At least the positive thing to take away from this is that we can all proudly say that we witnessed what was arguably the most unlikely and the most memorable title win in the history of first-class English football.

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, we can certainly agree that it was phenomenally unlikely, but on that front I could cite Tottenham winning the FA Cup in 1901 despite being a non-league team at the time. That's the only time it has ever happened, in the entire history of football.

But as for most memorable, that's on much shakier ground in my mind.

How about in 1961, when Tottenham won the league and FA Cup double; the first team to ever do this. Or what about United winning the only treble in English football history. Or Arsenal going a season unbeaten, etc. Or City winning over United on goal difference thanks to Aguero... and that's just recent history.

What about in 1928, when Dixie Dean scored SIXTY (that's 60!) goals in one season for Everton? I bet the folks back there thought that nothing could ever be more memorable than that. English football has a long history. The longest, in fact.

I have to admit, in years to come, I don't think Leicester's title win is going to stick out in my memory that hugely. It's a blip on the radar, ultimately. It was fun, or at least it was for most people, and it was memorable for being such a blip, but not memorable in the sense of a world-class team winning a magnificent title, or simply being better than anyone else, or winning all competitions, etc.

I don't say these things to anger any Leicester fans out there, but, I suspect in 5 years' time most people here will have forgotten half of the Leicester squad who won the title.

Anyways, just my opinion.

At least the positive thing to take away from this is that we can all proudly say that we witnessed what was arguably the most unlikely and the most memorable title win in the history of first-class English football.

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, we can certainly agree that it was phenomenally unlikely, but on that front I could cite Tottenham winning the FA Cup in 1901 despite being a non-league team at the time. That's the only time it has ever happened, in the entire history of football.

But as for most memorable, that's on much shakier ground in my mind.

How about in 1961, when Tottenham won the league and FA Cup double; the first team to ever do this. Or what about United winning the only treble in English football history. Or Arsenal going a season unbeaten, etc. Or City winning over United on goal difference thanks to Aguero... and that's just recent history.

What about in 1928, when Dixie Dean scored SIXTY (that's 60!) goals in one season for Everton? I bet the folks back there thought that nothing could ever be more memorable than that. English football has a long history. The longest, in fact.

I have to admit, in years to come, I don't think Leicester's title win is going to stick out in my memory that hugely. It's a blip on the radar, ultimately. It was fun, or at least it was for most people, and it was memorable for being such a blip, but not memorable in the sense of a world-class team winning a magnificent title, or simply being better than anyone else, or winning all competitions, etc.

I don't say these things to anger any Leicester fans out there, but, I suspect in 5 years' time most people here (and probably myself) will have forgotten half of the Leicester squad who won the title.

Anyways, just my opinion.

At least the positive thing to take away from this is that we can all proudly say that we witnessed what was arguably the most unlikely and the most memorable title win in the history of first-class English football.

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, we can certainly agree that it was phenomenally unlikely, but on that front I could cite Tottenham winning the FA Cup in 1901 despite being a non-league team at the time. That's the only time it has ever happened, in the entire history of football.

Or what about Nottingham Forest, who not only won the league the season after being promoted, but THEN went on to win the European Cup the following season! I mean, is there a better success story in ALL of football than that?

But as for most memorable, that's on much shakier ground in my mind.

Setting aside Nottingham Forest's achievement, how about in 1961, when Tottenham won the league and FA Cup double; the first team to ever do this. Or what about United winning the only treble in English football history. Or Arsenal going a season unbeaten, etc. Or City winning over United on goal difference thanks to Aguero... and that's just recent history.

What about in 1928, when Dixie Dean scored SIXTY (that's 60!) goals in one season for Everton? I bet the folks back there thought that nothing could ever be more memorable than that. English football has a long history. The longest, in fact.

I have to admit, in years to come, I don't think Leicester's title win is going to stick out in my memory that hugely. It's a blip on the radar, ultimately. It was fun, or at least it was for most people, and it was memorable for being such a blip, but not memorable in the sense of a world-class team winning a magnificent title, or simply being better than anyone else, or winning all competitions, etc.

I don't say these things to anger any Leicester fans out there, but, I suspect in 5 years' time most people here (and probably myself) will have forgotten half of the Leicester squad who won the title.

Anyways, just my opinion.

Sheesh!

How did I forget about Nottingham Forest, who not only won the league the season after being promoted, but THEN went on to win the European Cup the following season!

I mean, is there a better success story in ALL of football than that?

Sheesh!

How did I forget about Nottingham Forest, who not only won the league the season after being promoted, but THEN went on to win the European Cup in BOTH of the following two seasons! (plus

I mean, is there a better success story in ALL of football than that?

Sheesh!

How did I forget about Nottingham Forest, who won promotion to the top-flight in 1977, won the league in 1978, and THEN went on to win the European Cup in BOTH of the following two seasons (1979 and 1980)!

I mean, is there a better success story in ALL of football than that?

"Yes , the times when Red Star Belgrade was powerhouse .."

Yes, they were. Just because a team is no longer a giant doesn't mean their time at the top wasn't worthy.

Quality of football back then was evenly **** .. so a team like Nothigham could somehow match best of Europe after a year of good morning practice and healthy meals

You do realize that this was the era of Beckenbauer's Bayern, and Cruyff's Barcelona, right?

It is way more harder to win the top flight league these days not to mention any European Cup is even more .

How is that the case, if everyone was equally crap back then (which you seem to insist)? That doesn't make any sense. It's not any harder or easier to win a top-flight competition 'these days' at all; we just have a different landscape. Nottingham Forest came from, let me remind you, the Second Division, to winning back-to-back European Cups.

