Big Four - misnomer?

pickarooney

How long has the term 'Big Four' been around and is its definition supposed to be
Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool or
The teams in 1st-4th in the Premiership?

In all fairness, England doesn't really have a big four. It has a big three, and a team that rides into the Champions League on their coat tails.
Other countries have their Big Two (Real Madrid and Barcelona, Rangers and Celtic), their Big Three (PSV, Ajax, Feyenoord) or even their Big One (Lyon), the common denominator being that these teams battle it out regularly for the title of League Champions. In Spain, the occasional small fish comes and upsets the party, which is fair enough, but nobody considers Valencia or Deportivo as a big anything, despite limited league success.

And yet in England you're still a Big Four club even if you haven't won the title in 20 years, or simply a Big Club because you sell a load of replica shirts to fashion-shy Northerners, or even a Massive Club if, well... I dunno what that's about really.

_blank_

I think it's actually "Top 4" not "Big 4".


And it's been that since England got it's fourth CL spot.

Mr Alan

good post. its raises some interesting questions. well done.

stovelid

Death or Glory

Leeds, Newcastle and maybe Everton are the only teams to come close to spoiling the party recently

pvt.joker

+1 Agree 100%

The title "top", or "big" should only apply to teams who are regularly in contention for the title. In other words Man united, Chelsea, and Arsenal.

You could have a European top 4 however, and that would include Liverpool.

Like it or not, Liverpool aren't challenging for the title currently.

Mr Alan

this thread is going to be a car crash

tbh

the reason that England have four teams in the CL is because of Liverpool's success in the CL. Like it or not, Liverpool generally finish in the top 4.

Helix

everyone knows its the big 5 anyway, and historically (with overall success ever to back it up) its, in order:

Liverpool
Manchester United
Arsenal
Everton
Aston Villa

_blank_

tbh wrote: »

the reason that England have four teams in the CL is because of Liverpool's success in the CL. Like it or not, Liverpool generally finish in the top 4.

:eek:

I didn't know you posted in soccer.

Death or Glory

Disagree with the above.

Leeds in my opinion are a bigger club than Villa and Everton

Helix

Death or Glory wrote: »

Disagree with the above.

Leeds in my opinion are a bigger club than Villa and Everton

stats say otherwise

leeds are historically only the 12th most successful club in english football history

they also never won the european cup, so i dont see how you can class them as an historically bigger side than villa? nor have they been in the top flight for as many seasons, or gained as many top flight points, in fact theyre only the 46th most successful team in england in terms of top flight accomplishments

*edit*

jaysus i dunno how i manged to type 46th there, its 18th lol

Running Bing

Death or Glory wrote: »

Leeds, Newcastle and maybe Everton are the only teams to come close to spoiling the party recently

Spurs missed out by one point on the last day of the season when half the team came down with food poisining.


That was pretty close?

tbh

DesF wrote: »

:eek:

I didn't know you posted in soccer.

sometimes I can't help myself, despite my better judgement

Running Bing

Death or Glory wrote: »

Disagree with the above.

Leeds in my opinion are a bigger club than Villa and Everton

Leeds dont come near Villa or Everton.



Football existed for many years long before Leeds had a few seasons in the Champions league:rolleyes:

Eirebear

The "Big 4" is a handy marketing tool for the bigwigs at the Premiership HQ, its got a ring to it and the media love it.

In all reality, they are the "BIG 4" in premiership terms considering the gap betwen them and other teams is growing all the time.
They may not all be challenging for the title come the last part of the season, but i wouldnt bet against them all being in the top 4 places again next season, would you?

event

Mr Alan wrote: »

this thread is going to be a car crash

if we just ignore it, maybe it'll go away

Helix

Death or Glory wrote: »

Leeds, Newcastle... are the only teams to come close to spoiling the party recently

8 years ago isnt really "recent"

MuPpItJoCkEy

Babybing wrote: »

Spurs missed out by one point on the last day of the season when half the team came down with food poisining.


That was pretty close?

Yeah. I remember that. Very suspicious indeed!

Steve_o

Helix wrote: »

everyone knows its the big 5 anyway, and historically (with overall success ever to back it up) its, in order:

Liverpool
Manchester United
Arsenal
Everton
Aston Villa

I'd have Nottingham Forrest in there too, they did win the European Cup twice which is twice more than Arsenal and Everton and once more than Villa..

