It’s been (insert years) since they won the title

1 Year – Chelsea
2 Years – Leicester
4 Years – Manchester City
5 Years – Manchester United
13 Years – Arsenal
22 Years – Blackburn Rovers
25 Years – Leeds United
27 Years – Liverpool
30 Years – Everton
36 Years – Aston Villa
39 Years – Nottingham Forest
42 Years – Derby County
55 Years – Ipswich Town
56 Years – Tottenham Hotspur
57 Years – Burnley
58 Years – Wolverhampton Wanderers
67 Years – Portsmouth
81 Years – Sunderland
87 Years – Sheffield Wednesday
88 Years – The Wednesday
90 Years – Newcastle United
91 Years – Huddersfield Town
97 Years – West Bromwich Albion

Qq

20 comments

  1. See, when you put it like that Arsenal are still the fourth best club in the PL, Leicester City being the fluke of the century aided to their title by the crooked PGMO in order to spite Wenger.
    Especially considering the other three are own by billionaire oligarchs,….. while Arsenal owner is just a small time real estate investor.

      1. He does that. The Colorado Rapids won the MLS Cup in the year he took over. The Nuggets were good when Josh first took over. The Rams are good now. Those teams, however, all slip back into mediocrity almost right away.

        He likes mediocrity. Mediocrity makes more money than winning titles.

        1. Well, Kroenke has owned the Rams for quite a while now.

          I don’t think he LIKES mediocrity, but he doesn’t mind it and it doesn’t matter to him as long as profitability is maximized, yes.

          1. I think you nailed it, NH. I still prefer that kind of owner to the win now meddler. The win now meddler is how you end up being the Jets, or the Nets, or Newcastle to use a more British example, or more recently Manchester United; although in football the meddlesome owners don’t usually cause as much damage because there are infinite resources and there is no draft so mistakes are not nearly as costly. Still, I generally subscribe to the notion that running a sports team successfully has nothing to do with making popular decisions, rushing into big contracts or signing the biggest name free agents. It has to do with a consistent and clear philosophy from the very top all the way through to the last groundskeeper and a central, unified mission that everyone believes in. Right now I don’t see that at Arsenal and I think that’s the more fundamental problem than Korenke’s hands off attitude.

  2. That list is a fascinating representation of how winning the league is the sole preserve of a very select group these days. Yet Arsenal seem to get an astonishing volume of criticism for not having done so recently.

    1. You can’t get it both ways. Arsenal fans have an illusion of grandeur. They don’t like their players or their club get criticized. But when other players or clubs get praised, they rain on their parade and talk about the past. That past that they talk about became the standard and those critics in turn judge Arsenal in those standard.

      1. That’s the whole thing about being a fan. We want it all and we have double standards. It’s not just at Arsenal!

  3. I think it helps show that, despite what some people would have you believe, we’re not a ‘joke’ or a ‘laughing stock’ when you compare even our recent title winning record with nearly every other club.

    The number of club who’ve been successful recently is tiny, and we’ve been lucky enough to have tasted title success more recently than most.

    You have to more than double our title winning dry spell to find when Liverpool last won it, and they’re often treated much more leniently by fans and the media.

  4. Since I missed the blog on Santi’s injury and lack of recovery, I ‘ll just add my 2 cents now. Santi’s treatment or lack there of represents gross negligence. Santi needs to take some responsibility for attempting to soldier on when his ankle was clearly not right. The medical advise he was given and followed was wrong and this is a case of medical malpractice. If the physicians ( not the trainers) advised that he could play and he choose not to play because he deemed his ankle not right then he would be well in his right to say no. Players seek second opinions all the time when they want to play in spite of injuries and sometimes that player has to sensible and shut it down.
    Believe me I know on a minor scale what Santi’s thought process was. I fractured a bone in my ankle and I just had the trainer tape me up so that I could still play on for another month. I eventually needed surgery to remove the bone fragment that I never gave a chance to heal. That was all on me and I accept that. Santi’s player role was given precedence over his health and long term well being and this was criminally negligent (think NFL and concussions). How do I know this? Simple. The body (Santi’s) is smarter than the player or his caregivers. The body won’t heal, hide or close up a wound where there is any infection. Increased pain in a wound that is supposedly healing is a red flag that there is ongoing untreated infection that has to dealt with and not ignored. We don’t know if Santi has underlying diabetes but if he does then his ability to heal any kind of wound would be further impaired and any kind of infection would be more aggressive.
    Finally, the only way we heal cuts if there is a ‘minor’ infection present is with good blood supply that brings the body’s own infection fighters to the wound. The wound must still be managed with local treatment (washing away gross debris with soap and water, dressings, possibly oral antibiotics). Tendons in particular have a poor blood supply and extra caution should have been exercised in this case.

