Snafu17
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,869
Number of players in current squad that won the world cup must be the dumbest possible factor to consider.
Hard to argue with this list also, if it's based on mythology behind the clubs. I'd put us above Liverpool though, naturally.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
For those asking about the mythical status computation
Not really, World Cup winners tend to be brilliant and play for the best teams. They're not rocking up in League 1.Number of players in current squad that won the world cup must be the dumbest possible factor to consider.
I guess you are right but I bet you can find a decent way to incorporate it, surely much better stat than "Number of players in current squad to have won a World Cup".Juventus have won 36 domestic titles. At what point do you decide the weight of the league in each country? It's easier to discount it, especially in one horse leagues where the title has little to no value in Europe.
Well yeah, but how does that prove how big the club is. Vissel Kobe has 3.Not really, World Cup winners tend to be brilliant and play for the best teams. They're not rocking up in League 1.
Well World Cup winners tend to play for the best teams and are technically the best players in the world so it's a good barometer to see how good the rest of your team is if they're sticking around. On paper anyway.I guess you are right but I bet you can find a decent way to incorporate it, surely much better stat than "Number of players in current squad to have won a World Cup".
Perhaps it only takes into account current World Cup winners?Well yeah, but how does that prove how big the club is. Vissel Kobe has 3.
Isn't this one largely agreeable with the top 10 at least? Any position after that is a pointless discussion.Lists like these are always so difficult to agree with.
Best African club with record of 8 african C.L. And a tremendous fan base.Number of players to have won a WC
Also weird that they haven’t counted domestic titles.
I also have a hard time seeing an Egyptian club as the 22nd largest club in the world. Oh, and Juventus probably should be fourth.
PSG had 2 titles before being taken over. They were never a factor and never much of a big club. Of course they weren't founded 10 years ago but you know what I meant.Where is that from?
The transfer spending criteria pushed them way above their station as per.Good list but flawed too. There is simply no way Man City are the 9th biggest club in the world. Half the world didn’t know they existed ten years ago.
Yep, the absolute definition of them.The transfer spending criteria pushed them way above their station as per.
I don't know what you mean because PSG were one of the better clubs in Europe in the 90s. French football has always been competitive the club with the most league titles is ASSE with 10, you talked about Monaco they are third with 8.PSG had 2 titles before being taken over. They were never a factor and never much of a big club. Of course they weren't founded 10 years ago but you know what I meant.
Well they certainly do nowGood list but flawed too. There is simply no way Man City are the 9th biggest club in the world. Half the world didn’t know they existed ten years ago.
Yes they do now. But in my opinion pumping billions of dodgy money, manipulating revenue and a few trophies doesn’t make you bigger than the Milan clubs for example. But yeah if we’re talking about a club to define the social media generation of fans, let City and PSG battle it outWell they certainly do now
With the explosion of social media and immense media coverage experienced over the last 10 years
Newton was wrong about sooo much and only had a pretty basic grasp of the little he got right, and hasn't been relevant for at least like 15 years. Plus he doesn't even have a Nobel prize. And besides, there wasn't really much competition in terms of being a scientist back then.When you make a list where PSG and City rank above AC Milan, the 2nd most successful club in European history which produced legendary players before PSG was even founded, it should be indicator enough that you picked the wrong criteria.
What next? Here the list of the biggest scientists:
1. Elon Musk
...
...
...
7862. Newton
Ordered by wealth, TV appearances and Twitter followers.
Do you think the modern achievers in anything could have done it to their extent without the progress of predecessors? There’ll be a time when people are doing things that make our advances seem moderate. Your argument comparing scientists from utterly different times is a bit stupid. Unless you’re joking of course - I did check twice for white text!Newton was wrong about sooo much and only had a pretty basic grasp of the little he got right, and hasn't been relevant for at least like 15 years. Plus he doesn't even have a Nobel prize. And besides, there wasn't really much competition in terms of being a scientist back then.
How long can someone live on their past glory?
I was hoping there would be enough giveaways without any white textDo you think the modern achievers in anything could have done it to their extent without the progress of predecessors? There’ll be a time when people are doing things that make our advances seem moderate. Your argument comparing scientists from utterly different times is a bit stupid. Unless you’re joking of course - I did check twice for white text!
The obviously forgot to factor in number of Cheese Rooms available.No Spurs on the list, so it's invalid by default.
Nothing wrong with that. They also have a 'European Cup (UCL) winners in the squad'. Fact is, those two are the biggest competitions in national and club football, so it makes sense to have that category.Seems like a reasonable attempt to balance historical factors with the current situation.
Perhaps, if instead of the 'World Cup winners in squad', criteria they could have had a broader category around 'top' players in squad. I know the Guardian does a top 100, does a French journal? Still arbitrary but would reflect a club's attractiveness and ability to develop players.
Is it CL winners in the squad or number of CL wins of the Club? I was under the Impression it was the latter, but may be mistaken.Nothing wrong with that. They also have a 'European Cup (UCL) winners in the squad'. Fact is, those two are the biggest competitions in national and club football, so it makes sense to have that category.
You're actually right.Is it CL winners in the squad or number of CL wins of the Club? I was under the Impression it was the latter, but may be mistaken.
No, too arbitratry for me. In theory City could have scored higher than Barcelona or Juventus because Mendy is one squad and Portugal and Argentina have not won the world cup ever/recently. I think having Messi or Ronaldo in your team enhances the 'size' of a club as opposed to world cup winning Mendy. Agree to disagree though.Nothing wrong with that. They also have a 'European Cup (UCL) winners in the squad'. Fact is, those two are the biggest competitions in national and club football, so it makes sense to have that category.
Yeah, you're probably right. I guess some better criteria might have chosen, like the number of active players who have ever finished in top 5 - top 10 of Ballon D'Or voting.No, too arbitratry for me. In theory City could have scored higher than Barcelona or Juventus because Mendy is one squad and Portugal and Argentina have not won the world cup ever/recently. I think having Messi or Ronaldo in your team enhances the 'size' of a club as opposed to world cup winning Mendy. Agree to disagree though.