This sounds harsh. What is a club of our size exactly? We think we're big, but how about by population? Food for thought: Port Vale is a Stoke club and Stoke is larger than Southampton. How many league titles do they have? Brentford is in London !!!! Underachievers !!! Cities larger than Soton - Plymouth, Edinburgh, Bradford, Coventry, Bristol, Leicester, Hull, Bradford, Cardiff, Belfast. Wolverhampton & Nottingham - once succesful, not in a while now. Feel better now?
You guys really have a high opinion of yourselves don't you? Wednesday and Sheff Utd are BIG clubs. Don't compare yourselves with West Ham Utd either. Norwich & Bristol City maybe.
Ermmmmmmmmm..... isn't all this "big club" nonsense exactly what TSS was going on about in his opening post?
This is a brilliant debate and I can see both sides of the argument. I think that that the original post should really have asked whether there is "inverse snobbery" in football. For me, the football "heartland" is the North and this owes a lot to the fact that , in the NW especially, it was teams like Darwen, Blackburn Olympic, Blackburn Rovers and Preston North End who were collectively responsible for destroying the domination of football by former univesity, college and service teams. Prior to the 1880's, the greatest exponents of football came from public schools and whilst some of these schoolboys helped spread the gospel of football amongst the working class community, these clubs that grew out of the old mills shaped the modern game in all aspects. This includes the use of tactics and professionalism. Nowadays, I would suggest that the "greatest" football teams have their origins in good old working class traditions. The only exception to this rule must be Chelsea. I think this accounts for the lack of appreciation from teams up North for clubs in the southern half of Enlgand. Many years ago I was told a story by an old site manager about the fact that the fastest large concrete pour on a construction site was alleged to have been in Newcastle one Saturday morning when United were playing in the afternoon. This kind of kindship with the game is missing in the South and I have never heard any "urban myth" of this kind of nature applying to either Saints or Pompey. I feel the expectations are bigger with more working class towns and there is a passion there which is wholly absent in contrasting teams like Fulham, Reading, Oxford United, Norwich, Ipswich, etc. Don't get me wrong that the fans aren't passionate down South, but in areas like Lancashire the clubs largely grew out of works teams as opposed to teams like Southampton whose origins are a more genteel YMCA sports club. (Ot Leyon Orient which was created from employees of the old P & O shipping line. ) The top clubs are frequently built on a foundation of working class pride which manifests itself in the attitudes of the likes of Charlton. I also think a lot fo Southern football clubs folded or diminished in size after the First World War whereas the northen teams seemed to establish themselves more, especially as the working population earned more money to spend on leisure activities. Perhaps the answer to the original question owes more to culture than snobbishness? It might also be worth asking the question as to whether the extreme amounts of money available in the sport will have any bearing on this abd how detached the game will become from it's working class antecedents? As far as Southampton are concerned, I don't so much think that others are snobbish against us rather that we are new kids on the block. It is worth remembering that although Saints were perhaps one of the first Professional clubs in the Southern League, this was years after similar teams in the North had been professional. After the first decade of the last century, Saints spent much of the next fifty years either in the sdecond or third tier and our success is only something recent that owes a lot to Ted Bates and Lawrie MacMenemy. There isn't much tradition for success in Southampton and whilst I think it is unfair to suggest that our development system isn't held in good stead, it is worth noting that Portsmouth were traditonally the "big" south coast club and not us. They have more trophies than Saints yet still never managed to break in to the monopoly of the more traditional clubs perhaps due to the outbreak of WW2. I see Saints very much in the same light as teams like Ipswich, Norwich and perhps Notts Forest. Portsmouth alsways seem very similar in fan-base and aspirations to West Ham and, again, I feel the fact that they are more of a "working class" team does lend them more kudos as a footballing institution. People like Charlton have earned the right to make these kinds of comment and even someone like Mark Lawrenson is probably not too inaccurate in suggesting that Saints will find this season tough. If you've got the medals, you know what it takes to be great and whilst I dont think that many pundits are actually condesending of Southamton, it is probably fair that most Saints fans over-play the importance of the club. That said, I can't recall any pundits (other than Robbie savage - the less said about whom the better) who were critical of Saints or didn't think we would be involved in the promotion campaign at the end.) If snobbery exist in sport, surely it must be greater in cricket where Hampshire players seem to be consistently over-looked by England selectors.
Last year Swansea beat Man City. The richest club in world football and the next PL Champions. Man City had a bad day according to RM!
