Media Thread - 2021/22

[Norman kneejerk]

Strangely City's average in 1959-60 (35,637) was our highest since 1951-52 (38,302). However, this was undoubtedly inflated by the 65,981 who had attended the last game of the season v champions-elect Burnley

In Dave Wallace's CENTURY CITY about the 1957-58 season, the match programme editorial refers to the declining crowds, albeit fans of all clubs were far more fickle in those days, and City's average in 1954-55 had only been a few hundred less than United.

Schindler does mention Munich in his book, but more as a sarcastic reference to the millions who adopted United overnight rather than the Old Trafford regulars.

Gary James argues that WW2 diluted our core support, and that lending Maine Road to a progressive United in the immediate post war years had a far greater impact, especially as City had boasted bigger crowds than United throughout the 1930 (even in 1938-39 when City were in a lower division)

As if that wasn't bad enough, we then had the emergence of George Best coinciding with the Poyser years

That ties in with what I heard from the generation around in the 30s that city were virtually everyone's team in Manchester. What I also heard was post ww2, Busby put an attractive side together using mostly youth but was one of the first to target the families of young stars with gifts like washers to sign up. As per Gary James his team got a new audience at Maine Road to play in front of which effectively got them a foot in the door.

 

[eyalluvitt]

And Solskjaer after a professional foul v Newcastle as they tried to cheat their way to the title in 1998

That was the ultimate definition of a professional foul, VAR would of course overturn it now.

 

[Metalartin]

Iirc @Gary James has said the City stats on that site aren’t accurate. Not sure to what level is ‘not accurate’. If they err on the side of understatement , then that’s fine.
But clearly if Mr GJ knows the City figures aren’t right, then presumably the other teams figures have similar issues.

saying all that, there must be a modicum of accuracy in them, so like transfermarkt as long as the numbers are used as a guideline and used as such, then I’ll keep using the site as well.

edit: I like the site for the stats it shows and allow you to compare, my favourite being:
Even despite City having ‘no history’, a ‘yo-yo’ club and once being in level 3, we have only spent a total of 4 years less than united in the top level… which clearly indicates that other than Ferguson,busby and mangall theyve really been quite crap

I still think that site is the best you'll find. I could be thinking of someone else here but I seem to recall GJ's point was a lot of City's attendances were under-reported(the Swales era for example). So if they are slightly off, it's through no fault of the site and nobody else can claim their figures are more accurate because they'd be guessing(since that's what the club reported).

Regarding the seasons in the topflight(although Wiki is also a reliable source for that too). Yep, I like to point that out too, to the City bingo players.

As we know, 5 of City's seasons outside of the topflight came in the first decade of the PL era, a real low point(you could argue the worst) for the club. Without those troubles, City would have a higher total than the rags. Those 4 seasons in a row without topflight football in the 90s, were a club record since they first reached that level back in 1899. I think that says something about City as a club. There can't be many clubs who fair better than that. Liverpool and United don't for example. Only Arsenal from the big 6 can claim that, 2 seasons in a row is as bad as it's got for them, since their promotion in 1904. Everton are another(Villa aren't), with 3 in a row as their worst. That's some consistency, to be fair to them.

I don't even know where the term "yo-yo club" comes from for City, considering the fact that City are in the top 6 for most topflight seasons in all of English football(how can that be?).

A yo-yo to me, has to be where a club comes up and goes straight back down again. Or do they have to be promoted, relegated and promoted again? Either way, that's only happened once to City by my reckoning. At the start of the 00s. They came close to doing that in the 80s(2 seasons before going back down) but other than that I just don't see any justification for it. IMO, the people who say that are those that took great glee in the City fans anguish as they got relegated again in the 2000/01 season, just when the fans thought the dark times were over. It just shows what empty heads they are. If they form the whole basis of their opinions of a club, though such a narrow scope. "That's all I remember, so that's all City are".

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Has twitter made it harder to scroll down replies (if you've not got an account)?

Yeah think so. Forces log in after a bit

 

[Kippax77]

Just like they gave Alan Smith after his red card for trying to break Richard Dunne’s ankle.

