United have always been a wonderfully supported club long before Sir Alex or the premier league era, basic research and one look at attendance figures down the years tells you that, even now City still struggle to fill out the council house, its not even a big stadium, United have always been the better supported club of the two, Manchester has always been red dominant.
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
I'd have Everton as a bigger club than Villa, Chelsea, Spurs or City going on the criteria you seem to be.
There certainly in the same group at the very least.
What about Leeds as well?
agree with that.
Not much between Ciddy and Chav$ though. Maybe Ciddy marginally "bigger" but similar shite.
All piss taking aside here for one moment but have City ever really been recognised as a big club? i cant speak for the years before my time obviously but i talk to my father and uncle about football years ago on occasions and i never get the feeling City have ever really been seen as a big football club, much the opposite in fact, even today i work with many varying football fans and none of them consider City anything more than a small club with a lot of money.
Its not like they are littered with success of yester year either is it? i dont see any feature regarding them that translates them to the big club scale as it were, id rank at the very least 6-8 current premier league clubs as bigger clubs than City myself.
Its not like they are littered with success of yester year either is it? i dont see any feature regarding them that translates them to the big club scale as it were, id rank at the very least 6-8 current premier league clubs as bigger clubs than City myself.
When I was growing up the five biggest clubs in English football were recognised as United, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal and Spurs.
They were seen as the five biggest and most glamorous English clubs based on tradition, history, success and well known players. It was not as if they were all hugely successful at that time either Arsenal, Spurs and United were all on long title droughts at that period.
I'd have City as probably the next biggest alongside Villa outside of that group of clubs. Feck all with the Abramovichs of this world has made me alter that perception yet but give it another ten years and you would have to seriously recheck that.
Id rate:
Manchester United
Liverpool
Arsenal
Tottenham
Chelsea
Aston Villa
Everton
Newcastle
As clubs all bigger than City currently in the premier league, Leeds of course are a bit shit these days but as a club id say they are bigger than City, you can add Nottingham Forrest to that list to, their history is vastly superior to Citys.
Manchester United
Liverpool
Arsenal
Tottenham
Chelsea
Aston Villa
Everton
Newcastle
As clubs all bigger than City currently in the premier league, Leeds of course are a bit shit these days but as a club id say they are bigger than City, you can add Nottingham Forrest to that list to, their history is vastly superior to Citys.
It depends on what you mean by size? If you add up all the attendances over the years then City are probably in the top 6. Success wise I am not certain on this but City should be in the top 15 in the country. At the minute City have the 4th highest attendance in the league plus one of the highest turnovers in Europe. Yes we may not be as big as United but so what? Historicaly United have beat Citys average attendance every year since the 40's but before that it was City who pretty much came on top before that. Admitedly up untill the 40's a LOT of mancunians used to go City one week and then United the next. During the 30's City were getting record breaking crowds while United were on the verge of bankruptcy and lucky to get 10000 fans. things change in football as you can see but if you look deeply you can see Uniteds history is not sompletely illustrious.
At the minute City as I have stated got the 4th highest crowd in the country. We get that even though we have not won a trophy for 34 years and have spent a lot of our time yo yoing between the divisions. Added to that we come from the same City as United and come from one of the most socially deprived areas in the entire country so City do fantasticaly well really attendance wise. Success wise we can only be rated as an average club but thats history. No one can doubt City are a challenge on the pitch no for everyone and thats what its important.
United fans going on about City not being a big club is just like City fans saying all United fans come from London. Its a load of shite but it gets used to wind up the opposition
Newton Heath Dave,
I would like to hear your honest assessment about how many percent of the people in Manchester are red and how many are blue. From my personal experience it has got to be something like 70 to 30 or 80 to 20 for the red half.
BTW: The other day I met a blue guy from Salford called Dave here (somewhere in continental Europe) who supported City. Was a good chap who knew his football.
I would like to hear your honest assessment about how many percent of the people in Manchester are red and how many are blue. From my personal experience it has got to be something like 70 to 30 or 80 to 20 for the red half.
BTW: The other day I met a blue guy from Salford called Dave here (somewhere in continental Europe) who supported City. Was a good chap who knew his football.
