That lot Again v Jawdies Pre-Match thread

[The Fish]

Fish back on here?

One question to you if you haven't been banned again....surely beating us 6-0 in your first game back in August 2010 was enough.

I'm bemused that the bitterness still lingers...last season was just amusing given how abysmal we were and you still couldn't win but I really can't believe the stuff from 2009 is still lingering on, it's been nearly 8 years now and we're in a much worse state than you now.

Probably would have been had we not been relegated at your gaff again.

But as I've said a few times, the "rivalry" is kept going by a few fans on both sides, by the local media (which in turn incites a few more fans) on both sides and so on. It can't be a shock that football fans hold a grudge. e.g. Sunderland fans must be alone in celebrating the travails at Coventry, but they'll never forgive them.

"Best-known these days as a veteran TV pundit, Hill was chairman of Coventry City in 1976-77 when three teams went into the last day of the campaign facing relegation – Sunderland, Bristol City and Coventry.

Hill had the kick-off at the Coventry-Bristol City game delayed for 15 minutes because of "crowd congestion" and when news came through that Sunderland had lost to Everton, he had the result announced over the tannoy.

That sent the message to both teams that – provided neither scored – they would stay up at Sunderland's expense and what followed was a farcical passage of play in which neither side attempted to win.

Hill was reprimanded by the Football Association, but Sunderland's relegation still stood."

So you may raise an eyebrow at 9yrs, but this example is 40yrs in the making. There'll be match attending kids who's Dad wasn't even directly affected by that incident, those kids will absolutely hate Coventry and have no real idea why.

Brighton and Palace hate each other with the heat of a thousand suns because Terry Venables and Alan Mullery didn't really get on at Spurs and they competed for the league 40 years ago.

There's certainly a few more as well http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-whiting/obscure-football-rivalries_b_4185119.html

Certainly in this day and age, there's an appetite for "narratives" in the media. So exaggerating a resentment
will get visits to your site, so you can sell advert space, so you can keep the lights on without having to do any real, actual journalism.

It's all a bit silly and all a bit of a laugh. What it isn't is a fanbase-wide lack of humour, or evidence of bitterness or any sweeping generalisation like that.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Know what I agree with him on one point, plenty of things to slag Newcastle off about if you were bothered but their attendances isn't one of them.

Certainly not since Sky invented football.

[PeterWithesShin]

Newcastle have always had decent support for a Scottish club but their blind refusal to admit how much it was dropping until Keegan was appointed gets a bit tedious. Ground held less than 30K and was rarely two thirds full. Within a few years 20,000 extra people suddenly realised they'd always loved Newcastle.

Still, average attendances look great in their trophy cabinet, meanwhile i'll look in ours at the trophies i've seen Villa win.

[The Fish]

Newcastle have always had decent support for a Scottish club but their blind refusal to admit how much it was dropping until Keegan was appointed gets a bit tedious. Ground held less than 30K and was rarely two thirds full. Within a few years 20,000 extra people suddenly realised they'd always loved Newcastle.

Still, average attendances look great in their trophy cabinet, meanwhile i'll look in ours at the trophies i've seen Villa win.

I love a bit of recycled talkSport/606 clichéd nonsense too.

[MarkM]

Newcastle have always had decent support for a Scottish club but their blind refusal to admit how much it was dropping until Keegan was appointed gets a bit tedious. Ground held less than 30K and was rarely two thirds full. Within a few years 20,000 extra people suddenly realised they'd always loved Newcastle.

Still, average attendances look great in their trophy cabinet, meanwhile i'll look in ours at the trophies i've seen Villa win.

I love a bit of recycled talkSport/606 clichéd nonsense too.

The link below has some good stats on your attendances pre Sky

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/newu.htm

[The Fish]

The link below has some good stats on your attendances pre Sky

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/newu.htm

Thanks for that, and while bearing in mind I didn't bring up attendances, according to that site I found the following;



Both clubs have had periods with lower attendances than their norm, and both clubs have had reasons for that. Historically neither club have dipped below 20k often, and after the advent of Sky, neither have seen average gates dip below that figure at all.

Pre-Sky attendances were over 20k more than 80% of the time. And Newcastle's gates were higher than 30k more than 40% of the time. Villa's weren't far behind and this will include periods where the stadiums couldn't hold more than 30 and reactions to the Bradford fire, hooliganism etc.

Oh, but bear in mind that site has attendance figures for Newcastle going back to 1894 (2yrs after their founding) but they only have figures going back to 1889 for Villa (15yrs after their founding) so it's not a full picture I'm afraid.

