Soccer Fans - Picking an EPL Team

#1
Panthro

Panthro

Well-Known Member
#1
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,480
Likes
1,822
#1
Alright EPL fans, I need to pick a team.
I just recently got Fox Soccer Channel, and I love it for everything it offers. I've just realized that I hardly ever care who wins when watching an EPL match (unless someone is playing Man U).
I want to pick a team that is good, but not huge-bandwagon-good. I at least want to feel confident that my team would be in the Champions League as much as possible.
I want a team without a lot of French players, and possibly a team with cool uniforms. I have noticed that I love Liverpool's blood red jerseys.
I know that if I were to ever visit the area, it would be to London, so I might like to pick a team from there.

This has left me to choose between four teams.

Tottenham Hotspur- Don't know a lot about them, but I'm willing to learn. I know they have a lot of players for the England squad. They haven't finished in the top four since 1993.
Fulham - I know nothing more than Clint Dempsey plays for them.
Arsenal - I would like to consider them, but they have a lot of French players, and I read their list of celebrity fans. They include Fidel Castro, John Gotti, Michael Moore and Osama Bin Laden.
Chelsea - This is the team I'm probably MOST considering at this point. I already like a few of their players. Drogba is reason enough to support a team. However, I have a friend that is a Tottenham fan, and he said picking Chelsea is almost as bad as picking MU. Still, Chelsea has to be my leader right now.

I'd love to hear thoughts and opinions from other EPL fans on this board.
 
#4
DC Vol

DC Vol

Agent Orange
#4
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,457
Likes
598
#4
Panthro said:
Manchester United is the NY Yankees of the EPL, I thought.
Click to expand...
Chelsea is owned by a Russian Oil tycoon and he's poured in tons of money through player salary to basically buy a successful team.

I dislike both Man U and Chelsea. Blech.

I know they're in the Brundesliga, but I do like Bayern Munich.
 
#6
Panthro

Panthro

Well-Known Member
#6
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,480
Likes
1,822
#6
I'm not sold on Chelsea, really. If Chelsea really is equivalent to Man U, then I'll look elsewhere.
Any thoughts on Arsenal, Fulham, or Tottenham?
 
#7
DC Vol

DC Vol

Agent Orange
#7
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,457
Likes
598
#7
Panthro said:
I'm not sold on Chelsea, really. If Chelsea really is equivalent to Man U, then I'll look elsewhere.
Any thoughts on Arsenal, Fulham, or Tottenham?
Click to expand...
I've had a bit of a liking for Tottenham since Robbie Keane was there. Plus, if you root for them, no one can accuse you of being a bandwaggoner.

Question, do team colors mean anything to you? What are you going for here? A successful squad or one whose games you'll enjoy watching regardless of outcome?
 
#8
volball625

volball625

Sophmore Member
#8
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
8,152
Likes
44
#8
IMO, picking Chelsea is just as bad as United. Atleast, you have the history with United. I like Arsenal, but they are a team that will never really buy any players, which is necessary in today's football world. tottenham is a fun team who will more than likely be in the Champions League this year. Liverpool might not be in Europe for a while after this season.
 
#11
DC Vol

DC Vol

Agent Orange
#11
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,457
Likes
598
#11
IPorange said:
Man U and Chelsea are pretty equivalent to New York yankees and Red Sox.
Click to expand...
I made that analogy earlier. I dislike them both, but Chelsea just a little bit more.

Possibly a better analogy would be Chelsea:NE Patriots, Man U:Dallas Cowboys. They both have ridiculous payrolls but one has a rich history while the other, outside of the last 10 or so years, does not.

Both have a ton of bandwaggoner fans.
 
Last edited:
#12
Panthro

Panthro

Well-Known Member
#12
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,480
Likes
1,822
#12
Chelsea is definitely OUT, then. What would you equate Arsenal to in America?
Fabregas is a stud, and Van Persie (for Netherlands) is fun to watch. I don't want to be a bandwaggoner, but I also have put up with too many seasons with the Cubs to go with a squad that is cursed.
 
#13
volball625

volball625

Sophmore Member
#13
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
8,152
Likes
44
#13
Arsenal is a team with a great youth system, that develops a certain mentality with all of their players. They will always be at the top, but very rarely win trophies, like the Cubs. They will rarely go out and spend lots of money on players. More times than not, teams will come poach their players like possibly Fabregas this summer and Adebayor last summer.
 
