Club Records From The Last Decade

[grove park city]

Taking this season alone I thnk you'll find we are 32nd of the 92 league clubs, considerably higher than our historic average I'd guess.

As for history meaning little, I beg to differ, the reason why Forest and Derby, and Leeds for that matter, play in front of bigger crowds than us are capable of attracting higher revenue than us and therefore, according to most, are more likely than us to get to the Premier League over the next few years, despite being smaller cities, is precisely because they have a legacy of footballing success. When comments are made on here to the effect that ...we should be easily beating the likes of Reading, Ipswich and Watford... I often wonder on what basis. We're an under-supported club from a big city who have achieved very little. Thankfully the current regime is seeking to build something for the future here which may provide that sort of heritage for coming generations

Exactly have the same opinion have said it time and again you can show this chart to a Wolves,Burnley,West Brom,Leeds or Forest fan and all you will get is what have you ever won ???? .In plain English f##k all of any tangible consequence at long last we have a chairman who can see past their own little part of Bristol,i couldn't agree more with your hope for the clubs future just have look at Watfords record of fa cup/ league cup semi finals various league titles since the 70's to be really picky it would be good to have Ipswich towns honours..... Ok on present form perhaps we are better than them but to say that we should settle for all the years of mediocrity as some sort of record no thanks....

[Chivs]

Absolute rubbish.

I haven't suggested my expectations or interpretations are objective, by definition they cannot be.

My concerns on our lack of width, poor entertainment value, and unbalanced squad (NOT results) have nothing whatsoever to do with the results we have had on average over the last 10 years.

They just aren't related, and the suggestion that people are complaining because they're spoilt is utter twaddle and undermines some valid points about the current state of our football club.

Perhaps the results of the last 10 years have coloured your analysis on this year's performances?

According to these statistics, you (and I) are used to seeing us win. You are far more used to seeing us win than all but 5 other teams' supporters.

Perhaps if we were mid table in this "league" you wouldn't find the current play quite so dull?

[Nibor]

Perhaps the results of the last 10 years have coloured your analysis on this year's performances?

According to these statistics, you (and I) are used to seeing us win. You are far more used to seeing us win than all but 5 other teams' supporters.

Perhaps if we were mid table in this "league" you wouldn't find the current play quite so dull?

Nope they haven't, I'm quite capable of recognising the difference between results and the concerns I've got with how we're playing thanks.

It's honestly an unspeakably dumb idea that if we hadn't won as many games over the last ten years I would somehow think we had enough width in the squad and weren't playing narrow long ball shite much of the time.

[cheese]

Nope they haven't, I'm quite capable of recognising the difference between results and the concerns I've got with how we're playing thanks.

It's honestly an unspeakably dumb idea that if we hadn't won as many games over the last ten years I would somehow think we had enough width in the squad and weren't playing narrow long ball shite much of the time.

Ah - now turn that around for a minute. If we had been playing narrow long ball shite much of the time then we may not have won as many games, in which case you might now be thinking that we're doing quite well really.

[Kid in the Riot]

Decade finishes:

1999/2000 - 9th

2000/2001 - 9th

2001/2002 - 7th

2002/2003 - 3rd

2003/2004 - 3rd

2004/2005 - 7th

2005/2006 - 9th

2006/2007 - 2nd

2007/2008 - 4th

2008/2009 - 10th

Could have it a lot worse, like them gas ####s

[Alex_BCFC]

Ah - now turn that around for a minute. If we had been playing narrow long ball shite much of the time then we may not have won as many games, in which case you might now be thinking that we're doing quite well really.

We have won a lot of games playing crap in the past few years- even in the season we got promoted.

[cheese]

We have won a lot of games playing crap in the past few years- even in the season we got promoted.

So then, not so many complain when we're playing crap but winning? Which gives the lie to the line that people don't care about the result as long as we're playing exciting football - it is the result that counts.

