Oxford United

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

In reply to the Rev:-

I don't particularly want to argue about which is the more successful club-it comes down to the individual perception of success,i.e is it about winning things or just existing in one of the 4 divisions?.

If you want to talk about being historically successful, you have to use league positions as the yardstick. Rochdale have made it to a major cup final. Does that make them historically more successful than Reading as well?

What I don't like is the fairly new trend of some of our fans that now look down on our neighbours,fans that have never had to look up to them and marvel at their success.

What you grew up doing is irrelevant unless you want to frame it purely in that narrow time frame. Overall we have the edge now, and unlike Oxford in their glory days, we aren't punching way above our weight.

I do dispute your point about cups being more open back then as all teams played their best sides in cup competitions which is so unlike what happens now when you could reach a final just by playing other sides' reserve teams.

Yet the cups are still dominated by the top sides now, as their "reserve" teams cost more than the first teams of most other clubs in the division.

Go back to the 80s, and once you got to the 5th round every top division club would be thinking they had a real chance of winning the thing. These days, if playing a big 4 club, most teams will be written off even if they reach the final.

Cups were way more open back then.

[Royal With Cheese]

Pre Sky/FA Prem days the FA Cup was the only gig in town. Players often stated they wanted to win this more that the league - possibly something to do with the fact that the FA Cup Final was beamed around the world and, save for the odd european game, was the only match you could watch on the TV.

The saturation coverage and popularity of the EPL both here and abroad has, at best, severely diminished the impact and significance of cup competitions.

[Victor Meldrew]

In reply to the Rev:-

I don't particularly want to argue about which is the more successful club-it comes down to the individual perception of success,i.e is it about winning things or just existing in one of the 4 divisions?.

If you want to talk about being historically successful, you have to use league positions as the yardstick. Rochdale have made it to a major cup final. Does that make them historically more successful than Reading as well?

What I don't like is the fairly new trend of some of our fans that now look down on our neighbours,fans that have never had to look up to them and marvel at their success.

What you grew up doing is irrelevant unless you want to frame it purely in that narrow time frame. Overall we have the edge now, and unlike Oxford in their glory days, we aren't punching way above our weight.

I do dispute your point about cups being more open back then as all teams played their best sides in cup competitions which is so unlike what happens now when you could reach a final just by playing other sides' reserve teams.

Yet the cups are still dominated by the top sides now, as their "reserve" teams cost more than the first teams of most other clubs in the division.

Go back to the 80s, and once you got to the 5th round every top division club would be thinking they had a real chance of winning the thing. These days, if playing a big 4 club, most teams will be written off even if they reach the final.

Cups were way more open back then.

Whateva.
You will never convince me that sticking around in league football is a greater success than winning a trophy and I feel sure that fans prefer to have seen their team win a trophy at Wembley (we had a taster with the Simod and what a great day that was for our little club) than watching many years of mediocrity in the lower divisions.

[Royal Rother]

You will never convince me...

As I said a couple of days ago...

I am aware that nothing anybody says will EVER alter your perception one iota (on anything) so here's where I withdraw gracefully.

[Victor Meldrew]

You will never convince me...

As I said a couple of days ago...

I am aware that nothing anybody says will EVER alter your perception one iota (on anything) so here's where I withdraw gracefully.

I do believe that the earth is round and that Alex Pearce is an Irish Scottish Englishman,that Kevin Pietersen played cricket for Young South Africa and that Ricky Ponting has retired from international cricket-about those things I might be intransigent but about other things I am always (maybe nearly always) prepared to consider an alternative.

[Fox Talbot]

who on here was at the Manor in 1976, December 29 in the snow?

We were battered, got to 90 mins at 0-0 then Foley scored their winner.

Cannot have been more than a couple of hundred Biscuitmen there, about 4 coaches and no noise.

Some details may be incorrect, but I am sure about the score and the snow.

I was there. They ran out of hot drinks about half-time. V cold and v miserable.

[From Despair To Where?]

Our record vs Oxford

P37 W16 D2 L19 F49 A52

Considering we've won the last 5 meetings by a goal difference of 14-5, historically our record against them is pretty shit.

I would suggest that barring the last 10 years, they have really been at worst our equals since they joined the football league.

[Ian Royal]

What this discussion needs is a line graph of league position and a small but special bonus awarded to Oxford for winning a real trophy.

I do find the idea that Oxford could spend the rest of eternity in League 2 and we could spend it in the PL, but providing we don't win a cup or the league they're more successful than us. Which is the ultimate extension of VM's argument.

And all that H2H means is that when we play in the same division Oxford are marginally better than us. Taking that to its ultimate end we could have spent one season in the same division, lost both games and the rest of the time been in a league above and they'd be better than us.

