machine. They always seems like being too ambitious despite not winning any major trophies since 1955.

Even Huddersfield Town (the first English club to win 3 consecutive titles) and Wolves (champions 3 times in 5 years) managed to dominate the league for a few years each during their own 'glory days' but fans of those clubs would probably just be glad to see them play in the top division nowadays!

 

[Neymar]

That's nonsense, the league was far harder to win in the past because the league was more evenly matched.

but that made it far easier to win for the majority of the teams. now, because of the uneveness, only a select few clubs have a chance to win.

and in absolute terms, its undeniably harder to win now, due to increased ability of the players at the top clubs. but i didnt mean that statement in this manner.

 

[jts1882]

Agreed. In one sense it was harder to win because it is more competitive. For instance, we only won it once in the 60s and only Liverpool and United won it twice in that decade. A good second division side could become serious challengers (us under Rowe, Shakley's Liverpool and Clough's Forest).

But now the real challengers are more established and it's harder for others to break into the group. Since the CL expansion, only Chelsea and City broken the established elite, with notable financial backing, and Leeds crashed trying. It's virtually impossible for anyone else to win.

 

[milo]

but that made it far easier to win for the majority of the teams. now, because of the uneveness, only a select few clubs have a chance to win.

and in absolute terms, its undeniably harder to win now, due to increased ability of the players at the top clubs. but i didnt mean that statement in this manner.

I do not understand how you can draw that conclusion. A more even league means that it is harder for teams to dominate and as Galeforce pointed out less points for a win, not having subs and not having large squads made it harder for the big teams to dominate.

Unfortunately, the Champions League has just locked in an advantage for clubs at the top of the Premier League. The only clubs that have successfully broken the cartel have been funded by foreign benefactors and several clubs have ruined themselves financially trying to break in but without billionaire backing.

 

[NorwegianSpursFan]

I think what is ment is that everyone had a chance to win the league, not that it was easier to do it.