• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

What are the differences between Spurs and arsenal?

Arsenal are the only team in the top-flight who weren't promoted based on their playing merit.

Spurs have never moved across London.

Many Spurs fans, for obvious reasons, resent Arsenal moving to North London and becoming more successful than them, and in their eyes cheating Spurs out of a place in Division 1 in 1919, on the resumption of football after World War 1. I’m not going to go into that subject here, but obviously the allegations of bribery and corruption against Arsenal are completely unfounded. If anyone, Spurs fan or otherwise, wants to accuse Arsenal of any offence in 1919 then please provide some form of evidence.

However, the circumstances of Spurs being relegated while Arsenal were promoted in 1919, then Arsenal becoming the biggest club in the world in the 1930s, Spurs’ resurgence in the late 1950s and then their glory years (1961-62), and finally the modern Spurs fan having to watch Arsenal’s own resurgence and numerous trophy wins has caused some negative emotions in many Spurs fans – I won’t say all; I’ve met Spurs fans who are perfectly reasonable. But some understandably cling to the “We were here in North London first” argument. The problem with this argument is that the boundary of London has changed.

London was already a city in medieval times when the Normans organised England and Wales into counties. In the south of England counties were largely existing divisions of the old Kingdom of Wessex, including Middlesex (named after the ‘Middle Saxons’ who settled there a few centuries earlier). Henry I granted control of Middlesex to London, and until the late 19th century London and Middlesex were administered together for most purposes.

‘London’ at this time was strictly speaking what we now know as the City of London, also known simply as ‘the City’ or the ‘square mile’, and largely taken over these days by the financial industry. In earlier times people actually lived in the City of London of course, but eventually most migrated to the growing urban sprawl outside the old City walls. As time went on ‘London’ gobbled up its surrounding villages and became bigger and bigger, though officially London was still just the old area of the City within its medieval boundary.

In 1886 – coincidentally Arsenal’s founding year – the Conservatives won a general election, but without enough seats for a majority. They allied themselves with the Liberal Unionists, who agreed to support the Tories in exchange for certain policies being implemented, one of which was reorganisation of local government. Accordingly, new county administrations were implemented under the Local Government Act of 1888, including the formation of a new County of London from 21 March 1889.

The County of London was made up of the City itself and a large number of districts surrounding it on both sides of the River Thames. In 1900 the old local districts and parishes and their administrative councils were reorganised into 28 Metropolitan Boroughs, including Chelsea, Fulham, Woolwich (one of the largest in area) and Islington – which of course includes Highbury. So both Arsenal’s home (south of the river) at the time of the formation of the new county and the one they moved to in 1913 were within the official new London. Tottenham remained in Middlesex, where it had been ever since its formation as a small hamlet about 1,000 years ago.

Things stayed this way from 1900 to 1965, when London’s increasing size necessitated further reorganisation. Under the London Government Act 1963 a new ‘Greater London’ was formed around the County of London, which then disappeared and became known as ‘Inner London’. At this point Tottenham became part of the new borough of Haringey, and for the first time part of London.

The county of Middlesex disappeared, mostly into Greater London, with odd bits going into other surrounding counties. The name Middlesex lives on as a postal district and the name of a county cricket club.

So, rather appropriately some might say, Tottenham only became part of London on 1 April 1965. What this means of course is that they’ve never won the League as a London club, and Arsenal were the first London club to do the Double! And also the second and third.

To emphasise that last point, here’s the Wikipedia page for the Municipal Borough of Tottenham that features a map titled “Tottenham within Middlesex in 1961″. I’ve added this as at least one Spurs fan seemed to think that when Tottenham became a borough in the 1890s it stopped being part of Middlesex. No such luck for him, as the status of Tottenham could not get it out of Middlesex and into the capital with Arsenal for another 70 years.
.
 
Ozil gets goals, Ramsey will get double figures, Cazorla, Podolski and Walcott all chip in with their share.

Compare that to us, Lennon gets 4-5 goals a season, Dembele gets about 3, Holtby hasn't scored league goal yet, Our midfielders don't score enough.

Holtby has scored a league goal. A winner at that.
 
Imo that video is interesting. The obvious conclusion is - Spurs ingrained mentality is wrong - that is why we lost. Typical Spurs performance.

Now this is why Roy Keane is failed football manager. He, probably like Mr Dubai (are you in Canada by the way? Did you live in Dubai?), understandably feel that if you change the mentality, you'd change the club and start winning. Overnight.

