Dem Blades V Fulham.

[prince al 167]

Of course Wednesday are bigger than United. It doesn’t mean we are better at the moment, obviously the league  difference illustrates that fact.

[m williamson 800]

34 minutes ago, prince al said:

Of course Wednesday are bigger than United. It doesn’t mean we are better at the moment, obviously the league  difference illustrates that fact.

Of course?  How, in what way exactly?

[Jim Hardie 523]

2 hours ago, m williamson said:

But isn't that the boast of a number of Owls on here? That Wednesday have won more than United in their history, which makes them bigger?

 

 

I don’t think I’ve ever said that. I’ll settle for more successful.
The size of a club can go up or down but in the end it’s history that counts and that’s because there’s only history. Even the Blades’ splendid win over the Fulham beach boys is history now.

[m williamson 800]

54 minutes ago, Jim Hardie said:

I don’t think I’ve ever said that. I’ll settle for more successful.
The size of a club can go up or down but in the end it’s history that counts and that’s because there’s only history. Even the Blades’ splendid win over the Fulham beach boys is history now.

Yes,  but I've noticed that some people tend to be selective about history. For instance the 26th December 1979 gets mentioned fairly frequently by some people but the 8th of September 1951 rarely.

Both dates are years ago and are history, but the thing that strikes me is that although there was only 28 years between those dates I have no memory of Blades going on about the 1951 match in 1979. However, despite it being 43 years since the 1979 match it still gets mentioned to this day.

I can't help feeling that one set of supporters obsess about the other club to an unhealthy degree. I can't work out why that is, as they're the ones that believe they are the main club in the area.

 

It may be because neither club is particularly successful, although both are well supported  ( perhaps better than they deserve ) and as there's little to no glory to argue about people argue about nothing. As I said in another post,  two bald men fighting over a comb.

 

[Jim Hardie 523]

1 hour ago, m williamson said:

Yes,  but I've noticed that some people tend to be selective about history. For instance the 26th December 1979 gets mentioned fairly frequently by some people but the 8th of September 1951 rarely.

Both dates are years ago and are history, but the thing that strikes me is that although there was only 28 years between those dates I have no memory of Blades going on about the 1951 match in 1979. However, despite it being 43 years since the 1979 match it still gets mentioned to this day.

I can't help feeling that one set of supporters obsess about the other club to an unhealthy degree. I can't work out why that is, as they're the ones that believe they are the main club in the area.

 

It may be because neither club is particularly successful, although both are well supported  ( perhaps better than they deserve ) and as there's little to no glory to argue about people argue about nothing. As I said in another post,  two bald men fighting over a comb.

 

It could be that 1951/52 was a season Blades wanted to forget. Ten places behind the 100 goal champions.

[m williamson 800]

15 minutes ago, Jim Hardie said:

It could be that 1951/52 was a season Blades wanted to forget. Ten places behind the 100 goal champions.

Oh I think that a 10-4 derby aggregate and the debut of the young Graham Shaw in the second derby game made up for it.

Graham Shaw was with us for 16 years and made 442 appearances for the Blades,  a terrific player.

 

[Jim Hardie 523]

1 minute ago, m williamson said:

Oh I think that a 10-4 derby aggregate and the debut of the young Graham Shaw in the second derby game made up for it.

Graham Shaw was with us for 16 years and made 442 appearances for the Blades,  a terrific player.

 

Agree Graham Shaw was a great player. I think he started out as an inside forward before he became a left back.