It's amazing how many people have managed to kid themselves that Manchester United somehow became the huge club it is some time in 1993. And for no apparent reason. The fact is we've had the highest average attendance in English football for all but six seasons since 1964/65.
The City fans Booed at full time. fecking hell 
The City fans Booed at full time. fecking hell
To be fair, when you don't get the £300m+ team of Galactico's doing what it says on the brochure and actually trying to win against a team costing less than half that sum...
On a serious note, what bitter morons they are, and they say we're spoilt
Remember when they tried to say that 'watching City is like watching Brazil'? I wouldn't quite say it's Brazil at the moment.
Dave, i think your seemingly large crowd has a lot to do with your BOGOF and kids for a fiver offers. You lot will have to start coughing up soon!!
Mancini would be sacked in 12 hours if he managed Madrid.
Stoke or Wigan would be more like it, hang on that would be a discredit to Wigan, all that money for that pile of cowardly rubbish. It may have been a draw but there is only one team in Manchester coming out with any credit and it aint City
Stoke is more accurate. Wigan try to play football, but aren't good at it usually.
I can't see any threads on Bluemoon, it's just a horrible light blue page! Can anyone else see threads?
Let me guess:
They dominated us, the ref was paid off, We were lucky to get a draw, they had the best chances of the match etc etc etc.
It would be refreshing if just one of them had the balls to admit they were utterly pawned tonight and were holding on for dear life all second half.
300 million and still second best, even on their own pitch, without our 1 man team
They dominated us, the ref was paid off, We were lucky to get a draw, they had the best chances of the match etc etc etc.
It would be refreshing if just one of them had the balls to admit they were utterly pawned tonight and were holding on for dear life all second half.
300 million and still second best, even on their own pitch, without our 1 man team
The bitters are on fine form tonight.
Bluemoon • View topic - Interesting story about Camelgob
Shame he didn't hand it in 3 months ago before having Tevez in his back pocket tonight aint it.
Bluemoon • View topic - Interesting story about Camelgob
Shame he didn't hand it in 3 months ago before having Tevez in his back pocket tonight aint it.
How fecking negative. If they'd gone for it against you I reckon they'd have got the result.
Please stay Mancini.
Please stay Mancini.
Let me guess:
They dominated us, the ref was paid off, We were lucky to get a draw, they had the best chances of the match etc etc etc.
It would be refreshing if just one of them had the balls to admit they were utterly pawned tonight and were holding on for dear life all second half.
300 million and still second best, even on their own pitch, without our 1 man team
Pawned?
Match was a draw, unless you were watching some other game.....
Let me guess:
They dominated us, the ref was paid off, We were lucky to get a draw, they had the best chances of the match etc etc etc.
It would be refreshing if just one of them had the balls to admit they were utterly pawned tonight and were holding on for dear life all second half.
300 million and still second best, even on their own pitch, without our 1 man team
I noticed one thread exactly like this
The result was a draw, the match was heavily one sided and with only one team looking to win, considering the euphoria and arrogance thats come from City ahead of this game and all the money they've spent i was embarrassed for them tonight, they played like a relegation candidate all hands on deck to knick a point, they did so, but in front of their own fans were out footballed by their most hated enemies.
I agree, only one team came out to play. Which is strange considering the players City have at their disposal... I'd have thought this would be a good time to try and go all out against United, Mancini is just too scared.
MaineBlue.co.uk » Blog Archive » Manchester City 0 – 0 The Rags ™: Match Report
"Rag" count = 16
Slight overkill maybe?
"Rag" count = 16
Slight overkill maybe?
Its not in Mancinis nature to attack, his line ups have consistently revolved around a 'we must not lose first' mantra and well you get what you deserve in this game, City will never win anything under his management you dont win big titles when your so dire and negative before a balls even been kicked, even with all our problems going into this match Ferguson would never and has never sent out a team to just not lose, not in his make up, no top manager sends out a team that way which is why i was proud of the team tonight and why City fans should be shamed of theirs.
