Wilf Wild 1937 said:
Sorry if I'm appearing a bit of a pedantic arsehole (it's the degree in geography I got 30 odd years ago!) but if we're looking purely at city boundaries then yes Birmingham is twice the size of Manchester but Manchester only has one club not two.
Really urban area is the best comparison. Within the West Midands urban area there are 4 "major" clubs: Villa, Wolves, West Brom and
Birmingham. Walsall are the fifth league club in the area. Within the Manchester urban area we have six league clubs. Oldham,
Bury and Rochdale are minnows. Bolton are sizeable but only ourselves and Trafford's team are giants.
The problem the West Midlands clubs have had is lack of success and therefore, apart from Villa, non draw support from throughout the
entire urban area. Birmingham City draw support essentially from south Birmingham whilst Wolverhampton and West Brom share
the Black Country, Villa are north Birmingham's team but due to their relative success are not totally limited to that area.
Apart from around Bolton we and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Rags dominate local match going support to an extent not seen
in the West Midlands. The Rags of course also have a very large out of town support. Four major clubs in the West Midlands
is arguably one or maybe even two too many. Aggregate gates might well go up with fewer but more successful teams.
Thanks for explaining the difference between the West Midlands metropolitan authority and the wider region that takes in counties as far afield as Herefordshire and Shropshire. I went to bed last night before any further discussion had ensued on this (I'm in a different time zone from you), so was pleased to see this morning that the point had been dealt with.
It's a very valid point that the Birmingham urban area has four major clubs and Manchester two. So in Manchester, City were, broadly speaking, the number one club in the urban area until WW2 and the second club afterwards. Bolton may have had claims to be the number two ahead of United when United floundered in the early thirties and at a couple of points when City were struggling post-War but I'd contend that they've been number three for well over 90% of the time.
On the other hand and in contrast to us, arguably for a lot of their history, Brum have been the third or even the fourth club in the Birmingham urban area. That's probably because they've never historically been a very successful outfit. They've finished tenth or higher in the top division only ten times in their 111 full seasons in the league, in the top eight only four times and never higher than sixth. Their only honours are two League Cups, one of which came in the competition's early days when it didn't have a Wembley final, didn't confer a place in Europe on the winners and not everyone entered so some pedants (of whom I'm one) wouldn't count it as a major trophy. They had success in the Fairs Cup, but their final appearances came only in its early days when it was an invitation event based on trade fairs.
West Brom, on the other hand, have won five FA Cups and one league title, matching or bettering Birmingham's best finish on 13 occasions. Wolves were a real power in the land in the 1950s and between 1972 and 1980 won two league cups and reached a UEFA Cup final. And Brum have spent higher proportion of their history than their rivals outside the top flight (WBA have been in the top flight for 66% of the seasons since they joined the league, Wolves for 55% and Brum 51%).
In crowd terms, I can't be bothered calculating averages or taking the time to go through figures to discern trends. However, a brief look suggests that they're in a similar bracket to WBA and Wolves, and well behind Villa, who are easily the biggest of the four big West Midlands clubs in my book. If anyone wants to prove or disprove that opinion by going over the figures, you're welcome to do so here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm</a>
There's no doubt that Birmingham have a large potential support base in their geographical heartland across the south of Birmingham, and on odd occasions when they've looked like getting it together, they've been able to draw decent gates. However, they've never enjoyed a sustained run of success to convert that potential into a committed support base that will turn out in big numbers when things go wrong.
I think you have to see their current gates in the light of that. They're a big city club, but one that's never really punched its weight, and it's reflected in the number of people prepared to support them in their current plight.