It's wrong to say that Newcastle rank's were swollen because of Sky or Keegan. It's more accurate to say it's been a well supported club for over a hundred years with the occasional variance from that norm.

[Richard E]

This thread is still going to be active in 2026, isn't it?

[Pat McMahon]

I get the Fish's comments re attendances.

You can throw criticism of Newcastle for various reasons, but they have generally had decent attendances in my lifetime - more so in the past 20 years mind, as the ground has been expanded. Factor in the failure to win a trophy since that Fairs Cup in 1970 (i think), with only a few trips to Wembley, and it is very impressive.

For the Fish's benefit, we also relegated Newcastle around 1978-79 too. It was a midweek home game and IIRC we won 2-0, although they had been toast for a few weeks. The Evening Mail ran a story the next night about the group of fans who had travelled down in a minibus / van (remember those days of Kenning / Salford Van Hire?) and the Newcastle players heard of this and had a whip to pay for the petrol and van hire.

My best mate at university was a Geordie and we sporadically keep in touch about footie. The only criticism i could ever throw at him was after their  4-0 away at Cardiff around 1982. He was ecstatic and said "that will put 10k on the home gate next week". I didn't check to see if it did but found that strange.

This recent rivalry bemuses me somewhat as most Geordies i have met over the years have been decent fans. Had a chat with a few in the pub after our last home game in May and they bore us no grudge. They were more pissed off at Benitez and the lame attempt to beat us in a must win game for them.
 

[LukeJames]

Jesus christ he's still babbling on and even going on about attendances now, stereo typical Geordie if ever there was one.
They have created this  'rivalry' with us to detract from the fact that they have been Sunderlands bitches for the best part of a decade.

Couple of points;

I responded to an Aston Villa fans mention of attendances, I didn't bring them up.
This "rivalry" was created by one Aston Villa fan with too much time on his hands, then exaggerated by local media and twitter. Our sense of superiority over Sunderland can handle relegation and even an embarrassing string of defeats, we're always going to think that way, just as you'll feel superior to West Brom and Birmingham regardless of league positions.

To be fair though, I've always considered Sunderland to be the biggest club up there, although i'm basing that on nothing other than how I've always viewed it, but even now thinking of it logically theres not much between the two of you, certainly not for enough to hold a sense of superiority over them.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

It's wrong to say that Newcastle rank's were swollen because of Sky or Keegan. It's more accurate to say it's been a well supported club for over a hundred years with the occasional variance from that norm.

Have it anyway you want but it won't erase the fact you attendances were well down, dropping to just over 9,000 before Keegan and Sky arrived.

[PeterWithesShin]

1991 (Pre-Keegan) Av att 17K. 3 years later it's 34K. The season Keegan arrived 20K gates a rarity, 13K v Cambridge, 15-17K the norm. Still don't let facts get in the way of claiming it's a cliche, and keep on denying 10-15K suddenly remembered they supported Newcastle the second Keegan walked through the door.

As I said, they'll come up with any old excuse to rewrite history.

[Ads]

I don't get why the past three times the horse punching masses have gathered outside the away end to do a collective hold me back routine.

[The Fish]

1991 (Pre-Keegan) Av att 17K. 3 years later it's 34K. The season Keegan arrived 20K gates a rarity, 13K v Cambridge, 15-17K the norm. Still don't let facts get in the way of claiming it's a cliche, and keep on denying 10-15K suddenly remembered they supported Newcastle the second Keegan walked through the door.

As I said, they'll come up with any old excuse to rewrite history.

1991 Avg 17k and I'm guessing you'll dismiss any context.

8yrs preceding it were crowds of >20k average, before that there were 2 years of low attendance (where you'll likely dismiss context) which followed another long stretch of big crowds.

But lets not facts get in the way of your prejudice  .

[The Fish]

To be fair though, I've always considered Sunderland to be the biggest club up there, although i'm basing that on nothing other than how I've always viewed it, but even now thinking of it logically theres not much between the two of you, certainly not for enough to hold a sense of superiority over them.

A lot of that is my age, for the overwhelming majority of my life we've done better than them (without winning anything ). We have legitimately challenged for the top flight title a few times, we've played and beaten giants of European football, we've made it to cup finals (and downed tools), we've see some top class footballers pull on our shirt and we've generally finished above Sunderland in the league.

They're knowledgeable and passionate, with a proud history and a fanbase that turns up in numbers not too dissimilar to our own, despite seeing nowt but disappointment on the pitch for decades, they're a "big" club. But I will always feel like Newcastle are the bigger club, mostly because I'm a Newcastle fan.

[dave.woodhall]

Alright, you're bigger than Sunderland. Now go and bore somewhere else.