You might also say that Mancini looked at our side and accepted we had the better and the more match winning players on the pitch which also aided his decision to go all out defence from the off, you say given the players City have at their disposal but who are those players you speak of? i think Citys squad is massively overhyped and the starting eleven for them tonight contained only 2 genuine attacking players, it wasn't a strong team certainly in an attacking sense, so maybe at the end of the day a draw was a good result for City.
But that's just it, United don't have more match winners on the pitch. I could count two/maybe three - Nani, the ageless Scholes and Berbatov, with the latter struggling lately. I suppose you could argue Vidic can be a match winner, or match saver as it were.
But still, City have more potential match winners than United. Balotelli, Silva, Tevez, Adebayor, Johnson... All potential match winners. Yes you probably couldn't have them all on the pitch at any one time, but you could get three of them on here and have a crack.
I read on their site that Milner was played out of position on the Left Wing to stop United's fullbacks attacking! I mean WTF? If that isn't a defeatist attitude then I'll eat my foot. They should've just have a crack, they went out there like a team like they were out of form and trying to hold onto their position on the ladder.
But still, City have more potential match winners than United. Balotelli, Silva, Tevez, Adebayor, Johnson... All potential match winners. Yes you probably couldn't have them all on the pitch at any one time, but you could get three of them on here and have a crack.
I read on their site that Milner was played out of position on the Left Wing to stop United's fullbacks attacking! I mean WTF? If that isn't a defeatist attitude then I'll eat my foot. They should've just have a crack, they went out there like a team like they were out of form and trying to hold onto their position on the ladder.
United started with Berbatov/Nani/Scholes/Park who are all potential match winners, City started with Silva and Tevez and packed the midfield with defenders United had more potential match winners on that pitch tonight than City did as well as an attack minded player in midfield capable of scoring added to an attacking ambition not one of Citys midfielders had, when you consider we were also without Rooney, Valencia and Giggs tonight among others then no City don't have more match winners, the only guy who's scored consistently for them all season is Tevez.
I think your one of the few who've fallen into the trap of listening to all the hype, just look at Citys team every time they play a big game, at most they play with 2 genuine forward thinking players the rest of the team is there to defend against the oppositions threats.
I can't really see the difference between attacking players and match winners...
If you're going to include Park, who is the epitome of average coupled with excellent work-rate, then you might as well include every other player that played that match. And I know Rooney was out, I was just talking about players who were on the pitch/available.
I know City's players are yet to gel in an attacking sense (mostly because they haven't been given the chance) and all that, but with those players you might as well have a crack - otherwise what's the point of having shelled out huge money for them?
I know City's players are yet to gel in an attacking sense (mostly because they haven't been given the chance) and all that, but with those players you might as well have a crack - otherwise what's the point of having shelled out huge money for them?
Well Balotelli was suspended, but I do agree that the other 4 can be a matchwinner if Mancini let them.
You included Balotelli, who wasn't available tonight.
Park won us the match against wolves a few days ago and in doing so scored more goals in 1 game than any other city player Bar Tevez in that city starting line up today has all season, so im perfectly entitled to include him, hes far from a great player but you as much as any fan should well know his ability to score goals and win matches.
Woopsies re: Balotelli.
And fair point on Park. But personally I think he's not a match winner in the sense that he can be consistently relied upon to win you matches. Yes, he's bobbed up before, but a consistent match winner he is not. If he was at Arsenal I'd prefer him off the pitch than on it, but really that's just me.
Park wouldn't have been anywhere near our starting eleven tonight had we had our full compliment available.
Neither would have Berba.
Full compliment of players.
Nani -Rooney-Valencia front three
Yup probably although considering Rooneys form this season i wouldn't say hes an automatic choice, Valencia is also a very underrated player and a huge miss for us.
Typical Arsenal viewpoint matchwinners are always attacking players. No wonder you have won jack in the last 5 years.
Matchwinners can ALSO BE DEFENDERS AND MIDFIELDERS etc - anyone who makes a difference. We have Vidic, Rio, VDs who are matchwinners because they stop the opposition from scoring.
To be honest we are doing well enough without Rooney. Berba is doing just fine as is the rest of the attack.
Valencia would be nice to have around. It's that we have had a real bad run of injuries.