Chelsea-Leeds really was a game that enticed football fans. It was basically South vs North, if you were Southern you wanted Chelsea to win, if you were Northern you wanted Leeds to win.
Agreed we were very similar in the late 60s, Chelsea might even have been a tad better excepting the 67 cup final.
Thought that game was pretty even but Spurs nicked it with a speculative shot on the turn from Saul. Spurs managed to hold on to win
Was a good final Drogs, Spurs settled first and that was telling. Their first goal had a large element of luck as it came to Robertson on the rebound though he did strike it well and it was the only thing he did all day
Oh and taken from the Spud board after our little chat: and we thought you were a good egg PowerSpurs!
I didn't mean to cause offence - I've been called clueless and bonkers on here without reacting. But DL's claim that Chelsea were as good as Spurs in the 60s was bound to amuse Spurs fans. While I now understand that he meant the late sixties it is absurd to ignore the three years at the beginning where the gap between the two clubs was its largest ever
Surely all this "mine is bigger" than yours discussion has proved is that there is little between the clubs across a reasonable time spell - we have conceded that the last 15 years are yours but we finished above you for 22 of the previous 25 years - clubs success come in cycles - remember that Man U were close to sacking Ferguson but a cup run saved him and as they say the rest is history. Both Spurs and Chelsea feature as "big" clubs in truth and certainly at the moment Chelsea have the edge. Neither Power nor I have been rude about Chelsea and called them a small club and yet District is rather less generous. For what it is worth I always liked Chelsea as unlike Arsenal I liked the brand of football they played.
I'm only kidding mate We just get quite a lot of your lot on here winding us up (hence why two of your members are banned) so that's probably why district acted in a hostile way but you and Totnum are alright and been able to debate fairly so fair play
'For what it is worth I always liked Chelsea as unlike Arsenal I liked the brand of football they played. ' yeah right .....Plus the fact Arsenal ALWAYS finish higher than the Spuds.........
I didn't say that. I said over the entire decade. If you read my posts I acknowledge Spurs were better than us in the early 60s but not the mid 60s and certainly not the late 60s.
It depends on how you define a big club and the division they are in. Wrexham are a big club, as are Luton, York and probably Grimsby, they are way too big to be in the divisions they are in and are IMO bigger than Wigan who are a Premier League club. Domestically I believe Spurs are a big club, certainly when comparing them to England and Wales' elite, but in comparison to Barca, AC Milan, Inter, Real, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea etc then Spurs are small. Worldwide Spurs are nowhere near the size of Chelsea or Arsenal, but domestically I'd argue they are of similar stature if you get what I mean?
Touch a nerve there did I Bergkamp? No - for many many years Arsenal were no more successful than Spurs - certainly not from the late 50s when I started being interested in football - and the boring boring Arsenal chants were justified - it is only since Wenger arrived that your football has been worth watching - but in the last few years you seem to have learned from us - be entertaining but not win too much - or in your case anything for the last 6 years
Domestically I believe Spurs are a big club, certainly when comparing them to England and Wales' elite, but in comparison to Barca, AC Milan, Inter, Real, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea etc then Spurs are small. get ready to duck