Rotherham fixtures compared to ours man FFS...

Benjamin said:
Too simplistic. Sunderland by 1958 were no longer one of biggest clubs in England other than historical accumulation of trophies when hardly anyone else were competing. Even by late 1950s they were 20 years away from most recent trophy success. And those trophies were over 20 years from the previous ones.
Click to expand...

I guess you're right, yet Sunderland were still a really big club in the mid-fifties. From the late 40s two newly heavyweight clubs emerged that have remained a force ever since and both have only spent a single year outside the top division subsequently - ManU and Tottenham.
Why sack Durban said:
Say it’s the top ten are classed as the biggest . Who were bigger than Sunderland then ?
Click to expand...

The richest and most powerful club was Arsenal. ManU and Wolves were the two dominant teams in the 50s, followed by Tottenham. Newcastle were serial winners of the F.A Cup but, as ever, were in perpetual turmoil. Sunderland were a fading force, for sure, but were (I believe) the only ever-present club in the First division until May 1958. Everton, Liverpool and Aston Villa were certainly regarded as among the biggest clubs in the 50s, but it wasn't a vintage decade for any of them.
 
Last edited:


Sidewinder2 said:
If everyone else is so shite why are we eighth despite playing more games than every single club in the.league bar one ?


This

We are 8th despite playing more league games than every other team bar one. We are where we deserve to be, nobody's fault but our own.

People saying we could go on a run etc, in our previous game we just got beat off a team.who.hadnt won In 19 games or something.
Click to expand...
The clue is in my post. We are crap as well. Plus other side's have a better manager getting more than the sum of their parts out of their resources
 
Somtam said:
I guess you're right, yet Sunderland were still a really big club in the mid-fifties. From the late 40s two newly heavyweight clubs emerged that have remained a force ever since and both have only spent a single year outside the top division subsequently - ManU and Tottenham.


The richest and most powerful club was Arsenal. ManU and Wolves were the two dominant teams in the 50s, followed by Tottenham. Newcastle were serial winners of the F.A Cup but, as ever, were in perpetual turmoil. Sunderland were a fading force, for sure, but were (I believe) the only ever-present club in the First division until May 1958. Everton, Liverpool and Aston Villa were certainly regarded as among the biggest clubs in the 50s, but it wasn't a vintage decade for any of them.
Click to expand...
Liveroool and Everton spent a big chunk not even in the first division .Sunderland’s record , fan base and ambition compared to Liverpool and Everton . We were one of the England’s biggest clubs. Disingenuous to suggest otherwise
 
Benjamin said:
Too simplistic. Sunderland by 1958 were no longer one of biggest clubs in England other than historical accumulation of trophies when hardly anyone else were competing. Even by late 1950s they were 20 years away from most recent trophy success. And those trophies were over 20 years from the previous ones.
Click to expand...

You’re one sad obsessed wanker
 
PJH said:
But the merits of getting promotion from a league is how you perform against all of the league, not just those around you. If just results against teams around you mattered, in future should playoffs be scrapped in favour of just looking at results from teams in 3rd to 6th against each other?
Click to expand...

If you don't have the opportunity to play the full slate of games, a head-to-head comparison eliminates the strength-of-schedule bias that is propping up some of the teams.
 
Why sack Durban said:
Liveroool and Everton spent a big chunk not even in the first division .Sunderland’s record , fan base and ambition compared to Liverpool and Everton . We were one of the England’s biggest clubs. Disingenuous to suggest otherwise
Click to expand...

Everton, one of the original twelve members of the Football League, have only spent 4 years outside to top division. They have finished in the top 79 out of 121 seasons. It's not a club I like at all, but these statistics alone and not including trophies or attendances or money, suggest there is no bigger club in England. It just so happens the 1950s was their least successful decade.
 
Somtam said:
Everton, one of the original twelve members of the Football League, have only spent 4 years outside to top division. They have finished in the top 79 out of 121 seasons. It's not a club I like at all, but these statistics alone and not including trophies or attendances or money, suggest there is no bigger club in England. It just so happens the 1950s was their least successful decade.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the opinion on the size of Everton it remains Sunderland were on a number of levels one of England’s biggest clubs
 
Why sack Durban said:
Liveroool and Everton spent a big chunk not even in the first division .Sunderland’s record , fan base and ambition compared to Liverpool and Everton . We were one of the England’s biggest clubs. Disingenuous to suggest otherwise
Click to expand...

Liverpool's least successful decade was also the 1950s. They have only finished a solitary season outside the top 26 clubs.
I
Why sack Durban said:
Regardless of the opinion on the size of Everton it remains Sunderland were on a number of levels one of England’s biggest clubs
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Last edited:
PaulG said:
If you don't have the opportunity to play the full slate of games, a head-to-head comparison eliminates the strength-of-schedule bias that is propping up some of the teams.
Click to expand...
Strength bias only really counts if there are a team or two who are woeful and don't pick up many points. All of the teams in this group of 7 have had runs of form, good and bad. We've had good form and might have taken points of teams around us during that time. But we might have lost points to a team towards the bottom hitting some form, when another team played them when they were in bad form.