[Martyn Hocking]

Decade finishes:

1999/2000 - 9th

2000/2001 - 9th

2001/2002 - 7th

2002/2003 - 3rd

2003/2004 - 3rd

2004/2005 - 7th

2005/2006 - 9th

2006/2007 - 2nd

2007/2008 - 4th

2008/2009 - 10th

Could have it a lot worse, like them gas ####s

Which means we have been in the running for promotion in virtually every season - sure, we mucked a few up but it's a damn sight better than finishing bottom half of the table!

[The Chaplain]

Nope they haven't, I'm quite capable of recognising the difference between results and the concerns I've got with how we're playing thanks.

It's honestly an unspeakably dumb idea that if we hadn't won as many games over the last ten years I would somehow think we had enough width in the squad and weren't playing narrow long ball shite much of the time.

OK lets try and link up the two different arguments that seem to be going on here.

I guess what we all want to see is a successful team, basically winning more games than it loses, playing neat attractive passing football with scintilating wing play and lots of goal-mouth action.

How many teams play that way, and are successful in the lower leagues? I doubt you see many dazzling wingers at Stockport or Accrington because it's actually quite difficult, as it is to play penetrating positive football. Any winger who dazzeled in the lower leagues wouldn't stay there very long. The lower leagues tend to specialise in the easier and more basic arts of football, size. strength, general physicality.

By general consensus we have been one of the more footballing sides of the lower two divisions, arguably it's why we stayed as long as we did in league 1. But the passing footballers we had there would not have the same effect in the Championship, hence a necessary re-focussing on team spirit and solidity so as to ensure results, at least, were maintained. One thing GJ has been exceptional at in his career is not only getting teams promoted but enabling them to compete the following year in the higher division.

When some measure of consolidation has been achieved at the higher level then yes you need to look again at what is needed to achieve further progess, hopefully in an attractive manner. As we are now discovering thats not easy, or cheap. Top championship/Premier League wingers arnt plentiful and the alturnative is more like McIndoe, good enough for where we were but not where we want to be.

So it comes down to resources and building a club, with stability, so as to create a heritage, and the attendant income to compete for people like Sinclair, Moses, Commons as and when they become avaliable.

I agree we lack a wide player in the squad, though not always that we play without width - when we play 3-5 -2 we tend to have lots of width but its not very effective - again quality wing-backs dont come cheap. As to long ball I just don't see it, sure at times we get frustrated and hoof it, and the distribution from the back isn't always great, but essentially we are still a passing team - frustratingly so sometimes with a lack of penetration that is the problem for all but the very best passing sides.

Evidence that we are building and growing as a club, season by season, is to be welcomed, its the only way we are going to attract the players we need to see the sort of football, at the highest level, that we all want.

[grove park city]

So then, not so many complain when we're playing crap but winning? Which gives the lie to the line that people don't care about the result as long as we're playing exciting football - it is the result that counts.

At the moment it is boring repetitive dross the Watford game was slightly better ,the crowd was up due to Xmas holidays and a lot won't come back until things change the results will only outweigh performance for so long. Then its down to playing West Brom ,Newcastle Utd to attract the casual punter..

[Nibor]

Ah - now turn that around for a minute. If we had been playing narrow long ball shite much of the time then we may not have won as many games, in which case you might now be thinking that we're doing quite well really.

One day you'll post something worth reading. Likely it will be an accident.

OK lets try and link up the two different arguments that seem to be going on here.

I guess what we all want to see is a successful team, basically winning more games than it loses, playing neat attractive passing football with scintilating wing play and lots of goal-mouth action.

How many teams play that way, and are successful in the lower leagues? I doubt you see many dazzling wingers at Stockport or Accrington because it's actually quite difficult, as it is to play penetrating positive football. Any winger who dazzeled in the lower leagues wouldn't stay there very long. The lower leagues tend to specialise in the easier and more basic arts of football, size. strength, general physicality.

By general consensus we have been one of the more footballing sides of the lower two divisions, arguably it's why we stayed as long as we did in league 1. But the passing footballers we had there would not have the same effect in the Championship, hence a necessary re-focussing on team spirit and solidity so as to ensure results, at least, were maintained. One thing GJ has been exceptional at in his career is not only getting teams promoted but enabling them to compete the following year in the higher division.

