You are only as good as your last game. And you lost. To us. History only remembers winners. So History will remember that in 2012, Liverpool won the league cup. What will it remember about Spurs? Not alot. Enjoy your 15 minutes in the limelight. The difference between us is that when you fall down the hierarchy, we will have better things to do than wallow in your demise.
did you win it,idon't remember that ,i though Chelsea did,that's ****ed your history only remembers winner's,it only remember's Good winner's,you weren't good.
History doesn't remember St Mirren winning the Anglo Scottish Cup. Or Utd getting trounced by Derby in the first final of the Watney Cup.
They will if they're old enough and read your post Luke. Anyway the 'press' have a habit of airbrushing away anything about Utd's past failings.
As Churchill once said History is written by the victors and more often than not over the last 50 years (older generation of football fan) the victors have been United and Liverpool with Everton, Arsenal and Spurs having relative success in between, that was until the mid 90s when the "natural order" began to change. First Jack Walker at Blackburn then Matthew Harding at Chelsea. Chelsea dubbed "The club with no history" yet historically have been by far and away the best supported club in London in comparison to success, also the first to qualify for the European cup. The Chelsea side of the late 60s with Cooke, Osgood and co absolutely annihilated European Champions Manchester United at Old Trafford, it was a truly great side but never has nor will be remembered like current Chelsea sides partly due to the fact it underachieved given the undeniable talent. Arsenal the club that have a "tradition of attractive football". Clearly days of Herbert Chapman and George Graham, the foundations of The Arsenal's success are long gone. Liverpool the club "with a great history". Undeniable but before the 70s, Everton were arguably the bigger and more successful club. United dubbed the "perennial top dogs", "superior to noisy neighbours City" - Again, City were much better than United for large periods during the 60s and into the 70s. Spurs "The underdog" compared to Chelsea and Arsenal. Spurs 61 side was one of the best ever in English club football and played stunning football. Arsenal could not hold a candle to Spurs from 50s up until late 80s. Though it shouldn't be forgotten the 61 side cost double more than anyone else's. Billy Nich wasn't called chequebook Bill for nothing. I could go on all day but conceptions of clubs are based on the media (who by enlarge support the winners/flavour of the month) and..... us the fans.
Back in the early 70's I lived in Chelsea for a year whilst attending music college. We would sometimes, when we had some money, go into one of the Kings Road pubs - Chelsea drug store, Markham arms, etc. without fail, you would find Peter Osgood, Alan Hudson, & Charlie Cooke necking copious amounts of beer. Not just one night, pretty much every night.
A few holes in that story false prophet The 'Not that there appears to have been that much money in the kitty, this season' amounts to around £40mill depending on what figures you believe, hardly crisis, tighten the belt stuff, no? 'you'll be crying out for manager after manager to be sacked as he fails to live up to your unrealistic expectations' are you not the same person that deride many a 'mouser' for defending Rafa, for defending Dalglish? Doesn't quite seem to correlate with that statement?
although i'm a die hard Spurs fan,i do have a soft spot for the chelsea team of the late 60'sthey were a good team,and even better they kept Dirty Leeds down,to usually runners-up.
Benitez was, and remains, an utter clown. He inherited a good team, and slowly, over his time in charge, reduced it to a mid-table side. He's inherited a good team at Chelsea, but slowly, as time passes, he will sap the spirit out of it. He was always going to get the sack, because he could no longer match the deluded expectations of you Mousers. As for Dalglish, do you really want to get me started? The was an old fool, with both feet planted firmly in 80s football. He had no right managing any team, let alone one that has aspirations above its abilities. Kenny-boy was on a hiding to nothing from the moment his vanity led him to take the job. He was rightly sacked, because he should never have been appointed in the first place. Far from exposing "holes" in my argument, these are two prime examples of why my argument is sound.
I remember when I was a small kid Liverpool were a second division side. I think they got promoted in the early 60's.
