Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: dave.woodhall on August 14, 2016, 11:26:05 PM
-
http://thebirminghampress.com/2016/08/dawning-of-a-new-era/
-
Done.
-
Done what?
-
Done what?
Fallen over and broken something seeing as it's Legion.
-
Good stuff Dave, and I agree about Jack's goal - it almost felt like a piss-off to the whole notion of Villa in the second tier.
In fact, what I liked most about it was the arrogance. It took him so long before he eventually nudged it in, like he could barely condescend to do so. We should be gracious to the so-called lesser teams (I mean, let's face it, how many have we lost to recently?), but we could use a bit of swagger and superiority about us this season. Players will be intimidated by VP - we need to ram home that advantage.
-
Good stuff Dave, and I agree about Jack's goal - it almost felt like a piss-off to the whole notion of Villa in the second tier.
In fact, what I liked most about it was the arrogance. It took him so long before he eventually nudged it in, like he could barely condescend to do so. We should be gracious to the so-called lesser teams (I mean, let's face it, how many have we lost to recently?), but we could use a bit of swagger and superiority about us this season. Players will be intimidated by VP - we need to ram home that advantage.
That's how I feel as well. You know Newcastle are going to piss people off with their attitude so let's make friends and win graciously.
-
There's a lot to be said for trying to be the anti-Newcastle in all sorts of ways (though not in attendance, to be fair - 52,000 in the second tier is preposterous).
-
Their players were like their fans. They came to gawp at the stadium and take it all in. They didn't believe they could compete so they barely tried.
We need to keep the winning going at home so that more sides at this level look at the fixture list, see us at Villa Park as their next and think "bugger, who've we got the week after that lot?".
-
Their players were like their fans. They came to gawp at the stadium and take it all in. They didn't believe they could compete so they barely tried.
We need to keep the winning going at home so that more sides at this level look at the fixture list, see us at Villa Park as their next and think "bugger, who've we got the week after that lot?".
As Dave said in his piece, if Ayew, Grealish, McCormack and hopefully a new striker hit it off, with Traore and Gestede on the bench, we should have too much firepower for most teams in this division. There were times when it clicked on Saturday and we played some sublime football in the final third. Putting Jedinak in front of Elphick and Chester should also hopefully mean we are much more solid and hard to break down as well.
Put the two together and it will hopefully lead to exciting times in B6 this season.
-
Good piece as always Dave. The Grealish goal like all works of art is layered. His mazy run a little earlier that should have been a goal but petered out into a back pass to the goalie was the entre. The almost slow motion build up to the special goal when, for what seemed like an eternity, it seemed the keeper or the defender was going to take the penalty option added to the beauty of it all. The memory of it is now a mental snapshot tucked away in a lifetime of Villa memories. It hangs on the wall of my mind with the five seconds when the same player made a Sunderland defender fall on his backside by standing still in front of him.
-
It will be interesting to see how we bounce back after a defeat as well, that for me will be the next test.
Good read as usual.
-
It will be interesting to see how we bounce back after a defeat as well, that for me will be the next test.
Good read as usual.
Haven't we just?
-
well wasn't that pleasant
-
Accurate summation as usual Dave.Everybody contributed in a fine team performance.
That was encouraging.
-
It will be interesting to see how we bounce back after a defeat as well, that for me will be the next test.
Good read as usual.
Haven't we just?
Good point.
-
Their players were like their fans. They came to gawp at the stadium and take it all in. They didn't believe they could compete so they barely tried.
We need to keep the winning going at home so that more sides at this level look at the fixture list, see us at Villa Park as their next and think "bugger, who've we got the week after that lot?".
The lad and I trawled the Youtube "Awayday" videos from Rotheram fans yesterday and the best had a kid looking around VP and whispering "it's so big!!!" followed shortly afterwards by "this is better than Wembley". Bless 'em.
-
It will be interesting to see how we bounce back after a defeat as well, that for me will be the next test.
Good read as usual.
we just did Clampy- keep up mate 😉
-
I thought we played better in the second half.