When some measure of consolidation has been achieved at the higher level then yes you need to look again at what is needed to achieve further progess, hopefully in an attractive manner. As we are now discovering thats not easy, or cheap. Top championship/Premier League wingers arnt plentiful and the alturnative is more like McIndoe, good enough for where we were but not where we want to be.

So it comes down to resources and building a club, with stability, so as to create a heritage, and the attendant income to compete for people like Sinclair, Moses, Commons as and when they become avaliable.

I agree we lack a wide player in the squad, though not always that we play without width - when we play 3-5 -2 we tend to have lots of width but its not very effective - again quality wing-backs dont come cheap. As to long ball I just don't see it, sure at times we get frustrated and hoof it, and the distribution from the back isn't always great, but essentially we are still a passing team - frustratingly so sometimes with a lack of penetration that is the problem for all but the very best passing sides.

Evidence that we are building and growing as a club, season by season, is to be welcomed, its the only way we are going to attract the players we need to see the sort of football, at the highest level, that we all want.

That's a very long way of saying nothing at all really. For the millionth time, nobody expects two dazzling tricky wingers skinning people all game, in fact I can't be arsed to repeat all that stuff again - use search if you want to understand the concern in more detail.

We're playing shite long ball football this season because we are narrow in every game, we are narrow because we have no width. Wingbacks (wing my arse) was not a plan it was a reaction to our failure to sign any of the four wide players we made offers for in the summer. The last ten years of stats are completely irrelevant to this.

[The Chaplain]

One day you'll post something worth reading. Likely it will be an accident.

That's a very long way of saying nothing at all really. For the millionth time, nobody expects two dazzling tricky wingers skinning people all game, in fact I can't be arsed to repeat all that stuff again - use search if you want to understand the concern in more detail.

We're playing shite long ball football this season because we are narrow in every game, we are narrow because we have no width. Wingbacks (wing my arse) was not a plan it was a reaction to our failure to sign any of the four wide players we made offers for in the summer. The last ten years of stats are completely irrelevant to this.

So we're not interested in quality wingers then, just any old bloke who'll stand at the edge of the pitch, apart from our existing full backs obviously.

And why do you think those summer targets chose the delightful cities of Ipswich and Middlesborough instead? Nothing to due with those clubs standing and reptutation based on the past surely?

[Nibor]

So we're not interested in quality wingers then, just any old bloke who'll stand at the edge of the pitch, apart from our existing full backs obviously.

Don't put words in my mouth thanks. We need width for defensive reasons as much as attacking ones. We are making life extremely hard for ourselves without it because of the more subtle knock on effects on the rest of the team.

Not repeating myself again so read this:

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?s=&sho...t&p=1173555

And why do you think those summer targets chose the delightful cities of Ipswich and Middlesborough instead? Nothing to due with those clubs standing and reptutation based on the past surely?

Roy Keane, Premier League football, likelihood of Premier League football and money.

Irrelevant to the argument made in this thread that my concerns this season about our lack of width are somehow caused by me having unrealistic expectations because six years ago we won lots of games under Danny Wilson without getting promoted.

[Martyn Hocking]

One day you'll post something worth reading. Likely it will be an accident.

That's a very long way of saying nothing at all really. For the millionth time, nobody expects two dazzling tricky wingers skinning people all game, in fact I can't be arsed to repeat all that stuff again - use search if you want to understand the concern in more detail.

We're playing shite long ball football this season because we are narrow in every game, we are narrow because we have no width. Wingbacks (wing my arse) was not a plan it was a reaction to our failure to sign any of the four wide players we made offers for in the summer. The last ten years of stats are completely irrelevant to this.

Do you actually go to games? We are NOT playing long ball football 90% of the time - if anything we are spending too much time mucking around with it in midfield. Or are you calling the sort of angled ball over the top that Hartley uses to set Maynard free 'shite long ball football'?

