Why are Northern clubs more successful than their Southern counterparts ?

[Vespa Red]

49 minutes ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

 

 

But isn’t their rugby only played in the Yorkshire and Lancashire areas? 
 

 

Mostly although it is also played in Cumbria

[Cowshed]

6 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

Since 1888, the start of the football league , not the Prem, Northern clubs have won the competition more times than the giants of the South , why is that ? 
 

Surprisingly, just five of the 24 top division winners are from the south of England and a clear dominance coming from the North, with particular recognition going to the North West thanks to the dominance of Liverpool, Everton and Manchester United.

Are we just Southern softies ? 
Have we more interesting things to do on a Saturday ? 

Why do you suppose there exists this divide ? 

 

The game grew from the North downwards.

Originally football was a more Northern Sport. The founders of football were from the North and Midlands. The first semi pro and professional clubs were  generally Northern.

The close proximity of Scotland meant Scottish talent joined Northern clubs.

The North's working class communities were an asset to support a working class sport.

Liverpool and Manchester greatly benefitted from the above.

 

[Merrick's Marvels]

7 hours ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

But the North are shite at Rugby. 
 

[Merrick's Marvels]

5 hours ago, Olé said:

So on this point, here's the thing I don't understand about football in the early part of the 20th century (because I have no historical context, just the actual records).

100 years ago this year, Chelsea became the first London club to ever finish in the top three of English football, in a league system that already ran for over 30 years.

This massively validates the historical dominance of the North, but if Bristol is an anomaly, back then it was surely by being successful where London clubs weren't!?

Because in 1907 (13 years earlier) we finished second in the league. The first Southern club to challenge the North/Midlands and only one to do so before the 1920's.

Granted the FA Cup tells a different story, but I've always wondered why so little is made of the fact that in the League we were the first side to challenge the North?

 

Southern Clubs - Top 3 Finishes in England (league system commenced 1888)

• 1907 - Bristol City (2nd)
• 1920 - Chelsea (3rd)
• 1922 - Spurs (2nd)
• 1924 - Cardiff (2nd)
• 1926 - Arsenal (2nd)
• 1931 - Arsenal (1st) - Arsenal then dominated the 1930s

 

 

Yep, we were proper pioneers back in the day - one of very few clubs in the South of England to have the drive and ambition to take professional football seriously, along with basically Arsenal. 

Southampton kept winning the Southern League and declining to join the Football League. Tottenham took the FA Cup more seriously than League football and their first Cup win was as an amateur side (they're  the last club to win it as amateurs)

This, and many many other stories besides, are unheralded parts of our rich and colourful history. Someone au fait with all this could make an interesting visitor attraction / museum, I'd  have thought. But no, the current thinking is that " we've  not won very much", so the idea has been sidelined. Such pitiful thinking, imo - as if "winning" is the only interesting thing about a club's  history.

[Maltshoveller]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

The government provided a handy boundary when they built the M4 motorway.

Im sorry but the M4 is not the boundary of north/South

The River Avon is where north meets South

[Midred]

6 hours ago, Olé said:

So on this point, here's the thing I don't understand about football in the early part of the 20th century (because I have no historical context, just the actual records).

100 years ago this year, Chelsea became the first London club to ever finish in the top three of English football, in a league system that already ran for over 30 years.

This massively validates the historical dominance of the North, but if Bristol is an anomaly, back then it was surely by being successful where London clubs weren't!?

Because in 1907 (13 years earlier) we finished second in the league. The first Southern club to challenge the North/Midlands and only one to do so before the 1920's.

Granted the FA Cup tells a different story, but I've always wondered why so little is made of the fact that in the League we were the first side to challenge the North?

 

Southern Clubs - Top 3 Finishes in England (league system commenced 1888)

• 1907 - Bristol City (2nd)
• 1920 - Chelsea (3rd)
• 1922 - Spurs (2nd)
• 1924 - Cardiff (2nd)
• 1926 - Arsenal (2nd)
• 1931 - Arsenal (1st) - Arsenal then dominated the 1930s

 

 

1909? FA cup runners up. 

[Phileas Fogg]

7 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

I accept that I consider BCFC to have been Bristol Cosy Football Club with Uncle Steve, licol Lee and the gang

Even  in the past , life has been easy for players here without too much expectation of success and a , largely , accepting supporter base. 
 

I am more curious as to why people think the Northern clubs have been more successful. 
 

Thanks for the exchanges PF.

 

I think the ‘largely accepting supporter base’ is a myth. Apart from a couple of anomalies such as Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle and Man United (where being a supporter of the club is an element of regional identity) I don’t think there’s much more ‘acceptance’ or apathy here than anywhere else. 

[Phileas Fogg]

7 hours ago, Olé said:

So on this point, here's the thing I don't understand about football in the early part of the 20th century (because I have no historical context, just the actual records).

100 years ago this year, Chelsea became the first London club to ever finish in the top three of English football, in a league system that already ran for over 30 years.

This massively validates the historical dominance of the North, but if Bristol is an anomaly, back then it was surely by being successful where London clubs weren't!?

Because in 1907 (13 years earlier) we finished second in the league. The first Southern club to challenge the North/Midlands and only one to do so before the 1920's.

Granted the FA Cup tells a different story, but I've always wondered why so little is made of the fact that in the League we were the first side to challenge the North?

 

Southern Clubs - Top 3 Finishes in England (league system commenced 1888)

• 1907 - Bristol City (2nd)
• 1920 - Chelsea (3rd)
• 1922 - Spurs (2nd)
• 1924 - Cardiff (2nd)
• 1926 - Arsenal (2nd)
• 1931 - Arsenal (1st) - Arsenal then dominated the 1930s

 

 

Interesting points but I’d argue that the Pre-WW2 1900s don’t have that much relevance anymore in a footballing context. 

It’s a good observation but I don’t think there’s much that can be read into 1907.

[22A]

Not just success, failure too.

Accrington, Southport, Workington, Barrow, Bradford PA, Bury, Macclesfield all dropped out of the league since 1960. Two of them have got back in.