-
There's a lot to be said for trying to be the anti-Newcastle in all sorts of ways (though not in attendance, to be fair - 52,000 in the second tier is preposterous).
One team city we have small heath tesco-bags and dingles on our doorstep
-
Good read Dave.
-
We could/should have scored 3 or 4 more in the 2nd half. The 3-0 score was obviously very pleasing after all that's gone before, but I think we have the basis of a team that could really destroy the opposition, and when did that last happen?
-
I thought we played better in the second half.
There was a short passage of play 10 minutes from the end when Rotherham were pressing but apart from that the 2nd half was all Villa and, as has been pointed out elsewhere, we could have had 5 or 6 and it would have been a fair result.
-
We could/should have scored 3 or 4 more in the 2nd half. The 3-0 score was obviously very pleasing after all that's gone before, but I think we have the basis of a team that could really destroy the opposition, and when did that last happen?
Couldn't agree more frank - with a few more additions we can become a more confident and assured side that will challenge any other team in it...including Only Newcastle! ;-)
Great read as always, Dave; we've been gracious in defeat for long enough, let's be gracious in victory too.
We're The Villa - we have class!
-
There's a lot to be said for trying to be the anti-Newcastle in all sorts of ways (though not in attendance, to be fair - 52,000 in the second tier is preposterous).
One team city we have small heath tesco-bags and dingles on our doorstep
I'm sorry flybo, this isn't a dig at you as such but it doesn't half wind me up when people try to make excuses to explain why Newcastle get more fans than us.
They might be a one club city but that city has a population of less than 300k. Birmingham has a population of over 1.1m. Despite what Noses might say, the other 800k people aren't all Blues fans.
The reality of it is that if you walk around Newcastle football is virtually a religion up there. Whereas with us, even when it looked like we were going to crack the top 4 under MON we still rarely sold out VP (I think our best effort was when we sold out 4 times in one season).
My own personal view is that the cultural diversity of Birmingham means there are more people for whom football isn't that important, plus there is a more diverse entertainment offering, but credit where it's due, there aren't many clubs in the land who could pull in over 50k for a 2nd division match, no matter how many clubs there were in the city.
-
There's a lot to be said for trying to be the anti-Newcastle in all sorts of ways (though not in attendance, to be fair - 52,000 in the second tier is preposterous).
One team city we have small heath tesco-bags and dingles on our doorstep
I'm sorry flybo, this isn't a dig at you as such but it doesn't half wind me up when people try to make excuses to explain why Newcastle get more fans than us.
They might be a one club city but that city has a population of less than 300k. Birmingham has a population of over 1.1m. Despite what Noses might say, the other 800k people aren't all Blues fans.
The reality of it is that if you walk around Newcastle football is virtually a religion up there. Whereas with us, even when it looked like we were going to crack the top 4 under MON we still rarely sold out VP (I think our best effort was when we sold out 4 times in one season).
My own personal view is that the cultural diversity of Birmingham means there are more people for whom football isn't that important, plus there is a more diverse entertainment offering, but credit where it's due, there aren't many clubs in the land who could pull in over 50k for a 2nd division match, no matter how many clubs there were in the city.
Newcastle have virtually no competition within a hundred miles.
-
There's a lot to be said for trying to be the anti-Newcastle in all sorts of ways (though not in attendance, to be fair - 52,000 in the second tier is preposterous).
One team city we have small heath tesco-bags and dingles on our doorstep
I'm sorry flybo, this isn't a dig at you as such but it doesn't half wind me up when people try to make excuses to explain why Newcastle get more fans than us.
They might be a one club city but that city has a population of less than 300k. Birmingham has a population of over 1.1m. Despite what Noses might say, the other 800k people aren't all Blues fans.
The reality of it is that if you walk around Newcastle football is virtually a religion up there. Whereas with us, even when it looked like we were going to crack the top 4 under MON we still rarely sold out VP (I think our best effort was when we sold out 4 times in one season).