[Smokey]

hang on. your all having a moan at nibor for what he thinks about these stats, but when millen and johnson were coming out with stats about our play they got slagged off cos "stats dont tell the whole truth". I cant understand why not enjoying our current style of football is because how many games we won in the past

[Chivs]

One day you'll post something worth reading. Likely it will be an accident.

That's a very long way of saying nothing at all really. For the millionth time, nobody expects two dazzling tricky wingers skinning people all game, in fact I can't be arsed to repeat all that stuff again - use search if you want to understand the concern in more detail.

We're playing shite long ball football this season because we are narrow in every game, we are narrow because we have no width. Wingbacks (wing my arse) was not a plan it was a reaction to our failure to sign any of the four wide players we made offers for in the summer. The last ten years of stats are completely irrelevant to this.

Do you think that watching City for the last ten years has in any way coloured your opinion on football and the way football should be played?

This isn't a dig at you just an interesting question I think.

For me, I'm not sure whether watching City in the last decade has affected my view of how football should be played.

I grew up liking the short ball, passing game and positively detested the long-ball Wimbledon approach. My non-City favourite teams were Brasil and Tottenham. However, I assume that everyone likes football played this way?!?!? It doesn't really matter how City have played although, luckily, I think they have generally stuck to the short-ball, passing game.

[Nibor]

Do you actually go to games? We are NOT playing long ball football 90% of the time - if anything we are spending too much time mucking around with it in midfield. Or are you calling the sort of angled ball over the top that Hartley uses to set Maynard free 'shite long ball football'?

Yes I go to every home game and some away. I didn't say 90%. In the first half of the season we have played an awful lot of aimless hoofs out of defence. Less so in the last couple of games, but still too much. What you call mucking around with it in midfield is actually a lack of wide outlets, the outcome is normally a ball backwards to a defender who hoofs under pressure.

Do you think that watching City for the last ten years has in any way coloured your opinion on football and the way football should be played?

This isn't a dig at you just an interesting question I think.

For me, I'm not sure whether watching City in the last decade has affected my view of how football should be played.

I grew up liking the short ball, passing game and positively detested the long-ball Wimbledon approach. My non-City favourite teams were Brasil and Tottenham. However, I assume that everyone likes football played this way?!?!? It doesn't really matter how City have played although, luckily, I think they have generally stuck to the short-ball, passing game.

For me this has nothing to do with how football should be played (though for the record I don't think watching City has had any effect on what I enjoy watching).

The original poster makes the assertion that people are unhappy because we won a lot of games in the last ten years and I think that is a load of old cock.

I'm concerned because we have an unbalanced squad and it is affecting the entertainment value of our football as there is little actual goalmouth action or excitement and to a lesser extent our results.

I am not expecting the technical excellence of the Italian short passing game (in fact I find that slow football quite boring as well) nor am I expecting Barcelona style free movement and attacking from all angles.

I'm just expecting to come away from a game having actually enjoyed it instead of finding it a chore and I'm frustrated by the fact that the root cause of our main problems is so blindingly obvious yet has not been addressed.

It has, again, absolutely nothing to do with our results in league one over the last decade and this idea that we are spoilt is lunacy. The problems we have would be just as evident and frustrating to me whether we had spent a decade on the downs or in the Champions League.

[Drew Peacock]

The original poster makes the assertion that people are unhappy because we won a lot of games in the last ten years and I think that is a load of old cock.

It has, again, absolutely nothing to do with our results in league one over the last decade and this idea that we are spoilt is lunacy.

It may be a load of old cock for you, and it is a load of old cock for me, but I suspect that for a lot of younger fans it may not be. I don't know what age kids start going to football these days, but if for the last 10 years you have followed a largely winning & successful City side as well as watching your favourite big four premier team winning all the time on Sky, been fed the new stadium + Premier League hype there will be an awful lot of 25 and unders who are getting there first serious dose of uninspiring football with long non-winning spells thrown in.

[WellRedPhil]

Thats a very negative spin on that data.