Obviously they can't separate class with crass then

 

[Leeky]

Was going to ask the same thing? I don't have a Twitter account but this week it began stopping me viewing it on either phone or laptop after about 30 seconds, telling me to sign in?

I know it’s a pain, but easiest way is press the login button then when new box appears press the cross in top left hand corner, you can then scroll down and read to Your heart’s content

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

Was going to ask the same thing? I don't have a Twitter account but this week it began stopping me viewing it on either phone or laptop after about 30 seconds, telling me to sign in?

I've found that if you click on the sign up button and then the x to close you can view like before.

 

[waspish]

I know it’s a pain, but easiest way is press the login button then when new box appears press the cross in top left hand corner, you can then scroll down and read to Your heart’s content

Tweetlogix app I use cuts out a lot of Twitter adverts and smoother.

 

[1stFeb1969]

I still think that site is the best you'll find. I could be thinking of someone else here but I seem to recall GJ's point was a lot of City's attendances were under-reported(the Swales era for example). So if they are slightly off, it's through no fault of the site and nobody else can claim their figures are more accurate because they'd be guessing(since that's what the club reported).

Regarding the seasons in the topflight(although Wiki is also a reliable source for that too). Yep, I like to point that out too, to the City bingo players.

As we know, 5 of City's seasons outside of the topflight came in the first decade of the PL era, a real low point(you could argue the worst) for the club. Without those troubles, City would have a higher total than the rags. Those 4 seasons in a row without topflight football in the 90s, were a club record since they first reached that level back in 1899. I think that says something about City as a club. There can't be many clubs who fair better than that. Liverpool and United don't for example. Only Arsenal from the big 6 can claim that, 2 seasons in a row is as bad as it's got for them, since their promotion in 1904. Everton are another(Villa aren't), with 3 in a row as their worst. That's some consistency, to be fair to them.

I don't even know where the term "yo-yo club" comes from for City, considering the fact that City are in the top 6 for most topflight seasons in all of English football(how can that be?).

A yo-yo to me, has to be where a club comes up and goes straight back down again. Or do they have to be promoted, relegated and promoted again? Either way, that's only happened once to City by my reckoning. At the start of the 00s. They came close to doing that in the 80s(2 seasons before going back down) but other than that I just don't see any justification for it. IMO, the people who say that are those that took great glee in the City fans anguish as they got relegated again in the 2000/01 season, just when the fans thought the dark times were over. It just shows what empty heads they are. If they form the whole basis of their opinions of a club, though such a narrow scope. "That's all I remember, so that's all City are".

As far as a 'yo-yo club' is concerned, my conclusion would be, for all our seasons in top flight football (this season is our 93rd, with a total of 26 outside it by my reckoning), is that prior to moving stadiums, our longest run of consecutive seasons was 17, from 1966/67 to 1982/83.
We've suffered 11 relegations.
2021/22 is our 20th season in the top flight since our last relegation, a record that, given our current situation, is one we will keep building upon.

 

[cheekybids]

Strangely City's average in 1959-60 (35,637) was our highest since 1951-52 (38,302). However, this was undoubtedly inflated by the 65,981 who had attended the last game of the season v champions-elect Burnley

In Dave Wallace's CENTURY CITY about the 1957-58 season, the match programme editorial refers to the declining crowds, albeit fans of all clubs were far more fickle in those days, and City's average in 1954-55 had only been a few hundred less than United.

Schindler does mention Munich in his book, but more as a sarcastic reference to the millions who adopted United overnight rather than the Old Trafford regulars.

Gary James argues that WW2 diluted our core support, and that lending Maine Road to a progressive United in the immediate post war years had a far greater impact, especially as City had boasted bigger crowds than United throughout the 1930s (even in 1938-39 when City were in a lower division)

As if that wasn't bad enough, we then had the emergence of George Best coinciding with the Poyser years

Wasn’t Trafford Park the largest employer in factory’s in 1950s & 60s, wouldn’t that have had a bigger impact on crowds. Finish work Saturday at 12pm, then a few pints until they close just as the football starts?

Im not sure if any truth in it but my old fella used to talk about how many people worked there.