My own personal view is that the cultural diversity of Birmingham means there are more people for whom football isn't that important, plus there is a more diverse entertainment offering, but credit where it's due, there aren't many clubs in the land who could pull in over 50k for a 2nd division match, no matter how many clubs there were in the city.
Newcastle have virtually no competition within a hundred miles.
Sunderland ?
-
From York up there's Hartlepool, Scarborough, Boro, Sunderland, Newcastle and Carlisle. Only Carlisle is to the East of Newcastle, no matter how much people go on about the size of just Newcastle there's a massive amount of the country with little to no competition. Having said that, 50K is still very impressive.
-
There's a lot to be said for trying to be the anti-Newcastle in all sorts of ways (though not in attendance, to be fair - 52,000 in the second tier is preposterous).
One team city we have small heath tesco-bags and dingles on our doorstep
I'm sorry flybo, this isn't a dig at you as such but it doesn't half wind me up when people try to make excuses to explain why Newcastle get more fans than us.
They might be a one club city but that city has a population of less than 300k. Birmingham has a population of over 1.1m. Despite what Noses might say, the other 800k people aren't all Blues fans.
The reality of it is that if you walk around Newcastle football is virtually a religion up there. Whereas with us, even when it looked like we were going to crack the top 4 under MON we still rarely sold out VP (I think our best effort was when we sold out 4 times in one season).
My own personal view is that the cultural diversity of Birmingham means there are more people for whom football isn't that important, plus there is a more diverse entertainment offering, but credit where it's due, there aren't many clubs in the land who could pull in over 50k for a 2nd division match, no matter how many clubs there were in the city.
Newcastle have virtually no competition within a hundred miles.
Sunderland ?
Exactly! There's a club 12 miles away from them who've had a higher average attendance than us for 13 of the last 17 seasons (for 3 of the other 4 they were in the division below). It's a complete fallacy.
-
Having worked in Newcastle I found them much more of a monoculture than the city of my birth. Sport, merriment and alcohol has a universal appeal all over the industrial north east. Town Moor is a pretty battered racecourse as racecourses go, but they always pull in a bigger crowd for the Northumberland Plate (Pitmens' Derby) a £50,000 handicap than Doncaster does for the £500,000 Group 1 St Leger.
-
I was thinking exactly the same about Newcastle. The population of the entire north east is roughly the same as the West Midlands conurbation - but it's obviously a much bigger area with generally shit public transport links I imagine. Sunderland are the only other genuinely big club, but then we've only really got west brom and the shit and wolves. We've also got a lot more local towns in the region that draw supporters in on top (overall west mods population is double the north east) - even if it is contested.
I think we just have to say that villa are bigger than Newcastle in almost every conceivable way - but not that. They do just get great attendances.
I think there's also probably less to do up there.
-
Good stuff Dave, and I agree about Jack's goal - it almost felt like a piss-off to the whole notion of Villa in the second tier.
In fact, what I liked most about it was the arrogance. It took him so long before he eventually nudged it in, like he could barely condescend to do so. We should be gracious to the so-called lesser teams (I mean, let's face it, how many have we lost to recently?), but we could use a bit of swagger and superiority about us this season. Players will be intimidated by VP - we need to ram home that advantage.
That's how I feel as well. You know Newcastle are going to piss people off with their attitude so let's make friends and win graciously.
your in trouble Dave, I'm liking what your saying. your First press-ing was a very good read as well. Sorry
UTV
-
There's a lot to be said for trying to be the anti-Newcastle in all sorts of ways (though not in attendance, to be fair - 52,000 in the second tier is preposterous).
One team city we have small heath tesco-bags and dingles on our doorstep
I'm sorry flybo, this isn't a dig at you as such but it doesn't half wind me up when people try to make excuses to explain why Newcastle get more fans than us.
They might be a one club city but that city has a population of less than 300k. Birmingham has a population of over 1.1m. Despite what Noses might say, the other 800k people aren't all Blues fans.
The reality of it is that if you walk around Newcastle football is virtually a religion up there. Whereas with us, even when it looked like we were going to crack the top 4 under MON we still rarely sold out VP (I think our best effort was when we sold out 4 times in one season).
