Apparently we're the 32nd biggest club in England... please log in to view this image http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-finally-settles-football-s-great-debate.html
Couple of points: I find it hard to believe that Arsenal have a bigger global fanbase than Liverpool. How the hell do we score better on crowds than Southampton and West Ham?
Utterly and totally meaningless, particularly when you look at the 'player quality' column and some of the teams supposedly better than ours!
Am I missing something? Our player quality is 42nd. Millwall are 41st Blackpool are 38th Preston are 27th Sheff Utd are 24th Chelsea are 5th with Man Utd 1st. What a waste of time.
It's not based on the current squads, it's based on the quality of each squad during all their seasons in the top flight.
Right, so the crowds element looks at times when Southampton used to get 11k at The Dell? But if that is the case how are Chelsea 3 and Liverpool 10? Chelsea used to regularly get under 13k in the 80s and days of Kerry Dixon, Gordon Jukebox Durie etc but when did Liverpool ever get under 30k?
So according to that we have had better crowds in the top flight than West Ham, Southampton, Forest, Derby and Boro?
On the actual article it mentioned that they worked it out by the amount of England Internationals over the club's history and how many players they had at last year's world cup, somehow I don't think that is a way to determine the quality of players that have played for a club.
Why England internationals rather than internationals? So basically they're saying it's more valuable to have had Carlton Palmer, Brian Deane and Geoff Thomas than George Best, Kevin Strootman and Gareth Bale?
More guff for the statos to **** over. Just like that completely useless one i heard the other, about how many home defeats we've had over our entire history.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...just-looking-increase-anfield-s-capacity.html Crude search like, I'm not saying it's fact and as I said I'd find it hard to believe. Same article says Arsenal have more social media followers so could be the case? Is very difficult to establish.
They must be popular in other countries then. Here it's really rare to see a Liverpool kit and I have hardly met anyone who follows them. I'm even positive that Fulham are a more popular club here. I would say the order of popularity here with English teams is Arsenal, Man U, Fulham, Chelsea, Liverpool.
Maybe it's because football (soccer) is only relatively recently popular there, they love a winner and Liverpool haven't won the Premier League? I think they're huge in the Far East.
Well Arsenal are the most popular bc the first generation of US fans grew up watching Henry. Man U are probably second due to winning so many titles. Fulham are really popular due to Dempsey playing for them. Chelsea and Liverpool are rare teams to support but I put them in that order as I see more Chelsea kits than Liverpool kits. I figure if you are a Chelsea or Liverpool fan here you probably have some connection to the club like you or you father is from there something like that. you are probably right that Liverpool not winning anything for so long hurts them here as no one here has ever seen them win a title.