Remember that a quarter of those statistics are from our time in the Championship, and we've had some pretty rotton seasons in League 1 too (the Pulis season and the two in between the playoff final and our promotion year)

What it shows is that we've won more games than anybody else in the football league bar the big four and Reading, and thus our supporters have become more accustomed to the feeling of victory (at whatever level) than virtually every other club... So in context, we've been spoilt over the last decade really...perhaps these expectation levels are having an impact on our current dissatisfaction.? Just raising the question like, as imho it makes interesting reading... AND its something to be proud of!!!!!

It doesn't actually show this, a few teams had won more but we had the 6th best point average out of all the teams. I found this a very interesting read indeed, although initially surprising it does make sense when considering we have not even suffered a bottom half finish in this decade let alone a relegation. It isn't quite as positive as it looks though as the majority has obviously been spent in League 1.

[grove park city]

It may be a load of old cock for you, and it is a load of old cock for me, but I suspect that for a lot of younger fans it may not be. I don't know what age kids start going to football these days, but if for the last 10 years you have followed a largely winning & successful City side as well as watching your favourite big four premier team winning all the time on Sky, been fed the new stadium + Premier League hype there will be an awful lot of 25 and unders who are getting there first serious dose of uninspiring football with long non-winning spells thrown in.

Proberly a lot of truth in what you say any of the big 4 lose a couple of games and its a crisis the hype and you must win at all costs not for the championship or silverware but for the money gives older supporters the hump. Younger fans still get taken in by all the gloss and bullshit a load of old cock as you say the last 10 years have been more of a roller coaster ride , but the last couple of seasons has seen some bloody dire football older fans were use to seeing wingers fullbacks who could pass and play a bit the younger fans have seen more fitness orientated play tighter formations closing down the opposition which did work but was bloody boring now it don't work and its just boring.

[Tom Fleuriot]

The original poster makes the assertion that people are unhappy because we won a lot of games in the last ten years and I think that is a load of old cock.

I'm concerned because we have an unbalanced squad and it is affecting the entertainment value of our football as there is little actual goalmouth action or excitement and to a lesser extent our results.

It has, again, absolutely nothing to do with our results in league one over the last decade and this idea that we are spoilt is lunacy. The problems we have would be just as evident and frustrating to me whether we had spent a decade on the downs or in the Champions League.

I suppose the point, which I haven't made very well, is that the level of frustration and anger felt is likely to be Stronger than it would be for fans of many clubs due to our historic success. It's not saying that your analysis of what's wrong is incorrect (as everyone can see we're crying out for width). But your irritation that it's not fixed (and actually not so much yours, but the fans that are shouting for Johnson's head) seems to assume that it's easy to fix. A team less used to seeing most problems solved enough to finish in the top half may identify the same issues, just be less annoyed.

I don't see how you can say ten years of winning more often than losing doesn't make fans less able to be supportive when losing (or failing to win) for a sustained period. Irrespective of how astute their analysis of the shortfalls is.

[Chivs]

It may be a load of old cock for you, and it is a load of old cock for me, but I suspect that for a lot of younger fans it may not be. I don't know what age kids start going to football these days, but if for the last 10 years you have followed a largely winning & successful City side as well as watching your favourite big four premier team winning all the time on Sky, been fed the new stadium + Premier League hype there will be an awful lot of 25 and unders who are getting there first serious dose of uninspiring football with long non-winning spells thrown in.

What you and Nibor seem to be saying is this:

We've been eating at a michelin-starred restaurant for 10 years. We've now been fed two Big Mac meals and we know they are crap irrespective of the michelin starred meals.

How do you know the Big Mac meal is crap? Hopefully, it's not because you've been looking in the window of the poshest restaurants in Manchester and London!!

If you haven't made a judgement on how we are currently playing using the last 10 years at City as a reference, what have you based your judgement on?

PS As well as being hungry, I stated earlier that I don't think watching City has coloured my view of football. Therefore I pose the same question to myself. :noexpression:

[foghornred]

And all that some people can do is complain,its a long time since we had a loosing season be very grateful,ten wonderful winning years.