#14
DC Vol

DC Vol

Agent Orange
#14
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,457
Likes
598
#14
Keeping it in NFL terms I'd say maybe the Bears or Giants. They've had recent success... but nothing approaching what they've had in the past.

Arsenal has won the Premier League Cup 3 times in the last 20 years (01, 04, 05) while Man U has won it 11 times and Chelsea has won it 3 times.
 
Last edited:
#15
bam15

bam15

Burning time on this site
#15
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
8,341
Likes
2
#15
DC Vol said:
I made that analogy earlier. I dislike them both, but Chelsea just a little bit more.

Possibly a better analogy would be Chelsea:NE Patriots, Man U:Dallas Cowboys. They both have ridiculous payrolls but one has a rich history while the other, outside of the last 10 or so years, does not.

Both have a ton of bandwaggoner fans.
Click to expand...
The Pats and the Cowboys ranked 23 and 28 in payrolls last year.
 
#16
DC Vol

DC Vol

Agent Orange
#16
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,457
Likes
598
#16
bam15 said:
The Pats and the Cowboys ranked 23 and 28 in payrolls last year.
Click to expand...
I was making a statement based on overall payroll trends over the last several years, not for this particular year.

I'm guessing, based on your team icons, that you took exception to me saying the Patriots have little history outside of last decade.

Though, to be fair, the payroll difference is nowhere near as bad in the NFL as it is in the EPL or MLB due to the NFL's cap. JJ is trying to get the NFL to do away with the cap, though, so he can buy NFL Titles. I guess that's one reason why I lumped the Cowgirls in with the spending mentality.
 
#17
bam15

bam15

Burning time on this site
#17
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
8,341
Likes
2
#17
DC Vol said:
I was making a statement based on overall payroll trends over the last several years, not for this particular year.

I'm guessing, based on your team icons, that you took exception to me saying the Patriots have little history outside of last decade.

Though, to be fair, the payroll difference is nowhere near as bad in the NFL as it is in the EPL or MLB due to the NFL's cap. JJ is trying to get the NFL to do away with the cap, though, so he can buy NFL Titles. I guess that's one reason why I lumped the Cowgirls in with the spending mentality.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with team history.

In the past ten years the Redskins have spent more than the Patriots every year with the exception 2001 and 2005, even leading the league a couple of years.

Snyder likes to spend just as much as Jones.
 
#18
bam15

bam15

Burning time on this site
#18
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
8,341
Likes
2
#18
DC Vol said:
I was making a statement based on overall payroll trends over the last several years, not for this particular year.

I'm guessing, based on your team icons, that you took exception to me saying the Patriots have little history outside of last decade.

Though, to be fair, the payroll difference is nowhere near as bad in the NFL as it is in the EPL or MLB due to the NFL's cap. JJ is trying to get the NFL to do away with the cap, though, so he can buy NFL Titles. I guess that's one reason why I lumped the Cowgirls in with the spending mentality.
Click to expand...
The Redskins would thrive without a salary cap too. They are always near the top in annual revenue. But that's without saying the Pats would as well.

I wouldn't put it past Jones to try to outdo everyone else though.
 
#19
Panthro

Panthro

Well-Known Member
#19
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,480
Likes
1,822
#19
Okay, this is turning into an NFL discussion, now.
Arsenal just had a dude playing in the Swiss loss to Chile. I'll give them a solid watch when play gets back to going strong, and might consider them now. I just hate reading the celeb list of fans they already have. That shouldn't matter, but I just want nothing in common with Bin Laden, Castro, and Michael Moore.
 
#20
DC Vol

DC Vol

Agent Orange
#20
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,457
Likes
598
#20
bam15 said:
It has nothing to do with team history.

In the past ten years the Redskins have spent more than the Patriots every year with the exception 2001 and 2005, even leading the league a couple of years.

Snyder likes to spend just as much as Jones.
Click to expand...
The Dallas Cowboys are one of the most successful teams, historically. They're second to the Pittsburgh Steelers in total SB wins. The Steelers are far less flashy and have far fewer geographically distant fans. That's why, loosely, Cowboys = Man U.

Chelsea has no history. The Pats had very little success before Bellichick. They both have been very successful in the last decade. They both have a lot of bandwagon fans.

We're now completely off topic. No more comparisons, I guess.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store

Top