My own personal view is that the cultural diversity of Birmingham means there are more people for whom football isn't that important, plus there is a more diverse entertainment offering, but credit where it's due, there aren't many clubs in the land who could pull in over 50k for a 2nd division match, no matter how many clubs there were in the city.
Newcastle have virtually no competition within a hundred miles.
Sunderland ?
Exactly! There's a club 12 miles away from them who've had a higher average attendance than us for 13 of the last 17 seasons (for 3 of the other 4 they were in the division below). It's a complete fallacy.
It's not a fallacy at all. One club, in a city where nobody from Newcastle would visit if they were paid, against the sort of competition we have.
-
They get 1 in every 6 people in the city turning up to their match. We get less than 1 in 30. And you're seriously laying the blame for that at the Blues and Baggies?! Two clubs who can't get 50,000 turning up between them!
You're kidding yourself.
-
They get 1 in every 6 people in the city turning up to their match. We get less than 1 in 30. And you're seriously laying the blame for that at the Blues and Baggies?! Two clubs who can't get 50,000 turning up between them!
You're kidding yourself.
In that case excuse me for not having the benefit of your greater intelligence. Then read your first sentence again.
Newcastle do not get 1 in 6 people in their city watching them - they get support from the whole north of England, and from big chunks of Scotland as well. On the other hand, we don't just have two clubs chipping away at our potential support - look at a radius of eighty miles from Birmingham, and the same distance from Newcastle. Look at the clubs in the two divisions inside those areas. Then tell me I'm kidding myself.
-
Possibly a tenuous point but if I was a glory hunter I'd find travelling to Anfield Stamford bridge the Etihad etc
far easier to do from Birmingham than from Newcastle.
-
It is true that their far flung fans are very committed, in my experience. I lived in Brighton for 30 years and even though there were far more Villa and Liverpool fans living there, the Geordies were much more committed to returning to SJP despite the distance. There is definitely a cultural element that works in their favour. I used to tell them that we had Simon Rattle and the CBSO, not to mention the ballet, but they would resort to Roger Melly Viz type retorts, the slags.
-
Given their general shiteness over the last century, I'd say Newcastle's support is pretty exceptional. When I used to go on lads holidays abroad it was always amusing how they would live in their replica shirts for two weeks, the divs.
-
Newcastle is a very small city by comparison to Birmingham. As I said earlier, geographically they have fewer local clubs to contend with but the population density is so much lower
On that basis, Southampton - again with few local rivals and a massively higher population density in the region - should be getting absolute mega crowds, while Spurs should be barely able to get 30, 000 with so many (including more glamorous) clubs nearby. I think there's about 20k on the Spurs waiting list
-
Newcastle is a very small city by comparison to Birmingham. As I said earlier, geographically they have fewer local clubs to contend with but the population density is so much lower
On that basis, Southampton - again with few local rivals and a massively higher population density in the region - should be getting absolute mega crowds, while Spurs should be barely able to get 30, 000 with so many (including more glamorous) clubs nearby. I think there's about 20k on the Spurs waiting list
They're all in Chelmsford and Southend, my Gran lives in Chelmsford and it is chocka with Spurs fans.
They even have a club shop on the high street lol
-
They get 1 in every 6 people in the city turning up to their match. We get less than 1 in 30. And you're seriously laying the blame for that at the Blues and Baggies?! Two clubs who can't get 50,000 turning up between them!
You're kidding yourself.
In that case excuse me for not having the benefit of your greater intelligence. Then read your first sentence again.
Newcastle do not get 1 in 6 people in their city watching them - they get support from the whole north of England, and from big chunks of Scotland as well. On the other hand, we don't just have two clubs chipping away at our potential support - look at a radius of eighty miles from Birmingham, and the same distance from Newcastle. Look at the clubs in the two divisions inside those areas. Then tell me I'm kidding myself.
So if Newcastle have got the whole north of England and big chunks of Scotland to themselves how do Sunderland, Celtic and Rangers all average more than us?