A better manager than Keane understands that a winning mentality is built. Built upon...well winning primarily. Winning games through footballing ability. Galvanizing team as you go, not putting up with substandard performances and whittling out those who don't put themselves on the line are key. But toughness and success can not be distilled and simply injected into players.

If you look at the nasty incidents in today's game, Spurs players were far more aggressive. I just don't buy this we're too nice. They won because they were the better footballing team.

It was typical in the sense that it was feeble, played well in patches but didn't create much despite have lots of the ball. When was the last time you could say we were unlucky to lose at their place?
 
its pretty simple. wenger likes players who are comfy on the ball. players who dont just run for the sake of it.
corzola ramsey ozil ect the dont just run down the wings. .

what do we do. pass to lennon or towsend and they run down the wing and put aimless crosses in .
its easy for top defenders to defend that.

then we have dembele paullino capoue ect who just run with the ball.
we only have erickson or holtby who has a bit of vison and can play a forward pass.

we had huddlestone but sold him. one of the best passers.
 
To emphasise that last point, here’s the Wikipedia page for the Municipal Borough of Tottenham that features a map titled “Tottenham within Middlesex in 1961″. I’ve added this as at least one Spurs fan seemed to think that when Tottenham became a borough in the 1890s it stopped being part of Middlesex. No such luck for him, as the status of Tottenham could not get it out of Middlesex and into the capital with Arsenal for another 70 years.

...and I thought we have too much time on our hands!

One sad fuk who puts that much time into putting together a whole essay which comes down to - where you draw lines on a map is more important than the earth that your club stands on. Glad Spurs supporters tend to have more class!

Incidentally didn't arsse have an open sewer running through their first south London ground?
 
Time. See a long term plan through to fruition. I fear with Levy it will never happen. Perhaps he's been right to get rid of each of the managers when he has but he has also been the one to choose them. Has he been too quick to appoint them? Did Arsenal just get lucky with Wenger?

With us and them, I fear it's a mentality thing. They have been finishing above us for so long it's become customary just to accept it.

3 players for me looked like they didn't respect this heirachy for me. Modric, Vdv and of course Bale.

In terms of the players we have now? We need time. AVB may be gone but he was right, time is the most precious commodity for the players. Soldado is better then his finishing recently suggests. Lamela had the potential to become something special. Eriksen could grow into a teriffic player for us.

There is hope. I'd like to see us with Vertonghen, Kaboul, Sandro, all playing consistently in a settled spurs side week in week out, working as a cohesive unit.

Let's upgrade our left back, if we can't get a Luke Shaw then get Ekotto back at least. Lescott would be a shrewd move. And if we can let's bring in a decent striker to add to Ade and Soldado. Not sure whether Defoe ifs off or not. Other then that I say just give these boys time.

My message to Tim, bed in Lamela asap. He will only improve with games. Just play him, we have nothing to lose now.
 
Arsenal are the official football club of preconceived notions, established order, class structure, foregone conclusions, the monarchy and its sycophantic middle-management suck-ups.

And Corgies.

We're not.
 
Many Spurs fans, for obvious reasons, resent Arsenal moving to North London and becoming more successful than them, and in their eyes cheating Spurs out of a place in Division 1 in 1919, on the resumption of football after World War 1...

Dunno what you are doing reading an ARSEnal blog but WALOB!

Please cleanse your mind of such pitiful propaganda by reading this:

Henry Norris: The man who would be king at Arsenal | FourFourTwo
Sir Henry Norris was prepared to bully and bribe everyone from the FA to the Archbishop of Canterbury to turn Arsenal into London’s first super-club. But, writes Jon Spurling, could he reach the top before the dodgy deals caught up with him?
 
Imo that video is interesting. The obvious conclusion is - Spurs ingrained mentality is wrong - that is why we lost. Typical Spurs performance.

Now this is why Roy Keane is failed football manager. He, probably like Mr Dubai (are you in Canada by the way? Did you live in Dubai?), understandably feel that if you change the mentality, you'd change the club and start winning. Overnight.

A better manager than Keane understands that a winning mentality is built. Built upon...well winning primarily. Winning games through footballing ability. Galvanizing team as you go, not putting up with substandard performances and whittling out those who don't put themselves on the line are key. But toughness and success can not be distilled and simply injected into players.

