'Not Good Enough for That Club'

[The Artful Dodger]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Most clubs don't do well in Europe though. And tbf when Arsenal did make the CL final, they were up against a Barca side that were probably the best side in the world at the time.

They've at least made a CL final and are likely to be in a European final this season... with a manager that's got a good record in that competition. That's better than most clubs in Europe can say tbh.

Not really. Several English clubs have better records than Arsenal, let alone in Europe. Monaco/Bayer Leverkusen have made CL finals, Arsenal are bigger than them but they're not a giant of the game like the two we're talking about. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

Not really. Several English clubs have better records than Arsenal, let alone in Europe. Monaco/Bayer Leverkusen have made CL finals, Arsenal are bigger than them but they're not a giant of the game like the two we're talking about. 

I think our league is unique because we've got more big clubs than most. Yeah Arsenal's not the biggest, but they're still a big club.

[The Artful Dodger]

It's partly the fanbase too, Liverpool and Manchester are football heartlands (like the whole of the north west), London not so much. They are institutions in a similar way to Celtic and Rangers are in Scotland, other English clubs don't have that heritage.

[RandoEFC+]

Today is the 25th anniversary of the time we came from 2-0 down to beat Wimbledon and avoid relegation on the last day. The following year we won the FA Cup and that's been all in a quarter of a century. Not long before we'll be able to say it's been a full 25 years without a single trophy.

The very definition of not good enough for our club, and I'm not having that that's a deluded or entitled opinion because the perception of what any club's expectations are is based predominantly on their history. 

Doesn't mean everyone in that time has done a bad job. But it means several very important people have done pretty bad jobs.

[Smiley Culture]

It’s subjective nonsense usually. Jordan Henderson was never good enough for Liverpool and Raheem Sterling wasn’t good enough for England, or that’s the pretty widely held opinions of the two a few years ago. 

Football fans, or at least a pretty large percentage, are complete idiots. I’m not professing to be some sort of footballing font of knowledge but there are seemingly a lot of idiots out there and their opinions are projected onto social media for all to see, unfortunately and we have to learn to live, or at least adapt, to these people being given a platform. 

[LFCMadLad]

41 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

It’s subjective nonsense usually. Jordan Henderson was never good enough for Liverpool and Raheem Sterling wasn’t good enough for England, or that’s the pretty widely held opinions of the two a few years ago. 

Football fans, or at least a pretty large percentage, are complete idiots. I’m not professing to be some sort of footballing font of knowledge but there are seemingly a lot of idiots out there and their opinions are projected onto social media for all to see, unfortunately and we have to learn to live, or at least adapt, to these people being given a platform. 

Not blowing my own trumpet of course but I always said that Sterling would end up world class and that Henderson is one of the most underrated players ever. 

Hendo is an animal, a proper captain that doesn't get half the credit he deserves. 

[Vegan Kel]

I'd say it's more of a mentality thing. Some players just can't handle the expectations of playing for a club of a certain size with certain expectations which is usually dictated either by having a rich history or a rich owner (or both). It's not just even to do with 'massive' clubs, some players just can't handle moving up a level or moving to a tougher league or moving to a club with higher expectations. 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Salford Kel said:

I'd say it's more of a mentality thing. Some players just can't handle the expectations of playing for a club of a certain size with certain expectations which is usually dictated either by having a rich history or a rich owner (or both). It's not just even to do with 'massive' clubs, some players just can't handle moving up a level or moving to a tougher league or moving to a club with higher expectations. 

That's not really the question. I think a few people have misunderstood it. It's more about why certain clubs have certain expectations

[Vegan Kel]

4 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

That's not really the question. I think a few people have misunderstood it. It's more about why certain clubs have certain expectations

I'd say mostly by having a successful history or, at least, successful periods and those are rightly the benchmark by which all of their sides will be judged. I'd say Leeds, Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest would be able to attract better players in many instances simply due to the fact that they are perceived as bigger clubs due to their history and periods of success. Fanbase would also be a case for Villa and Leeds. 

That doesn't mean that you are unrealistic in your expectations. For example, United are (along with Liverpool), by far the most successful club in the country yet if anyone thinks we will win anything major in the next five years they're off their heads. The reason, ultimately, is because we have signed players who are nowhere near good enough to play for this club. They are way below the standards expected. The same happened at Liverpool for a long time because once the rut sets in it is very hard to get back (as United discovered in the 70s and 80s). Now Liverpool have players who are very much the peers of the successful sides of the 70s and 80s. They have players who are good enough for the club and that is the very basic element of it. I'd say Arsenal haven't had players good enough for Arsenal since about 2005ish. The players signed after that were nowhere near the level of the Bergkamps, the Henrys, the Vieiras etc. 

That doesn't mean you have to be mental and expect Arsenal to be winning the title next season - you won't for that very reason - you don't have any players good enough to play for Arsenal except Ramsey and he's doing the offs

[Stan]

6 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

That's not really the question. I think a few people have misunderstood it. It's more about why certain clubs have certain expectations

I was beginning to think this each time I read a new reply and started doubting my own

 

[CaaC (John)+]

7 hours ago, Salford Kel said:

The reason, ultimately, is because we have signed players who are nowhere near good enough to play for this club. They are way below the standards expected. The same happened at Liverpool for a long time because once the rut sets in it is very hard to get back (as United discovered in the 70s and 80s).

Hit the nail on the head there, so who do we blame for signing players that were just not good enough for United after SAF left and then we had Moyes, LVG, Jose and now Ole, let's see what Ole can do in the transfer market or what a certain Woodward will let him do, times change nowadays in football and I do think United need a DOF.

I don't think Ole is another SAF who could pull the strings on transfers who HE wanted and he got them, the same applied to Moyes, LVG and Jose, they were never another SAF, I always thought if SAF was still in charge he would have never signed the likes of Fellaini and I don't think he would have bought Pogba back either, after all, he did let him go for something he saw and he did not like.

We have had the Shanks/Paisley, Busby/SAF era that kept both Liverpool and United up there for years and then we had Wenger who kept Arsenal up there for years but they are gone now and as people say we now have Pep, Klopp and maybe Poch, but will they stay at there respective clubs for years as SAF and Wenger did? I don't think so,

As SAF once said as he was nearing his end as manager "Managers today only last up to 3/4 years..." in Fergie's time at United he must have built and rebuilt 3 different teams to go with the times and bought in players who were, in his eyes, good for the club, managers nowadays do not stay at a club long enough to keep the club rolling along as they are either sacked or move onto new challenges, I think Pep and Klopp will do the same and move on and maybe Poch even if he wins the Champions League Cup.

These are my thoughts only and others may differ.        

[Dan+]

Leicester have a side that is far better than our historical average but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to keep improving. I don't really get the point of football at all if you don't. We have a lot of good players but there are definitely still areas we can, and should be aiming to improve.

Bournemouth are another example. This is hands down their best ever era but they can still improve. It's not really got anything to do with history.