    1. Sorry, but to accuse Santi’s physicians of medical malpractice without access to his actual medical notes, x-rays, operative reports, etc. is simply pure and utter speculation. Why, whenever a patient has an unexpectedly poor treatment result, is the first thought that it has to be poor care? Sometimes, despite receiving the best possible care, patients get complications. I’m not saying that Santi may or may not have received good care. I’m not saying that being a physician taking care of a professional athlete, especially if that physician is employed or receives some compensation from that athlete’s team doesn’t have a conflict of interest. I’m saying that sometimes, sh*t happens. A small percentage of patients will suffer life threatening bleeding from being placed on therapeutic blood thinners meant to prevent stroke, a small percentage of patients will still suffer a second heart attack despite aspirin therapy, and a small percentage of patients will suffer a severe infection after an operation. Presuming poor, negligent treatment on a public forum is at best ill informed. You speak as if you have a degree of medical knowledge so you ought to know this already.

    2. Sounds like another graduate of Google U.

      What makes me say that? Professionals* don’t second guess each other in public without access to the patient or at the very least, the medical records. We also try to stay in our lane. I’m a surgeon, but not an orthopod, so while I might have some thoughts on Santi’s treatment and course, I’d never offer them up as a professional opinion.

      Why do I feel entitled to comment on football tactics and management when that too is out of ‘my lane’? Because the consequences of faulty or ill informed football opinions are negligible.

      *actually this isn’t 100% true, viz the psych professionals ‘diagnosing’ Trump. But many consider that malpractice.

      1. I am a full-time, private practice anesthesiologist practicing in a large, urban hospital. On the side, I review cases for medical malpractice defense attorneys. What I’ve learned from that is that you simply can’t judge the adequacy of care received from a superficial account. I’ve reviewed cases where my initial impression, based on the attorney’s initial communication, was that the care received was poor and after review, concluded that the patient’s care was exemplary. I’ve also had an initial good impression and later told the attorney to settle, because the care given was negligent. Without a deeper review than a patient’s account to a reporter and a couple of sensational photos, it is simply impossible to pass judgement on the care that Santi got. Sure, you can make an educated guess, but it’s ultimately a guess and one should make that very clear, rather than outright accusing someone of malpractice.

        Commenting on a game is different because we actually watch the game, oftentimes with better views than the managers have from the sideline. Wide angle shots, tight telephotos with slow motion of to judge fouls etc. Our knowledge is less than the managers sure, but all the information is right there onscreen. Commenting on Santi’s medical care is different because we don’t have access to the information. Passing judgement on his care is like trying to discuss the tactics of the game when you’ve only looked at the boxscore.

  5. After a month, the stitches were removed, but the wound opened again and again, so much so that he went through surgery eight times in a year. Santi showed MARCA images of his foot during the process, and the image of a heel in gangrene is striking. “At that time I was still playing,” he said. “The medical professionals told me it was okay, the problem was that it did not heal and the wounds would reopen, become infected… Look, in this picture I can see the tendon.”
    No, I don’t have access to Santi’s records which might show how 8 attempts at wound closure failed or what was or was not done to investigate why things were not going as plan because now Santi is left with a big pile of “shit happens”.

Comments are closed.

Related articles