If you look at the nasty incidents in today's game, Spurs players were far more aggressive. I just don't buy this we're too nice. They won because they were the better footballing team.

I currently live in Canada, yes. I spent most of my childhood and teenage years in Dubai, hence the rather sentimental username (despite the deep reservations I have about that place now). Still, I digress.

As a theoretical reply to your assertion that a winning mentality cannot be built without a long history of winning, let's imagine that today, our midfield was comprised of Eriksen, Dembele, Lennon....and Roy Keane. In-his-pomp Roy Keane, obviously, before he declined and faded away. Everything else remains the same. Would the outcome have been the same? Would Keane have done nothing as Walcott did his little pantomime gig while being stretchered off? Would he have ignored Rose's error as most of our players did, and just gotten on with it? Would he have resignedly shrugged when that Monreal tripped Walker in the area and Clattenburg immediately signalled 'play on'?

I suspect you already know the answer. None of these things would have changed the immediate physical reality of the game: we would have remained 2-0 down. But I suspect that in the first instance, Keane would have chewed out Rose and, more importantly, bucked him up by chewing out other people for not providing passing options to him. In the second instance, he would probably have wandered over and started a fight with some Arsenal player and they would have to be separated by the referee. In the third instance, he would probably have sprinted to Clattenburg before yelling furiously inches from his nose while going steadily redder in the face. Additionally, based on his endeavors at United, I suspect that whenever we would slack off in said hypothetical game, Keane would angrily bark at the players to toughen up before launching himself into a blood-and-thunder tackle on some poor Arsenal slob,drawing a cheer from the away fans and seemingly giving us some much needed impetus.

And how would our players react to such things? The same players who resignedly accepted the result and these incidents within the game would probably have a) backed him up when he started said fight, causing a scrum that would have to be separated and at the very least shaking up Arsenal's gloating players a bit, b) gone running to the referee with him, because that's what you do as a team, back each other up, and c) played with increased intensity after the blood-and-thunder tackle because that kind of crowd-raising moment affects more than just the crowd: it affects the players as well.

And when all our players are playing like that, fighting like that, and are desperate to win like that....surely that is a winning mentality personified?

This is all theoretical, of course it is. The likes of Keane, Mackay and Viera are impossible to find nowadays. These men drove their clubs forward using their own iron wills, and instilled winning mentalities almost single-handedly. But it doesn't need a history of winning to find a player like that, nor does it need a history of success to find a revolutionary manager who can instill that sort of thing in you from the get go: see Ferguson at Aberdeen, Brian Clough at Derby (sacked the tea ladies when he caught them laughing after a defeat), Antonio Conte at Juventus (won the league unbeaten in his first season, ending years of Juve underachievement) or Quique Sanchez Flores taking Atletico to their first European trophy since 1962 and nearly securing another in his first season managing them, and this after horrific 2009-2010 season they had.

You do not need to win to instill a winning mentality: if that were the case, the top clubs would be the top clubs forevermore. Football history is cyclical partly because of this factor: unfancied teams learning how to win without winning in the first place, be it via an inspirational player or a no-nonsense manager. I don't know precisely where we can find either at the moment, but I'd suggest that in the absence of either of those two, showing a bit more fight, giving the ref a bit more stick, pumping up the fans with a few more full-blooded challenges, riling up a few more Arsenal players instead of trudging away as they sneer at your retreating backside....I'd suggest these things would help.
 
Last edited:
Mumorn where is that long piece of writing from? Completely rubs me up the wrong way. I hate Arsenal because the majority of Arsenal fans I have met are complete knobs (to put it politely) who think Arsenal invented attractive football. I don't like Wheelchair's petulance, kicking at players and squaring up to them and then complaining when someone steps up to him, I could go on with others.

So far as derby games go, they have fans playing for them. Wheelchair, Walcott and Szczesny all massive gooners who know what the fixture means. A couple of years ago we had players who loved this club too and knew what it meant, Huddlestone did, King did and so did VdV (those nutmegs on Wheelchair :)).