[Nibor]

[Nibor]

I don't see how you can say ten years of winning more often than losing doesn't make fans less able to be supportive when losing (or failing to win) for a sustained period.

I don't see any evidence that supports your theory really. People are concerned because it's boring and broken. I think they'd be just as concerned irrespective of our history over the last ten years. They're not moaning about results, in fact they're barely even murmuring about our shocking record of last minute goals. It's almost 100% about the lack of entertainment and obvious cause of it.

The basic point of this thread was to suggest that the reason for unhappiness was because fans were spoilt by lots of wins over a decade so have unrealistic expectations and that's crap because it isn't the lack of wins that is the cause for complaint.

[milo1111]

I think that just tells us we're one of the biggest underachievers having spent so long around the top of league one winning games without promotion.

i thinks thats pretty much it. although wev'e obviously won more than wev'e lost since being in the championship. but three failed play off campaigns in the 00's and many other top half finishes in L1 are the reason why wev'e flattered to deceive and it hasnt felt to me like the bed of roses those stats would indicate.

very interesting stuff however. good post.

[Drew Peacock]

What you and Nibor seem to be saying is this:

We've been eating at a michelin-starred restaurant for 10 years. We've now been fed two Big Mac meals and we know they are crap irrespective of the michelin starred meals.

How do you know the Big Mac meal is crap? Hopefully, it's not because you've been looking in the window of the poshest restaurants in Manchester and London!!

If you haven't made a judgement on how we are currently playing using the last 10 years at City as a reference, what have you based your judgement on?

PS As well as being hungry, I stated earlier that I don't think watching City has coloured my view of football. Therefore I pose the same question to myself. :noexpression:

Yes that's right, I think. The Big Mac is crap, it's been served in this restaurant before, but not usually for a year & a half, the food is usually good quality.

However some younger eaters have never had a big mac, don't like it, it's a big culture shock to them and want to call in the food inspector, sack the entire kitchen staff, shut the restaurant and eat at home watching Gordon Ramsay and Heston Blumenthal on the telly.

[Drew Peacock]

[Martyn Hocking]

That's what he said.

Anyway, one of the Little Chefs is in the Good Food Guide.

And a very fine publication it is too (I share an office with its editor!)

[MT1970]

Just for info...

If you work out this table as a % of games played versus Win, Lose, Draw and you sort by games lost, we have only lost fewer games than the top 4 premier league clubs and therefore 5th out of 102 clubs listed...

Team Played Won Draw Loss Pts Pts Av. % Won % Draw % Lost

Chelsea 382 232 92 58 788 2.062 61% 24% 15%

Arsenal 379 226 95 58 773 2.039 60% 25% 15%

Manchester United 381 255 67 59 832 2.183 67% 18% 15%

Liverpool 380 204 94 82 706 1.857 54% 25% 22%

Bristol City 462 199 134 129 731 1.582 43% 29% 28%

Reading 447 207 109 131 730 1.633 46% 24% 29%

Wolverhampton Wanderers 448 181 134 133 677 1.511 40% 30% 30%

Cardiff City 460 182 139 139 685 1.489 40% 30% 30%

Rochdale 461 176 142 143 670 1.453 38% 31% 31%

Sheffield United 451 184 127 140 679 1.505 41% 28% 31%

If you sort by % of games won, we are 7th out of the 102 clubs listed...

Team Played Won Draw Loss Pts Pts Av. % Won % Draw % Lost

Manchester United 381 255 67 59 832 2.183 67% 18% 15%

Chelsea 382 232 92 58 788 2.062 61% 24% 15%

Arsenal 379 226 95 58 773 2.039 60% 25% 15%

Liverpool 380 204 94 82 706 1.857 54% 25% 22%

Reading 447 207 109 131 730 1.633 46% 24% 29%

Leeds United 423 185 99 139 654 1.546 44% 23% 33%

Bristol City 462 199 134 129 731 1.582 43% 29% 28%