They won six in that time frame plus six facs plus numerous runners up spots in both comps. Like i said, clearly number one for the first 30-40 years.
Evans is right, a lot of fans under estimate how potentially big we could be. Don't the 34 years in the top division mean anything. The 80s in football were pretty bad in terms of attendances. Every club suffered. Two reasons, unemployment and thugs ruining our game. Fences up everywhere.
I know I'm off the topic a bit here but every thug who has ever caused trouble in and around a football ground shares some of the blame for those 96 deaths at Hillborough. Because of the thugs fences were put up. If the fences hadn't been there those people would still be alive.
So although they won 5 titles in the first 12 years of the FL, but none for the subsequent 28, they were still the clearly the number one club? After 28 years without a title? That's crazy talk.
35th? My there is some nonsense in this thread. Somebody please close it and put it out its misery. We averaged nearly 22000 in the championship just a few seasons ago. Highest level of support? How far do you want to go back? 67/68 we averaged 34,000 - that's more people than the Ricoh can hold.
Swindon? They are on a massive upwards spiral, we are at our lowest ebb in decades and we still get more than them. There are at least 6 clubs in the PL who we would get higher averages than if we were there.
If attendances are the true gauge of size (not saying it is btw), then you have to take a look over a long period, not take a silly snapshot and draw meaning from it.
.............. as in much of life size doesnt matter its what you do with it that matters
PNE and Huddersfield fans must be very frustrated..
They won six and six fa cups! Add to that the runners up spots. Of course they were ranked no 1 at the time.
See grendels post. Even now there is an argument to rank them 4th of all time.
Where do you think we sit....
I think about 17th or 18th
This is getting a bit pointless now, but...they didn't win 6 titles in the 28 years subsequent to the 1890's! They won one (in 1909) that I'd missed, and one more in the 1980's, but that means 1 in 30 years-NO club can claim to be clearly the biggest in the land with only a solitary league title in that quantity of time! They can claim to be the best of the 1890's, but you're saying for the first 40 years of the League, not the first decade. If they were that dominant, they'd have won it more than once in the "noughties". And to be the biggest club as you suggest throughout the 1900's, 1910's, and the 1920's, they would have needed more than one league title!
Ahhh.. now I get it, Grendel is a Villa Troll
How big a club are we? We are currently in the bottom half of the Third Division with a set of owners who don't give a damn about getting us promoted so I would say we aren't very big at all. How big could we potentially be? Now that's a totally different question and potentially we should have a fan base able to sustain a top half Championship / bottom half Premiership side but there would have to be a lot of changes before that could happen.
As stated on the crieria which seems reasonable they are 4th.
If you take a straight points tally on all games ever played Aston Villa are 8th with 5197 points off 4438 games the 7 above them are;
Man U
Liverpool
Aresenal
Preston
Wolves
Sheff Utd
Everton
Probably best not to dwell on Coventry's position based on that particular measure.
Do you ever post anything without it being a snide remark about SISU nowadays?
If you look at how historic CCFC are and how long we were in the PL, you have to say we're a pretty big club, but if you've only just got into football and you see where we are now, you'd think we're a pretty small club, so it depends how you look at it
The thugs that caused Hillsborough are called South Yorkshire police.
This is so wrong.
Did you go to Hillsborough in 87? In the QF I got there with 15 mins to go before the kickoff. My feet lifted off the floor because of the crush to get to the turnstiles. I am not exactly small. It was dangerous each time we scored. If you ended up on the floor you were in trouble. Same as if you ended up against any of the barriers. I arrived earlier for the SF because of the crush to get in. Was just as bad during the game though.
The whole thing about who was to blame stinks. The police tried to cover things up. To me though the F.A. were at least as bad. The stadium never had a safety certificate as they should have had. The F.A. would have known this, but still chose Hillsborough to hold these ties. Is it the fault of the police for letting everyone in or the F.A. for chosing Hillsborough for big games? Yes the police tried doing a cover up job, but so did the F.A.
If anyone is ever held accountable for what happened on that dreadful day it should be whoever was in charge that day for the police, anyone who tried to cover up the truth, whoever was in charge of the F.A. for giving such a big game to a ground without a safety certificate and also who was in charge for safety at Hillsborough at the time. The truth is finally out but I can't see anyone being held accountable for what happened.
Nah, loads of clubs move from their "true level". Just watch The Big Match Revisited on ITV4 every week and you'll see plenty of evidence. This week we had Luton battling clear from the top flight relegation zone (thanks partly to a cracking assist by Kirk Stephens), whilst Chelsea dropped into the drop-zone in the third tier (L1 in modern parlance). Luton are now in the BSP, Chelsea at the top of the Premiership. I'd say that Chelsea's "true level" is lower half of the top-flight; Luton's is mid-table Championship.
And don't get me started on Fulham, Wigan, Reading, etc.
I don't think you are correct there, maybe in the second tier yes
This is getting a bit pointless now, but...they didn't win 6 titles in the 28 years subsequent to the 1890's! They won one (in 1909) that I'd missed, and one more in the 1980's, but that means 1 in 30 years-NO club can claim to be clearly the biggest in the land with only a solitary league title in that quantity of time! They can claim to be the best of the 1890's, but you're saying for the first 40 years of the League, not the first decade. If they were that dominant, they'd have won it more than once in the "noughties". And to be the biggest club as you suggest throughout the 1900's, 1910's, and the 1920's, they would have needed more than one league title!
I was having a conversation with a Villa fan, and he said that most clubs never really move from their true level. He used Swindon as an example and said if you think of Swindon you generally think of the third tier. He said (and he wasn't trying to rub my nose in it) that we were a similar entity. Clearly I pointed out the error of his ways...but he went on to say if he imagined all the clubs in the football league he'd rank us about 28th. (Villa 7th..so clearly he's wrong there) Of course there are lots of things you can measure, gates, trophies, length in top flight, history, ground etc, etc.
Where do you think we sit....
I think about 17th or 18th
We're about the size of Doncaster, Barnsley now
I guessed (largely because of how you put the question) that it would be quite low possibly between 50 and 60.
What is interesting is the names of the clubs still in the FL that are below us ...... the "bigger" names are Ipswich, Wigan, Scunthorpe, Doncaster, Peterborough but that's about it the rest are where you might expect, non league or do not exist any more.
Not the most heartening of stats Godiva
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?