I would say neither have challenged the hegemony, since it remains firmly in place. For this to work, you would have to define 'challenge' as meaning 'failing repeatedly'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Printable View
I would say neither have challenged the hegemony, since it remains firmly in place. For this to work, you would have to define 'challenge' as meaning 'failing repeatedly'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
I think you exaggerate to suit your agenda. Last season they were significant outsiders for the title throughout the final months and weeks of the season. The season before, WE FINISHED ABOVE THEM!!!!!!!!1111111111111!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
And two years ago? If Spurs challenged (as you claim), then so did we.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Errr, no. THat is according to you. I said Spurs had 'challenged' the hegemony over the last two years by challenging for the title. It was you who brought up the fact that we scraped level on points with them on the last day of the season two years ago. I dont really see how that is relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Ok, so you are saying, presumably, that neither us nor Spurs challenged for the title? Surely you are not claiming we did???Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
United won their treble by fluking a late win against a better side and because Dennis missed a penalty. Yet that is their crowning 'dynastic' achievement. Long-term outcomes hinge on precisely such moments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Agree entirely :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Its Monty's phrase. I simply said that if Spurs had failed to challenge it I would still happily accept what they have achieved as a wooden spoon. I dont really feel the need to challenge the hegemony. I just want to challenge for the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Correct, I don't think either of us have meaningfully challenged. For the past two seasons it's true that Spurs have kept their hopes alive until the last few weeks, but on both occasions they have remained significant outsiders until it was mathematically over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Anyway, aren't we part of the hegemony :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
That is true, but in both seasons they were the only realistic challengers in the closing months of the season. They were also better last year than the year before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
It has actually been an odd few years for the hegemony. Two years ago Chelsea, were dreadful, United not much better and City fairly ****. Last season City and United were average. So challenging them wasn't a huge deal. Of course, two years ago we finished above all three of them. But look where we are now.......
The sickening point is that for the first time in 20 years I would swap places with Spurs. You cant tell me that doesn't play a big part in the current hysteria. Our struggles are hard enough to accept without having to glance over at a good and improving Spurs side.
It's like the class system, I think. To anyone above us, we're contemptibly beneath them. To anyone below us, we're evil oppressors.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
I am taking it to mean United and the doped clubs. We dont have the old or new money to compete with them financially.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
Yes, which is why his logic is all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
Still, we should thank him for joining the thread and fighting the fight. Props to Monty.
He hasn't completely and utterly humiliated himself but he's taken a bloody good run at it.
So, no, then? Nobody can be above the leading or dominant group, can they.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
No. City, Chelsea and United all still hold a significant financial advantage over us and together they remain a hegemony. Part of that is of course legacy-related and will hopefully even out, but certainly not yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
Aren't Liverpool part of it then, because they don't seem to have those things either, but they do have more trophies than all but Manchester United?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Pffft. They have won the league less times than Leicester since football was invented in 1992.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
Although in fairness to him, he has at least managed to drag you into talking finances, again, when you really wanted to discuss Wenger's rubbish football :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
Your initial post on this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
'In other words, no club (whether they've stuck with the same manager or chopped and changed every year or two) has managed to successfully challenge the hegemony of clubs that have either been financially doped or have come from a historical base of being a far bigger and richer club. '
Arsenal on a historical basis are one the biggest clubs in England and we are currently one of the 10 richest clubs in the world. On that basis we would be part of the hegemony.
And please don't tell me that we can't compete with City and Chelsea's money. You aren't really desperate enough to fall back to that one after it has been proven to be such utter nonsense over and over again?
Are you serious?? You think we could start spending that kind of money on a regular basis?Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
I remember reading a Julian Barnes short story in which he imagined heaven. One of the impossible things that happened to him every day was that Leicester won the league. Because, of course, this did seem utterly impossible. :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Fewer times, b. You let Ash off the hook there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I did. Deliberately. I'm turning over a new leaf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
What happens if you turn over an old leaf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I don't know how close we now are to being able to match them financially nowadays - I'd certainly be very surprised if we're on a par.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
But I think a strong legacy factor is at play that makes them more attractive than us, and that is due to factors partly out of our control. I think this holds back Liverpool and Spurs as well.
Groundhog day innit. :shout: :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
No, I meant that you can compete with a club on the pitch without spending the same amount i.e. Leicester, Dortumund, AM and Arsenal 97-04Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
No, but I think his point is that we could conceivably start competing with them at football on a regular basis, regardless of spending money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
These examples show that it is a possibility, not that it is a given. Or a slam-dunk as your sort would put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
Yes, but our argument has been that is it isn't a possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Leicester was a freak one-off, Dortmund only have one direct competitor and AM are (or were) riddled with debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
True, but it means that it is no excuse for not competing for the league for the better part of 10 years when you have the history and the money that Arsenal do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Note I said 'competing for' not 'winning'.
:clap: :clap: :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
I'd like to think you're taking the piss. :-(
Dortmund aren't even the second best team in a one-team league :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
By definition, winning the league over 38 games cannot be a freak occurrence. Leicester's league win demonstrated the fact that there is simply no systemic reason that any club with the right combination of players and management cannot win the league in any given season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
How much money would you bet on such a lowly team winning the league again (without the help of a sugar daddy) in the next decade? Or 20 years? There's a reason why the answer is "not much" - it was a freak season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Equally, going the season unbeaten. Laudable, but ultimately a freak.
Which goes back to your point. The little tinker Monty has managed to drag us back to the financial handicap rather than focusing on what a useless **** Wenger is.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
Fine, but if Leicester can achieve it despite all that, how much worse does that make the fact that a team with our resources and talent hasn't done so for 12 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
Let's be honest, if we'd played to our potential that season, we'd have won the league. The fact we didn't is actually a pretty savage indictment of the character and leadership of that team.
Particularly given that they could have won the league with 71 points that season, underlining just how bad all the 'best' sides were that year. So bad in fact that we finished above them with one of our poorest returns in years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty92
A freak season. We cant even properly challenge for the title in a freak season. THat is how **** we are.