You're on your own here Dave. Keep kidding yourself.
-
Can we not just go back to not giving a toss about Newcastle again? I know they have developed a fixation with us but we don't have to reciprocate.
These mega-crowds have done them the world of good - they have won zilch since television went colour and have just been relegated, again, having survived by the skin of their teeth the previous season.
-
They get 1 in every 6 people in the city turning up to their match. We get less than 1 in 30. And you're seriously laying the blame for that at the Blues and Baggies?! Two clubs who can't get 50,000 turning up between them!
You're kidding yourself.
In that case excuse me for not having the benefit of your greater intelligence. Then read your first sentence again.
Newcastle do not get 1 in 6 people in their city watching them - they get support from the whole north of England, and from big chunks of Scotland as well. On the other hand, we don't just have two clubs chipping away at our potential support - look at a radius of eighty miles from Birmingham, and the same distance from Newcastle. Look at the clubs in the two divisions inside those areas. Then tell me I'm kidding myself.
So if Newcastle have got the whole north of England and big chunks of Scotland to themselves how do Sunderland, Celtic and Rangers all average more than us?
You're on your own here Dave. Keep kidding yourself.
Sunderland have been (in)famous for the amount of discounted tickets they give away ever since they moved grounds. Celtic and Rangers have worldwide support. And I'm on my own? It's odd, then, how many people say the same as me.
-
Catchment areas and surrounding competition may play a role in elevating Newcastle's attendances to a degree, but surely you can't argue with the fact that the football team has a far closer association with the city than Villa does with Birmingham.
Newcastle are a totem for the city and virtually all of its inhabitants - all that Toon Army stuff plays a massive part in the psyche up there.
The homogeneity of the culture helps this as well - a large proportion of the population identify themselves as white, working class, ex-mining, sports (mainly football) supporters.
It's a large part of that culture to back Newcastle and turn for matches at a level that simply isn't the case down here.
-
Being a one club town isn't just about the pure population numbers you draw on though. It creates a mentality where there is no choice & everyone supports Newcastle whether they are actually into football or not, so it's kind of 'in the water' & filters in from all angles no matter what.
Once you have a choice of Villa or Blues or Albion, you also have a choice of 'take it or leave it'. That's the difference being a one club town makes, not having a bigger catchment.
-
If you look at Newcastle's average crowds say from 1970-1990 they would be worse than ours, we could always get some massive crowds given any hope.
Traditionally Villa before 1990 had larger crowds than the Geordies, however, from the 1990 World Cup onwards with a mixture of Keegan Mania and the new Premiership/new fan era Newcastle have found some new fans. We would always average around 25,000 in the period running up to the early 90s before football began to become fashionable, the Geordies and 20-25,000. But in recent years they have been averaging about 50,000 and us about 35,000.
So the easy to attend new footballing era (Free mostly from so called football hooligans, post Gazza crying at Italia 90) has brought Villa around 10,000 extra fans. But with Newcastle this has increased by almost 30,000. I can only sum up that they have had a lot of bandwaggon jumpers fused with a strange blind faith but, ultimately their traditional fan base is no better than ours.
-
If you look at Newcastle's average crowds say from 1970-1990 they would be worse than ours, we could always get some massive crowds given any hope.
Traditionally Villa before 1990 had larger crowds than the Geordies, however, from the 1990 World Cup onwards with a mixture of Keegan Mania and the new Premiership/new fan era Newcastle have found some new fans. We would always average around 25,000 in the period running up to the early 90s before football began to become fashionable, the Geordies and 20-25,000. But in recent years they have been averaging about 50,000 and us about 35,000.
So the easy to attend new footballing era (Free mostly from so called football hooligans, post Gazza crying at Italia 90) has brought Villa around 10,000 extra fans. But with Newcastle this has increased by almost 30,000. I can only sum up that they have had a lot of bandwaggon jumpers fused with a strange blind faith but, ultimately their traditional fan base is no better than ours.
