You do not live in England therefore you are not in a position to judge how big an English club is determined.
Both clubs have had their moments in history and periods of excellence and their fans should be proud of their legacy, but they are absolutely, in no shape or form, bigger than Arsenal.
You can do a poll for all the football fans residing in England and the results will show that you absolutely no football fan in England whose head is not up his backside would consider Villa and Forest bigger than Arsenal, and this would include Villa and Forest fans too.
There isn’t a player in the world (unless he is a Villa/Forest fan) who would choose to play for those clubs over Arsenal, and this is true since the mid 80s. Arsenal surpassed these clubs in stature 30-40 years back.
This is one of the worst football opinions I have ever come across but I am not surprised that it has come from someone who claimed that Haaland will fail in the Premier League.
An English club is judged by its performance in Europe, because domestic leagues are relatively easier to win, compared to International KO tournaments like Champions League -
You can never be a big club in your country if you have not dominated the first division of your country. As simple as that.
European Cup adds to your legacy. It does not define it. Winning 1-2 European Cups when you have been a middling club in tour own division does not make you bigger than the clubs who have dominated your division.
Man City and Chelsea can definitely overtake Arsenal in years to come because they are catching up to Arsenal in terms of league titles + they have won the UCL, but Aston Villa and Forest have a lot of catching up to do and would to have win the league for many years to catch up.
That obviously will not happen because they don’t have the finances and therefore, Arsenal will always remain a bigger club than them.
The UCL is not the be all end all. If it was, De Matteo would have had a greater legacy in English football than Pep until 2023.
hence a CL trophy is worth 50 domestic titles.
but who told you that you are in charge of deciding how many domestic titles weight up to a UCL?
Why 50? Why not 49 or 51?
If you go by "First Division" titles then Arsenal according to you are actually the 2nd biggest English club, which we all know is foolish.
After the First Division broke up into the exclusive Premier League, First Division titles have been added to Premier Leagues titles, which means that when we count First Division titles now, we add up those prior to the Premier League era and those after the Premier League era.
It is amazing how I have to dumb it down for you and breakdown the simplest of concepts for you.
Arsenal are not the second biggest club in England because they are behind United and Liverpool in terms of leagues won.
You also fail to mention FA Cup titles, English team so all English titles must be taken into consideration, but it is obvious you have knotted yourself here.
This yet again proves your poor understand and one track mind.
The reason why I didn’t mention the FA Cup because for the big clubs, the FA Cup has no significance in isolation. It doesn’t define their legacy.
An Arsenal would know this better than anyone because Arsenal have won the most FA Cups in history, and hardly an Arsenal fans views that achievement as part of the legacy of the club.
The only memorable FA Cups wins for Arsenal were those that helped the club achieve a double. Similarly, the only memorable FA Cup win for City was the one last season that helped them do the treble.
No one cares about domestic cups at big clubs unless they are add ons to winning the league.
Liverpool’s new manager can win the FA and League Cups every season for the next 10 years and he still won’t have a bigger legacy than Klopp unless he wins the PL.
Arsenal won 4 FA Cups in 6 years between 2014-2020 and it is one of the darkest eras for Arsenal in its modern history simply because they didn’t even fight for the league let alone win.
Arsenal is one of the most respected institutions in English football with great legacy and heritage because they have the third most league titles + the Invincible achievement, not because they are the record FA Cup holders.
Bigger doesn't correlate to the size of a trophy cabinet, it correlates to the quality of trophy cabinet, and unsurprisingly the majority of Ballon d'Or winners are also CL winners. But CL is a pointless tournament according to you.
Quality is subjective. There are no parameters that are universally accepted.
You are no one to decide that winning the UCL is more significant than winning the PL.
For example, do you think Leicester would give up their 2015/16 PL title to win the UCL in 2016/17? Maybe, maybe not. It is subjective.
For example, do you think Arsenal would give up their 03/04 Invincible league triumph to finish second in the league that year and win the UCL? As Arsenal fan, I will say absolutely not.
Quality can mean many things. I can say that going the whole league season uneaten is a more quality achievement than winning the UCL because how many different teams have won the UCL and how many different clubs have gone through the whole league season unbeaten?
The difference in numbers between the two groups would make it clear to you which one is harder to achieve, and the harder achievement should also be the one that is recognized for its its greater quality.
The UCL is not pointless tournament for me. Please don’t put words in my mouth. However, I will stand my ground that winning the PL is more important than winning the UCL and if you could give me choice between Arsenal winning 3 PLs on the trot vs winning 3 UCLs on the trot, I will pick the league.
At the end of the day, cup competitions are a flawed way to decide the best team. 2-3 knockout games do not decide who the best team in the tournament was and in a lot of cup tournaments, you will not play every team which means by virtue of your good fortune, you might avoid crossing paths with a team that would have kicked you out.
Just because you add prestige to a cup doesn’t make it any less flawed of a tournament. To win the league, you have to be consistent, you have to face every team in your league and you have to do it over the entire course of the season.
You have to be the best team in the competition to win.
On the contrary, you can win a cup regardless of what cup it is by not being the best team in the competition and if we talk about the UCL, you can win a UCL by not only not being the best team in the competition but also by not being the best team in your country that season.
Chelsea won the UCL in 2012 by finishing 6th in their own league and 25 points behind the league champions. How was that a quality outcome and how did it not make a mockery of the UCL?
As far as the Ballon d'Or is concerned, you need to understand that it is decided by journalists from all over the world. As a result, intercontinental and international competitions hold great value.
A journalist from Belgium would not care much about how a player did in his domestic league but the UCL will be of bigger interest to him. However, if you have the Ballon d’Or decided by journalists from England or Spain or Italy, then performances in the domestic leagues of these countries will hold a lot more weight than they do now.
, also proclaim Arteta as best young manager in world due to some weirdo obsession at celebrating failure
the spank was a scratch.
.
happens
