I don't think it is harder for London teams to win the league. Arsenal have won the league 13 times, 5 off us and 7 off United. Surely that disproves the theory.

I think Wenger brought this excuse up once. Tells you all you need to know. It's bs. Most London clubs are sheite anyway and offer no real derby relevance.

More derbies help London based teams. Less travel distance.

Why aren't Hertha Berlin successful?

There's only one club capable of winning the title in London, and that fecks up the chances of a London club winning it more than anything else.

Its a mentality thing for me.

Likes if Liverpool and man utd were all about the trophies and a rivalry made it more interesting

Chelsea were the first team in the north, largely due to Roman who wanted trophies at any cost. This is traditionally a utd Liverpool thing which is ingrained in the club and fans.

That said I think ownership is key. I don't think Liverpool's owners are about the trophies as much as Liverpool fans and players like Gerrard and Carra.

Not sure what the Glazers will be long term for us, but these Americans seem to be all about the money ala Arsenal. Top 4 and a couple of cup runs keeps the coffers decent.

This isn't a dig at lfc. Its no reflection on the fans in any way as I believe their goal is to win trophies. Just not sure how with owners these days it will be trophies being chased. Unless we all get a Roman

comment by Zlatanariyan (U19849)
posted 36 seconds ago
Its a mentality thing for me.

Likes if Liverpool and man utd were all about the trophies and a rivalry made it more interesting

Chelsea were the first team in the north, largely due to Roman who wanted trophies at any cost. This is traditionally a utd Liverpool thing which is ingrained in the club and fans.

That said I think ownership is key. I don't think Liverpool's owners are about the trophies as much as Liverpool fans and players like Gerrard and Carra.

Not sure what the Glazers will be long term for us, but these Americans seem to be all about the money ala Arsenal. Top 4 and a couple of cup runs keeps the coffers decent.

This isn't a dig at lfc. Its no reflection on the fans in any way as I believe their goal is to win trophies. Just not sure how with owners these days it will be trophies being chased. Unless we all get a Roman.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Or a Sheikh!

Man Utd are the 'bench mark' team for every English league club. They are, therefore, the main rivals of every other club. And that is how the players of each club approaches games against them.

Fans may see rivalries differently, but professional sportspeople test themselves the hardest against the best. Every United player, or at least the good ones, know this.

comment by IAmMe - not here to argue, just here to let you know that you're wrong (or right). (U18491)
posted 1 minute ago
Man Utd are the 'bench mark' team for every English league club. They are, therefore, the main rivals of every other club. And that is how the players of each club approaches games against them.

Fans may see rivalries differently, but professional sportspeople test themselves the hardest against the best. Every United player, or at least the good ones, know this.
------------------------------------------------------------

So now we know why they've been so poor for so long!

comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Zlatanariyan (U19849)
posted 36 seconds ago
Its a mentality thing for me.

Likes if Liverpool and man utd were all about the trophies and a rivalry made it more interesting

Chelsea were the first team in the north, largely due to Roman who wanted trophies at any cost. This is traditionally a utd Liverpool thing which is ingrained in the club and fans.

That said I think ownership is key. I don't think Liverpool's owners are about the trophies as much as Liverpool fans and players like Gerrard and Carra.

Not sure what the Glazers will be long term for us, but these Americans seem to be all about the money ala Arsenal. Top 4 and a couple of cup runs keeps the coffers decent.

This isn't a dig at lfc. Its no reflection on the fans in any way as I believe their goal is to win trophies. Just not sure how with owners these days it will be trophies being chased. Unless we all get a Roman.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Or a Sheikh!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah or a sheikh

Here is an interesting thing IMO, Arabs are in the main quite arrogant, or certainly the rich ones. They would rather lose money to win an award or be number 1.

Americans are more money orientated. Taking the money over awards

So can ownership determine success in terms of trophies long term?

City are having it easy this season, a 500 mile round trip to Bournemouth on a Monday night is obviously easier than a 5 mile trip accross London on a Saturday afternoon.

OP is crap

Op is correct, some people don't like the truth .

I said it before that travelling is a lame excuse. Please see my earlier posts.

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.

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?

I do think the op is correct.

Look how West Ham have never won the league.....ever

sharticle

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...

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.

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.

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.

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!