Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Premier League 23-24


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

2 out of 4 English sides finishing rock bottom of their Champions League group which jeopardises the Premier League being one of the countries that is allowed 5 teams in the (stupidly reformatted) competition next year.

Might slightly reduce the "best league in the world" shouts from Sky et al in the short term. 

Hopefully Newcastle or Man U come 5th and fail to qualify as a result of their own ineptness although Newcastle were robbed in Paris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the Premier League is the best league in the world at the moment. It was Serie A in the 90s / early 00s

Finances, viewership and quality all outstrip the other major European leagues

Just because performances in the Champions League aren't up to scratch does not detract from the overall quality of the league. Newcastle pushed some European giants all the way, and whilst they finished bottom, it is no shame in a group of PSG, Dortmund and AC Milan

Edited by Dreams of 1995
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a tweet yesterday mocking the narrative last night about Newcastle being awakened as a "sleeping giant" in this seasons Champions League.

They have won nothing since the 60s, and have they really proven much with 1 win, 2 draws and 3 losses in the group?

They seem to be viewed as plucky underdogs but is that a fair stance? PSG were obvious group favourites but beyond that, Newcastle finished 4th in the best league in the world and have spent loads of oil money. Bruno, Joelinton, Isak, Barnes, Gordon, Botman, Tonali, Trippier, the obligation to sign Hall, its an expensively assembled side. Milan are nothing special and Dortmund are victims of poachers on a yearly basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They happen to be one of just three league clubs in the whole north east of England. Ergo they can attract big crowds and obviously as a result of that there’s a hell of a lot of potential there, especially with an oil state’s sovereign wealth fund backing them.

Good for them, but there’s nowt special about them regardless of what the media makes out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2023 at 18:07, DeeCee said:

I've nothing against Newcastle except the owners.

You're not as old as me, Dee Cee.  I remember their chairman, Lord Westwood. who was also on the committee of the Football League. We had some problem with Glen Keeley coming to us and them stealing our manager, Gordon Lee. Bad blood between the clubs and I, for one, will never forget it. Much prefer the black cats.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazza said:

You're not as old as me, Dee Cee.  I remember their chairman, Lord Westwood. who was also on the committee of the Football League. We had some problem with Glen Keeley coming to us and them stealing our manager, Gordon Lee. Bad blood between the clubs and I, for one, will never forget it. Much prefer the black cats.

Lord Westwood with the patch over one of his eyes. I too despised him when they took Gordon Lee from us after we won promotion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

He also took Graham Oates with him. Plus Roger Jones if my memory serves me well.

Nothing new for poor old Rovers. Ken Furphy went to Sheff Utd taking Tony Field.

Earlier Johnny Carey went to Everton and took Roy Vernon. Such is football.

It was just the nastiness of Westwood and the money that bugged me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just thinking that we old codgers keep reminiscing about things from long ago and I wonder what the younger fans think.

I know what I would have thought if social media had existed in the early 1960s and people had been on there raving about Harry Healless and Sid Puddefoot etc. Then some old fogey comes on and says. "Ah, but did you see Eddie Latheron" blah de blah.

I would have loved it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bazza said:

I was just thinking that we old codgers keep reminiscing about things from long ago and I wonder what the younger fans think.

I know what I would have thought if social media had existed in the early 1960s and people had been on there raving about Harry Healless and Sid Puddefoot etc. Then some old fogey comes on and says. "Ah, but did you see Eddie Latheron" blah de blah.

I would have loved it.

That’s my one regret - that no film exists of games like the 7-2 demolition of Spurs and the Bryan Douglas wonder goal against West Brom. Now there would be.

Edited by Tyrone Shoelaces
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bazza said:

You're not as old as me, Dee Cee.  I remember their chairman, Lord Westwood. who was also on the committee of the Football League. We had some problem with Glen Keeley coming to us and them stealing our manager, Gordon Lee. Bad blood between the clubs and I, for one, will never forget it. Much prefer the black cats.

Apologies, I was home and a lot of aways when that happened so I remember the fallout.

Small beer to what has happened since with other clubs and almost a generation ago but I take your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Looking at the table for that season, it looks like the attacks were definitely better than the defences.

IMG_1403.thumb.jpeg.0930d26d85e8b09685a4e4f013fa5936.jpeg

 

That’s because there was much more emphasise on attacking rather than defending. Most teams had two wingers and two main strikers normally augmented by an attacking playmaker. When the Dingles were a top side each of of the five forwards scored more than 15 goals each in one season.

Nobody parked the bus or came for a draw. Every team that came to Ewood came to win, if they got battered they got battered trying to win. If you watch film from that era there is much more play in the attacking third of the pitch and much less in central midfield. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

That’s because there was much more emphasise on attacking rather than defending. Most teams had two wingers and two main strikers normally augmented by an attacking playmaker. When the Dingles were a top side each of of the five forwards scored more than 15 goals each in one season.

Nobody parked the bus or came for a draw. Every team that came to Ewood came to win, if they got battered they got battered trying to win. If you watch film from that era there is much more play in the attacking third of the pitch and much less in central midfield. 

Sounds wonderful 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.