So far as general structure

1) Wenger has the club playing the same system from the bottom to the top. Their youth players come up with all the skills needed to play in the first team. They have good footballing brains as a result of their training. Hopefully over the next 5 years we will start to see something similar from our youth academy, but if TS keeps up with the 442 then we may be in for some trouble.
2) The signings that Wenger makes are all in the same mould. Other than Oxlade Chamberlain you would say most of their midfield signings are all your typical pass and move players, they all have the ability to play with their heads up and know where to run the moment they have released the ball. Our players are completely different. We have some who can pass and move whilst we have others who are more likely to try to dribble and shoot.
3) Wengers system is tried and tested. It works well in 95% of encounters and only fails against really top teams. Add to that the fact that every signing they make is for a player that compliments his formation and you have a match made in heaven. We on the other have a different system with every new manager. Today it was obvious which team practice retaining possession and passing it from front to back. Every time we started play from Lloris we could only pass so far before the ball came back to him or got hit long.

In conclusion the answer is Wenger. I have no doubt that if he were to leave they would slide back out of the top three within a year. Any manager that takes over from him will want to make their own mark and do something different and I reckon only a rare few will be able to create something better.
 
Mumorn where is that long piece of writing from? Completely rubs me up the wrong way. I hate Arsenal because the majority of Arsenal fans I have met are complete knobs (to put it politely) who think Arsenal invented attractive football. I don't like Wheelchair's petulance, kicking at players and squaring up to them and then complaining when someone steps up to him, I could go on with others.

So far as derby games go, they have fans playing for them. Wheelchair, Walcott and Szczesny all massive gooners who know what the fixture means. A couple of years ago we had players who loved this club too and knew what it meant, Huddlestone did, King did and so did VdV (those nutmegs on Wheelchair :)).

So far as general structure

1) Wenger has the club playing the same system from the bottom to the top. Their youth players come up with all the skills needed to play in the first team. They have good footballing brains as a result of their training. Hopefully over the next 5 years we will start to see something similar from our youth academy, but if TS keeps up with the 442 then we may be in for some trouble.
2) The signings that Wenger makes are all in the same mould. Other than Oxlade Chamberlain you would say most of their midfield signings are all your typical pass and move players, they all have the ability to play with their heads up and know where to run the moment they have released the ball. Our players are completely different. We have some who can pass and move whilst we have others who are more likely to try to dribble and shoot.
3) Wengers system is tried and tested. It works well in 95% of encounters and only fails against really top teams. Add to that the fact that every signing they make is for a player that compliments his formation and you have a match made in heaven. We on the other have a different system with every new manager. Today it was obvious which team practice retaining possession and passing it from front to back. Every time we started play from Lloris we could only pass so far before the ball came back to him or got hit long.

In conclusion the answer is Wenger. I have no doubt that if he were to leave they would slide back out of the top three within a year. Any manager that takes over from him will want to make their own mark and do something different and I reckon only a rare few will be able to create something better.

A bit of Googling shows that Murmon copied and pasted that tosh from this ARSEnal fan blog http://angryofislington.com/2012/07/31/who-was-in-north-london-first-arsenal-or-spurs/ :~

Hopefully it is only a matter of time before Wenger decides to retire and ARSEnal have to undergo the upheaval that ManU are currently enduring so we finally have the opportunity to finish above them in the league again like the good old pre-Sugar days[-o<
 
Some excellent points Mr D. I don't know who our Roy Keane could be. Sandro has bite. Even Lennon can be feisty. The world has chanced a little and I'm not sure even Ferguson would put up with meaningless reds and bans. I wish you a nice evening.
 
I think Walker could do it, but that's it. The guy seems to care more than most of the younger lads. That or we bring in a nutcase specifically for that reason
 
Money

Last time we finished above them was also the last time we had a higher turnover iirc

In fact you could argue we have been getting the better bang for our buck over the last 4/5/6 seasons - they're considerably closer to those above them than we are to them, financially speaking, but on the field (until this season at least) it's the opposite, with them barely scraping past us on the last day of the season each year more or less.
 
Yesterday was conditioning and depth. We have an injury list long enough to field a whole team and the ones playing looked exhausted.

If you can look beyond a horrible individual mistake, they are still one good (as in, made by the team and not an error) goal ahead of us - as they were in the earlier league game.

Overall though; tactically and technically ahead of us by a distance and have been for a while - which the league table shows this season. However, when one team loses their best player and the other doesn't the gap has been closing. Lost Van Persie and Spurs were just 1pt behind, last year also just 1pt behind when Bale has his career-best season (so far). This year will probably be more, though, as you'd expect.

Maybe mentality as well, this comes from years of winning.

Until we have some stability we will keep finishing below them. Wages are a big deal but Spurs aren't short of money.
 
Back