Does Redknapp have what it takes to be England manager?

It is an age thing really - for anyone 25 or less they will only have seen the Chelsea Spurs rivalry as favouring Chelsea - there is no doubt that Chelsea have done much better than us since the Premiership began. However I started going to Spurs in the late 50s and across those years until 1997 Spurs finished ahead of Chelsea 37 times to Chelsea's 9 - as a Spurs fan we did not even consider Chelsea as we had rivalry only with Arsenal

Yes we have always been a cup team but you only equalled our number of league wins in 2006 and are now only one ahead of us which does not make you exactly great. All your statistics relate to the last 6 years in terms of achievements - so you went 100 years with little or no success - and that made you a big club and Spurs small. I don't think so

 

This is not rocket science - for the last 15 years Chelsea have been better than Spurs. But for the 90 years before that Spurs were better than Chelsea. If this makes Chelsea a 'big' club and Spurs a 'small' club then you are using English in a different way to me.

 

Absolute bull. You can't solely measure teams on who has been better than who? And you certainly can't use certain time periods just to suit your arguments. I could do just the same.

In the early years of our formation we got by far the largest gates

Football always has been and always will be a game of swings and roundabouts.

Spurs were better than us in the 80s and in the mid 70s, no Chelsea fan will deny that, but that was largely down to problems of our own (mainly financial).

In the 50s and 60s we were as good as Spurs. In the early years after WW2 we were much better than Spurs as we were also in the years before WW2

Other than the 20s, 70s and 80s Spurs haven't been better than Chelsea.

Chelsea were much better than Spurs in the 30s, 90s and 00s.

The problem is with fans of Spurs, Liverpool etc who like to play the history card is that when they use it their lack of knowledge becomes apparent.

Man City were a bigger club than Man Utd before WW2.
Everton were a bigger club than Liverpool before the 70s.
Arsenal were probably the 4th best London team in the 60s and had home gates that were at times over 10 times lower than Chelsea's and Spurs.

Fans of these clubs wouldn't know that though.

 

Actually 2 more than you but its clear you didn't see many games from the late 50's onwards.

 

Love that District

 

Er - let's use your favoured time periods and check the league form then. In the 50s both Spurs and Chelsea won the league once. Spurs average position was 11th, Chelsea's 13th. In the 60s Spurs won the league once and Chelsea not at all. Spurs average league position was 4th, Chelsea's 14th. (Spurs also won the FA Cup three times and a European trophy). Arsenal's average league position in the 60s was 9th. How can this possibly tally with your claims above.

In the 90s Chelsea's average league position was 9th and Spurs 10th obviously Chelsea were 'much better'.

In the 00's Chelsea were much better, averaging 3rd against Spurs 9th but we were closer to you in the 00s than you were to us in the 60s.

So since the war Spurs have been clearly ahead in two decades, Chelsea in one and there have been two with Spurs slightly ahead and one with Chelsea slightly ahead.

You may well be right about the earlier dates - no time to check, but you clearly don't know your history as much as you think you do.

 

Disagree with averages to be honest, we were ****e in the early 90's compared with the mid-late bringing our average down a lot whereas you lot finished mid table all the time for nigh on 20 years! Not using this to insult you or wind you up, just my opinion. Our 98 team was a lot better than any you had in the 90's!

 

A fair point possibly although our 1990 finish was third - same as the best you did. My main issue was District Line saying Chelsea were about the same in the 60s. This is particularly silly. At that time your best players (Greaves and Venables) both jumped ship for 'bigger clubs' and ended up with us.

 

Averages (mean) are bollocks everybody knows that extreme results have a huge bearing (that's common sense and basic maths).

Liverpool won the league a decade after they were relegated, that would hugely distort the average of their league position between those two years.

You are proving to be clueless in debate, you need to come up with a better constructed argument although to be fair there isn't one, because in no way can Spurs be defined as a bigger club than Chelsea or even as big as for reasons which other Chelsea posters have already suggested

But anyway..

please log in to view this image

 

So when Beardsley left Liverpool for Everton they were "bigger"? How about when Judas left us for Arsenal and then left Arsenal for Spurs?

In all of the above cases it was a step down.

Players don't always cross the divide to join the bigger club like Sol Campbell did when he left Spurs to join Arsenal

Despite all his talent Greaves never won the league with Spurs, something he could have realistically achieved at Chelsea at the time

 

OK - over to you. Provide evidence for your claim that Chelsea were as good as Spurs in the 60s, A decade where Spurs won 5 trophies by the way.

 

rather apt

Just joking but in all seriousness we had a bloody amazing team in the 60's and 70's, as did you lot.

 

Also rubbish, Arsenal's and Chelsea's gates were almost identical in the 60s. Spurs gates were much bigger

 

In the early 60s yes, but not when you began to decline. In the late 60s Chelsea had larger gates than Spurs and the biggest in London.

 

Agreed - best game I ever saw was Spurs at Stamford Bridge sometime in the early 70s. Poured with rain but both sides were fantastic.

But no-one can seriously think that Chelsea were as good as Spurs over the whole decade

 

Agreed, not in terms of success but I think some of the players we had could've matched yours! Just look at our 1970 cup winning line up!

 

Again not factually correct, 1969 was the only year when Chelsea had higher gates and then only just. Every other year Spurs were massively bigger

 

The Spurs 61 side with Blanchflower as captain and Bill Nich as manager was probably the best of that era, no honest football fan could deny that but when that side declined in 63, there was really nothing in it between Chelsea and Spurs.

In the early 60s Spurs beat us all the time, but in the mid 60s it was the opposite.

 

69/70 we had by your definition "massively" bigger gates as well.

Plus it only takes into account home following.

In the 70s and 80s our away support was larger than Spurs and much larger than Arsenal's. We were only behind United and Liverpool and they were much more successful than us so attracted gloryhunters as apposed to true football fans.

 

An excellent side and I enjoyed watching them beat Leeds, but I don't think many of them would have got in our double winning side, maybe Charlie Cooke