It would be wrong, as several posters have said, not to acknowledge that Newcastle are engrained in the psyche of the north-east in a way that Villa will never be in the Midlands. As amfy pointed out, never underestimate the mentality that comes from being the only club in a city, particularly one where the boundaries of the conurbation are as clearly defined as Tyneside. But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.
-
But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.
Have you got any facts to back this up?
Numbers from the ONS for regional populations and 14/15 average attendances tell the following story:
North East region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_England) population = 2.6m
Aggregate average attendances of league clubs there (Newcastle, Sunderland, Boro and Hartlepool = 121,342 (4.6%)
West Midlands region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)) population = 5.7m
Attendances (Villa, Baggies, Blues, Wolves, Stoke, Cov, Walsall, Port Vale, Burton, Crewe, Shrews) = 160,607 (2.8%)
If Newcastle have a 'unique advantage' it's that their local populace has a greater sense of association with the club than the population of Birmingham has with the Villa. And that's got very little to do with the existence of the Blues and Albion.
-
But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.
Have you got any facts to back this up?
Numbers from the ONS for regional populations and 14/15 average attendances tell the following story:
North East region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_England) population = 2.6m
Aggregate average attendances of league clubs there (Newcastle, Sunderland, Boro and Hartlepool = 121,342 (4.6%)
West Midlands region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)) population = 5.7m
Attendances (Villa, Baggies, Blues, Wolves, Stoke, Cov, Walsall, Port Vale, Burton, Crewe, Shrews) = 160,607 (2.8%)
If Newcastle have a 'unique advantage' it's that their local populace has a greater sense of association with the club than the population of Birmingham has with the Villa. And that's got very little to do with the existence of the Blues and Albion.
Even in the immediate area they've got two major clubs competing with them - although for reasons stated above, their idea of competition is a lot different to ours. We've got six on your list, and that doesn't include the East Midlands or Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester, all of which are closeer to us than anywhere else is to Newcastle.
-
If you look at Newcastle's average crowds say from 1970-1990 they would be worse than ours, we could always get some massive crowds given any hope.
Traditionally Villa before 1990 had larger crowds than the Geordies, however, from the 1990 World Cup onwards with a mixture of Keegan Mania and the new Premiership/new fan era Newcastle have found some new fans. We would always average around 25,000 in the period running up to the early 90s before football began to become fashionable, the Geordies and 20-25,000. But in recent years they have been averaging about 50,000 and us about 35,000.
So the easy to attend new footballing era (Free mostly from so called football hooligans, post Gazza crying at Italia 90) has brought Villa around 10,000 extra fans. But with Newcastle this has increased by almost 30,000. I can only sum up that they have had a lot of bandwaggon jumpers fused with a strange blind faith but, ultimately their traditional fan base is no better than ours.
It would be wrong, as several posters have said, not to acknowledge that Newcastle are engrained in the psyche of the north-east in a way that Villa will never be in the Midlands. As amfy pointed out, never underestimate the mentality that comes from being the only club in a city, particularly one where the boundaries of the conurbation are as clearly defined as Tyneside. But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.
Agreed which makes it all the more annoying that when we had that advantage in the 1990s with only Coventry bloody City for company and no other clubs for 80 miles in all directions we spectacularly failed to capitalise. Thanks Doug....
-
But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.
Have you got any facts to back this up?
Numbers from the ONS for regional populations and 14/15 average attendances tell the following story:
North East region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_England) population = 2.6m
Aggregate average attendances of league clubs there (Newcastle, Sunderland, Boro and Hartlepool = 121,342 (4.6%)
West Midlands region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)) population = 5.7m
Attendances (Villa, Baggies, Blues, Wolves, Stoke, Cov, Walsall, Port Vale, Burton, Crewe, Shrews) = 160,607 (2.8%)
If Newcastle have a 'unique advantage' it's that their local populace has a greater sense of association with the club than the population of Birmingham has with the Villa. And that's got very little to do with the existence of the Blues and Albion.