League ranking with account taken for cup wins really is the only sensible way of doing it. And TBH (other than silverware) what does stuff that happened more than 10 - 20 years ago really matter now? It's where a club is going that's important, not so much where its been.

[handbags_harris]

I don't think that's an unfair assumption, and it's a pretty big bone of contention of mine really. I have only ever viewed Oxford as noting more than non-league upstarts although I suppose if I were a neutral I would imagine I'd view that opinion as somewhat unfair. So to get the basic statistical analysis on this I've just taken the time to work it out the respective records and since their introduction into the league in 62/63 Oxford have spent 22 seasons in a higher division than us. We, on the other hand, have spent a mere 17 season in a higher division than them.

On top of that we have only this season matched their 3 seasons in the top flight, they have a major trophy to their name (although they were managed by Maurice Evans then, can we claim it as ours instead on that basis alone?), and their head-to-head record against us is superior. So they definitely have had the better of it since their introduction.

[Ian Royal]

I don't think that's an unfair assumption, and it's a pretty big bone of contention of mine really. I have only ever viewed Oxford as noting more than non-league upstarts although I suppose if I were a neutral I would imagine I'd view that opinion as somewhat unfair. So to get the basic statistical analysis on this I've just taken the time to work it out the respective records and since their introduction into the league in 62/63 Oxford have spent 22 seasons in a higher division than us. We, on the other hand, have spent a mere 17 season in a higher division than them.

On top of that we have only this season matched their 3 seasons in the top flight, they have a major trophy to their name (although they were managed by Maurice Evans then, can we claim it as ours instead on that basis alone?), and their head-to-head record against us is superior. So they definitely have had the better of it since their introduction.

Interesting. Although just as winning a trophy adds something, I'd say so does having been a league club for much longer. But then I'm biased aren't I.

[handbags_harris]

Would it be fair to say that dropping out of the league for 4 season negates any trophy won?

[Ian Royal]

Would it be fair to say that dropping out of the league for 4 season negates any trophy won?

sounds fair.

[Jackson Corner]

Pompey, Luton, Birmingham and Oxford. All winners of major trophies. Have or are on the point of financial armageden.
Would you swap places with them for one glory day out at Wembley? I would give anything to see Reading win a major cup final. Even a play off would be nice. But I would rather be where we are now.

[Victor Meldrew]

Pompey, Luton, Birmingham and Oxford. All winners of major trophies. Have or are on the point of financial armageden.
Would you swap places with them for one glory day out at Wembley? I would give anything to see Reading win a major cup final. Even a play off would be nice. But I would rather be where we are now.

Again you are one of those going on about "now".
I expect all the fans of those other clubs would prefer to be where they were then and when they were winning things we would have loved to be in their position.
Handbags seems to have summed it up quite well when confirming
(a) they have beaten us more times than we have them
(b)they have spent more time than us in the higher divisions
(c) they have won a major English trophy.
So also bearing in mind that they have been a league club around half the time that we have I think mine and NFAs original point about them historically being more successful stands up to close examination.

Who knows what might have happened if we had won that cup semi-final in the 1920s or conversely if the Madman had turned left with his wads of cash out of Bradfield rather than right?

[Alexander Litvinenko]

But by building such a small stadium Oxford have effectively closed the door on any hopes they may have of competing at the top level any more - so they won't ever be in a position to compete with us at any time in the foreseeable future.

It's a definite cap on their future.

[Victor Meldrew]

But by building such a small stadium Oxford have effectively closed the door on any hopes they may have of competing at the top level any more - so they won't ever be in a position to compete with us at any time in the foreseeable future.

It's a definite cap on their future.

Unless of course some Russian who has been a student at Oxford asks his dad for some money to buy the club and extend the stadium.
That would never happen would it?

[No Fixed Abode]

Gr8 away end back in the day

[TBM]

The "lambs to the slaughter" walk out afterwards was great - all you could hear were the Oxford fans waiting at the end for you

[Royal With Cheese]

Handbags seems to have summed it up quite well when confirming
(a) they have beaten us more times than we have them
(b)they have spent more time than us in the higher divisions
(c) they have won a major English trophy.

a) Our league record against Manchester City is P16 W 7 D2 L7. Does this make us as at least as big as Citeh?
b) Surely something more appropriate - like a points system should be employed for this one. Say 4 points for D1, 3 for D2, 2 for D3 and 1 for D1. Of course no points when a team isn't even in the league. Someone with more time on their hands can work it out.
c) Can't disagree with this - although we have more championships than them.

[Royal With Cheese]

But by building such a small stadium Oxford have effectively closed the door on any hopes they may have of competing at the top level any more - so they won't ever be in a position to compete with us at any time in the foreseeable future.

It's a definite cap on their future.

Unless of course some Russian who has been a student at Oxford asks his dad for some money to buy the club and extend the stadium.
That would never happen would it?

No, because we have him.