All the table tells is a story so far. All head to head mini table tell you is how the results went against those teams. Doesn't factor in form at the time, strikers in goal scoring form, injury/suspension crisis, weather factors or anything else that can help determine the outcome of a game.

We beat Bristol Rovers 3-0. 4 games later they beat us 2-0 after they lost to couldn't buy a point recently Southend. That's part of the whole beauty of football. Results on the day can be something you don't expect. Which is why how you do over the entire season is the true reflection of the team. We should know this as Sunderland fans as we've had many years of being shite then bouncing into some stupid bit of form, a few upset results and another miracle survival happens. Did the teams we beat then complain that they missed out on a higher spot because the teams above them played us when we were shit?
 
PJH said:
Strength bias only really counts if there are a team or two who are woeful and don't pick up many points. All of the teams in this group of 7 have had runs of form, good and bad. We've had good form and might have taken points of teams around us during that time. But we might have lost points to a team towards the bottom hitting some form, when another team played them when they were in bad form.

All the table tells is a story so far. All head to head mini table tell you is how the results went against those teams. Doesn't factor in form at the time, strikers in goal scoring form, injury/suspension crisis, weather factors or anything else that can help determine the outcome of a game.

We beat Bristol Rovers 3-0. 4 games later they beat us 2-0 after they lost to couldn't buy a point recently Southend. That's part of the whole beauty of football. Results on the day can be something you don't expect. Which is why how you do over the entire season is the true reflection of the team. We should know this as Sunderland fans as we've had many years of being shite then bouncing into some stupid bit of form, a few upset results and another miracle survival happens. Did the teams we beat then complain that they missed out on a higher spot because the teams above them played us when we were shit?
Click to expand...

Man, you are belabouring this. We're in extenuating circumstances and the season will likely be called short and promotion decisions made based upon incomplete results. It was simply an alternative way of assessing which of the teams in a very tight group of seven were more deserving of promotion based upon their performance against the others in the group.
 
We are a massive club ,46,000 in the third div.We own our ground and academy,and will rise again.Things look bleak but change in football can happen very quickly 2017 to 2020 backs this up
 
SAFC will only support PPG/etc. if it is to its advantage.
Just like every other club in the league.
It was always Dog Eat Dog, but now moreso than ever.
We need to clutch at every straw that gives us a chance to get out of this league, however tenuous.
 
Benjamin said:
Too simplistic. Sunderland by 1958 were no longer one of biggest clubs in England other than historical accumulation of trophies when hardly anyone else were competing. Even by late 1950s they were 20 years away from most recent trophy success. And those trophies were over 20 years from the previous ones.
Click to expand...
Of course we were ya gonk.
 
BNM said:
SAFC will only support PPG/etc. if it is to its advantage.
Just like every other club in the league.
It was always Dog Eat Dog, but now moreso than ever.
We need to clutch at every straw that gives us a chance to get out of this league, however tenuous.
Click to expand...

Taking us out of the equation it's still a million miles from being fair. It's absolute bollocks to judge it on a random stopping point and incomplete fixtures and the people who started that stupid idea have a lot to answer for.
Either;
- restart and play them all this season
- play off with all of those with a mathematical possibility even id weighted
- cancel the season for all
- postpone the play till next season

These are the only things that have any level of fairness and equality. The rest is just some stupid idea.
 
Wycombe & Rotherham & Coventry make me sick these tin pot clubs have to vote against the integrity of competition & League....
 
PaulG said:
Man, you are belabouring this. We're in extenuating circumstances and the season will likely be called short and promotion decisions made based upon incomplete results. It was simply an alternative way of assessing which of the teams in a very tight group of seven were more deserving of promotion based upon their performance against the others in the group.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't for Wycombe's game in hand, just using the current position would be fairer than just working out some mini league of apparent deserved positions. We've played two more games than Wycombe and are equal on points with them. But since they've only taken 4 points in this 7 team cabal, they're apparently the least deserving team to be considered even though a 1-0 win in their game in hand on the others would be enough to put them second.

It's a worse situation as I pointed out earlier in the thread for relegation places. Tranmere 3 points from equaling safety with a game in hand. Bottom line is there is no fair way to decide the league without playing more games. Championship relegation is precarious with 3 points separating 17th to 22nd. It just feels like voiding is the next best option after finishing the games. Award titles, but no promotions or relegations.
 
sir rowell cummins said:
Taking us out of the equation it's still a million miles from being fair. It's absolute bollocks to judge it on a random stopping point and incomplete fixtures and the people who started that stupid idea have a lot to answer for.
Either;
- restart and play them all this season
- play off with all of those with a mathematical possibility even id weighted
- cancel the season for all
- postpone the play till next season

These are the only things that have any level of fairness and equality. The rest is just some stupid idea.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
The season must be finished by playing the games.
That is the only way to keep the integrity of the competition (as if thats what they're worried about! :lol:) and the lawyers at bay.
 

Back
Top