To win the league ? The reason why I ask this, is because for a London team there are too many derbies which makes it that harder for them imo. But, I would like to gauge your opinion on this matter if I may.
If you look at Man Utd and Man City, they have only each other as local derbies, obviously Liverpool being the main rivals to Man Utd.
Take for example Chelsea, and let's be honest, when they play any team in London it is like a cup final for them particularly with Spurs, West Ham and to a lesser extent Arsenal and Chrystal Palace. I am sure when the play Chelsea the barbecues will be out, tears of joy flowing at the end should they even manage to take as much point off us or even score a goal. The DVD's will be rolling in soon after, with their fans paying £££ for a home cinema to relive the game they manage to get a "result" against Chelsea on every match day.
Chelsea have done remarkably well to win 4 league titles in 11 years ( hopefully 5 in 12 years), if you consider the factor given above.
Do you think too many derbies harms their chances to win the league ?
Is It Harder For A London Team
posted on 22/2/17
I said it before that travelling is a lame excuse. Please see my earlier posts.
posted on 22/2/17
When Arsenal were winning trophies Wenger said all the derbies made it more difficult. He was talking from a position of strength then so may be more weight should be attached to what he said then.
posted on 22/2/17
comment by Conte'nt (U20893)
posted 24 minutes ago
I said it before that travelling is a lame excuse. Please see my earlier posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Arsenal winning 13 league titles?
posted on 22/2/17
I do think the op is correct.
Look how West Ham have never won the league.....ever
posted on 22/2/17
sharticle
posted on 22/2/17
No. If anything, London teams have an advantage in that they need to travel less than other teams on a regular basis. You can't just dismiss this as irrelevant.
Also, it is easier to attract players to live in London than probably anywhere else in the UK.
I also don't buy this argument that every match against a London team is a derby in any case. Chelsea playing a team like Palace, for example, is no more of a derby than United playing Everton, Bolton, Blackburn, Liverpool, Leeds etc over the years. Leeds fans still consider themselves our rivals after all these years...
Arsenal and Spurs aside, Chelsea don't really have any really tough derbies as such. Apart from Fulham of course!
Teams have always raised their game against United, derby or no, simply because everyone hates (i.e. is jealous of) our club. And there is no better way to make headlines than to beat United...
posted on 22/2/17
That theory would also apply to Man City, Chelsea and to an extent Arsenal who regularly challange for the title.
Disagree, ok Fulham and QPR are closest, but Selhurst Park is the next nearest football ground to SB. So yes Palace are a derby. They always give us a hard game.
posted on 22/2/17
comment by Conte'nt (U20893)
posted 15 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by selbstgerechtein (U7048)
posted 35 seconds ago
The negative of rivalry and possible (though unquantifiable) extra difficulty has to be balanced against the positive of no travelling, no need to train away from the training ground or stay away from players homes.
There is no net negative.
Leicester last season had no rivalry, but being in the midlands meant a lot more travelling for them to every away game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sort of proved my point reguarding Leicester.
I explained earlier that travelling is not much of an issue in the modern football. You get around the country far easily nowdays. Planes, modern busses, accommodation etc..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't explain it you gave an opinion.
There's a reason virtually every football team in history has a better home record than away record.
Playing at home is much easier, and travelling is a part of that. London clubs get to play more 'home' games.
You dismissing this doesn't make you right.
posted on 22/2/17
comment by selbstgerechtein (U7048)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Conte'nt (U20893)
posted 15 hours, 29 minutes ago
comment by selbstgerechtein (U7048)
posted 35 seconds ago
The negative of rivalry and possible (though unquantifiable) extra difficulty has to be balanced against the positive of no travelling, no need to train away from the training ground or stay away from players homes.
There is no net negative.
Leicester last season had no rivalry, but being in the midlands meant a lot more travelling for them to every away game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sort of proved my point reguarding Leicester.
I explained earlier that travelling is not much of an issue in the modern football. You get around the country far easily nowdays. Planes, modern busses, accommodation etc..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't explain it you gave an opinion.
There's a reason virtually every football team in history has a better home record than away record.
Playing at home is much easier, and travelling is a part of that. London clubs get to play more 'home' games.
You dismissing this doesn't make you right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the 400+ mile round trip that teams from the North West have to make to Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, West Ham & Palace makes a difference. Considering
Chelsea have 4 away matches that are just down the road by comparison. That's not to mention clubs further North such as Sunderland.
The OP also refuses to acknowledge Arsenal winning 13 league titles disproving his theory.
posted on 22/2/17
So yes Palace are a derby. They always give us a hard game.
______________
Yes I'm sure that is a terrifying fixture every season.
Much harder than when United had to compete for the title with Blackburn, Liverpool, Leeds or City!