Helix

Steve_o wrote: »

I'd have Nottingham Forrest in there too, they did win the European Cup twice which is twice more than Arsenal and Everton and once more than Villa..

their success was only fleeting tho, they never really dominated, or challenged neck and neck with the dominant force for a couple of sustained periods as such, like the other teams did

that "big 5" there is based on success in all competitions. theyre the 5 most successful english teams. no opinion involved there, its just the fact of the matter

Benedict XVI

The term has only really been around since the Abromiovich arrival at Chelsea, thus almost guaranteeing that Chelsea finish in the top 4 , usually along with the other 3.

Also our friends and Sky have been happy to use the term when promoting things like 'Grand Slam Sunday' etc.

Even for the first 'Grand Slam Sunday' last season Man City were in fourth which did not deter Sky from using the term Top 4 to decribe the teams playing on 'Grand Slam Sunday'

Helix

people forget that it was the "top 3" before the 4th cl place, and the "top 2" before that again

its JUST a reference to the money making spots, nothing else. theres no historical basis in it

Xavi6

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Even for the first 'Grand Slam Sunday' last season Man City were in fourth which did not deter Sky from using the term Top 4 to decribe the teams playing on 'Grand Slam Sunday'

Indeed it didn't. Pricks :mad:

Mr Alan

Xavi6 wrote: »

Indeed it didn't. Pricks :mad:

presumably because they were the top4 last year. for example Utd will be refered to as champions all this year because they won the league last year. league tables are only relevent when the league is complete.

GuanYin

The "Big 4" is a Sky/Fox/ESPN franchise name to try and sell their matches to the viewers.

As it happens right now there are four clubs who are significantly richer and more successful than other clubs: Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and United. This is undeniable and for anyone to launch a mere suggestion that there are other clubs matching these teams in term of wealth or attractiveness for players or even success, is just plain silly. A few years ago Chelsea weren't in this big 4. A few years before that, Arsenal were struggling down out of the top 10.

Anyone who takes the "big four" to mean anything other than the Sky/Fox/ESPN sale tag above (ie. the clubs at the moment who most people will watch), either has a very short memory, isn't very bright, or is a troll.

Maybe other clubs are catching up. But suggesting that catching up means equaling is rather naive.

GuanYin

GuanYin wrote: »

As it happens right now there are four clubs who are significantly richer and more successful than other clubs: Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool.

:eek::eek: A world with TWO Liverpools and no United? Shudders....:pac::pac:



Back on topic: Anyone who buys intop this Sky promo nonsense is a fool. Liverpool and United are by far and away the 2 biggest clubs in England of all time. Chelsea are competitive NOW but historically arent one of Englands leading lights. Arsenal have always been a force domestically but need a CL IMO to climb onto the next step. Notts forrest are the only club to have won more European Cups than domestics leagues so they are moot as they came and went. Sustained success IMO makes u a top club.

Eirebear

Deleted User wrote: »

:eek::eek: A world with TWO Liverpools and no united? Shudders....:pac::pac:

WOuld there be a thread for each of them?:p

gixerfixer

pickarooney wrote: »

How long has the term 'Big Four' been around and is its definition supposed to be
Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool or
The teams in 1st-4th in the Premiership?

In all fairness, England doesn't really have a big four. It has a big three, and a team that rides into the Champions League on their coat tails.
Other countries have their Big Two (Real Madrid and Barcelona, Rangers and Celtic), their Big Three (PSV, Ajax, Feyenoord) or even their Big One (Lyon), the common denominator being that these teams battle it out regularly for the title of League Champions. In Spain, the occasional small fish comes and upsets the party, which is fair enough, but nobody considers Valencia or Deportivo as a big anything, despite limited league success.

And yet in England you're still a Big Four club even if you haven't won the title in 20 years, or simply a Big Club because you sell a load of replica shirts to fashion-shy Northerners, or even a Massive Club if, well... I dunno what that's about really.

Simply the dumbest post ever.

GuanYin

gixerfixer wrote: »

Simply the dumbest post ever.

I'd suggest that a post that contributes nothing to the thread, or indeed, doesn't explain the point of view, for instance, your post, would be dumber.


In fairness OP. Big 4 means biggest fanbase/richer which usually equates to more money, which equates to better players, which equates to winning.

Over the past few years, the epl top 4 are undeniable.

raido9

You have to include Liverpool in the top four. They've regularly outspend everyone but Abramovichs Chelsea since the start of the premiership.