Even in the immediate area they've got two major clubs competing with them - although for reasons stated above, their idea of competition is a lot different to ours. We've got six on your list, and that doesn't include the East Midlands or Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester, all of which are closeer to us than anywhere else is to Newcastle.
So in the East Midlands you've got 4.7m people and Forest, Derby and Leicester - I'd say our crowds get a net benefit from that relationship rather than us losing fans to those clubs.
And Liverpool, Sheffield & Manchester?! Those are cities over 100 miles away - why would we lose fans to clubs in those cities in any greater numbers than Newcastle would?
Your argument is getting more and more tenuous.
-
If you look at Newcastle's average crowds say from 1970-1990 they would be worse than ours, we could always get some massive crowds given any hope.
Traditionally Villa before 1990 had larger crowds than the Geordies, however, from the 1990 World Cup onwards with a mixture of Keegan Mania and the new Premiership/new fan era Newcastle have found some new fans. We would always average around 25,000 in the period running up to the early 90s before football began to become fashionable, the Geordies and 20-25,000. But in recent years they have been averaging about 50,000 and us about 35,000.
So the easy to attend new footballing era (Free mostly from so called football hooligans, post Gazza crying at Italia 90) has brought Villa around 10,000 extra fans. But with Newcastle this has increased by almost 30,000. I can only sum up that they have had a lot of bandwaggon jumpers fused with a strange blind faith but, ultimately their traditional fan base is no better than ours.
It would be wrong, as several posters have said, not to acknowledge that Newcastle are engrained in the psyche of the north-east in a way that Villa will never be in the Midlands. As amfy pointed out, never underestimate the mentality that comes from being the only club in a city, particularly one where the boundaries of the conurbation are as clearly defined as Tyneside. But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.
Agreed which makes it all the more annoying that when we had that advantage in the 1990s with only Coventry bloody City for company and no other clubs for 80 miles in all directions we spectacularly failed to capitalise. Thanks Doug....
Yes. All that "Manchester United of the Midlands" bollocks, still boils my piss 25 years later.
Douglas we were, are and always will be the Aston Villa of the world. I get the sense Dr. Xia has this outlook rather than Doug's.
-
But equally, it is impossible to get away from the fact that Newcastle have a unique advantage over every other major club in the country when it comes to the size of the area they can draw on.
Have you got any facts to back this up?
Numbers from the ONS for regional populations and 14/15 average attendances tell the following story:
North East region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_England) population = 2.6m
Aggregate average attendances of league clubs there (Newcastle, Sunderland, Boro and Hartlepool = 121,342 (4.6%)
West Midlands region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(region)) population = 5.7m
Attendances (Villa, Baggies, Blues, Wolves, Stoke, Cov, Walsall, Port Vale, Burton, Crewe, Shrews) = 160,607 (2.8%)
If Newcastle have a 'unique advantage' it's that their local populace has a greater sense of association with the club than the population of Birmingham has with the Villa. And that's got very little to do with the existence of the Blues and Albion.
Even in the immediate area they've got two major clubs competing with them - although for reasons stated above, their idea of competition is a lot different to ours. We've got six on your list, and that doesn't include the East Midlands or Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester, all of which are closeer to us than anywhere else is to Newcastle.
So in the East Midlands you've got 4.7m people and Forest, Derby and Leicester - I'd say our crowds get a net benefit from that relationship rather than us losing fans to those clubs.
And Liverpool, Sheffield & Manchester?! Those are cities over 100 miles away - why would we lose fans to clubs in those cities in any greater numbers than Newcastle would?
Your argument is getting more and more tenuous.
And my dad's bigger than your dad. Well done - in your mind you've won an internet argument. Buy yourself a map as a prize.
-
Who said it was an argument? You threw out a baseless statement and I offered some stats to disprove it. And rather than be grown up about it you chuck your toys out of the pram. No argument involved.
-
Who said it was an argument? You threw out a baseless statement and I offered some stats to disprove it. And rather than be grown up about it you chuck your toys out of the pram. No argument involved.
That's a bit rich considering that every post you've made has had to come complete with some silly little dig.