If you don't appreciate this achievement, then I don't know what to tell you.

Leicester's triumph was brilliant, but it wasn't game-changing or particularly filled with memorable, world-class football from them. They were solid, and had a tactical and team spirit which managed to somehow beat off every big team in the land. Of course that's a big achievement, but if you're talking about historical perspective, then really it's not as big of a deal.

Sorry/

Yes , the times when Red Star Belgrade was powerhouse ..

Yes, they were. What's your point? Just because a team is no longer a giant doesn't mean their time at the top wasn't worthy.

Quality of football back then was evenly **** .. so a team like Nothigham could somehow match best of Europe after a year of good morning practice and healthy meals

You do realize that this was the era of Beckenbauer's Bayern, and Cruyff's Barcelona, right?

It is way more harder to win the top flight league these days not to mention any European Cup is even more .

How is that the case, if everyone was equally crap back then (which you seem to insist)? That doesn't make any sense. It's not any harder or easier to win a top-flight competition 'these days' at all; we just have a different landscape. Nottingham Forest came from, let me remind you, the Second Division, to winning back-to-back European Cups.

If you don't appreciate this achievement, then I don't know what to tell you.

Leicester's triumph was brilliant, but it wasn't game-changing or particularly filled with memorable, world-class football from them. They were solid, and had a tactical and team spirit which managed to somehow beat off every big team in the land. Of course that's a big achievement, but if you're talking about historical perspective, then really it's not as big of a deal.

Sorry/

but the difference between elite teams and, say, second-division teams was nowhere near as high as it is now.

I want you to qualify that statement, because as it stands it is a claim forged by merely your opinion, which as you've admitted in the past is only about 8 years old in terms of footballing knowledge. Not trying to be mean, but that's kind of like having a 20-year old tell you that Star Wars: The Force Awakens was the best movie of all time, because it's the high watermark of their own (rather meager) observation.

So tell me, how exactly are you going to measure the gap in quality between 1st and 2nd tiers from bygone ages, in order to sustain your claim?

keeping mind that Forest bought players such as Trevor Francis...

...AFTER winning the title. And your argument about his cost isn't relevant because even if we talk about the core of a team being in place, it's still true that the team's journey began in the 2nd division. It's not like Forest were rich at the time; they simply invested what they had won, so they could keep on winning.

Not unlike, say, how Leicester picked up half of their title-winning squad AFTER getting promoted to the Prem, and thus able to afford the wages of the players they did buy. The only difference is that Forest spent it all in one place, on one of the best players in the league/world.

As if you needed any more reason to suspect the quality of the time, to win their first European Cup, Forest beat Malmo. Yeah, Malmo.

I say this a little tongue-in-cheek, but: fuck you and your arrogance. How dare you tell Malmo that they were not really a big deal? That their appearance in the final was indicative of football being shit instead of their team being great?

You know who Ajax beat for their first European Cup? Panathinaikos.
You know who Bayern beat for their third? Saint-Etienne.
You know who Barcelona beat for their first? Sampdoria.
You know who Real Madrid beat for 4 of their first 5? Stade de Reims (x2), Fiorentina and Eintracht Frankfurt.

Does anything take away from those victories? No, it doesn't. And if your complaint is that the rest of Europe was relatively 'equal' in shitness, this actually doesn't matter because the format was different anyway -- it was not the modern system of 3 or 4 teams from each league entering. It was ONLY the league champions and the reigning European champions which made it.

Which makes Forest's feat even more impressive.

Leicester is so remarkable because there was zero hint whatsoever that they were about to do what they did,

There was zero hint that Forest were going to do it either. Good grief, what do you think football was like? Do you think the world looked at Forest when they got promoted and thought: "ooh, those guys are going to be BIG..."? No, they didn't. It was completely out of the blue, and then when Forest won the 2 European Cups, it was clear that it was thanks to Clough's genius.

Just like Ranie... oh wait, Leicester are now fighting for relegation, and not very likely to win a European trophy.

And you still think Forest's achievement was lesser? LOL.

If Bournemouth were tomorrow to spend 100M on someone, I'm pretty sure we'd notice.

Considering that Bournemouth would have to win the league first to make it an appropriate analogy, I think we'd notice a lot, lot sooner than that. ;)

Seriously mate, obviously I'm being blunt for internet effect in this post, but, I really think this is one area in which you should respect your elders...

but the difference between elite teams and, say, second-division teams was nowhere near as high as it is now.

I want you to qualify that statement, because as it stands it is a claim forged by merely your opinion, which as you've admitted in the past is only about 8 years old in terms of footballing knowledge. Not trying to be mean, but that's kind of like having a 20-year old tell you that Star Wars: The Force Awakens was the best movie of all time, because it's the high watermark of their own (rather meager) observation.

So tell me, how exactly are you going to measure the gap in quality between 1st and 2nd tiers from bygone ages, in order to sustain your claim?

keeping mind that Forest bought players such as Trevor Francis...

...AFTER winning the title. And your argument about his cost isn't relevant because even if we talk about the core of a team being in place, it's still true that the team's journey began in the 2nd division. It's not like Forest were rich at the time; they simply invested what they had won, so they could keep on winning.

Not unlike, say, how Leicester picked up half of their title-winning squad AFTER getting promoted to the Prem, and thus able to afford the wages of the players they did buy. The only difference is that Forest spent it all in one place, on one of the best players in the league/world.

As if you needed any more reason to suspect the quality of the time, to win their first European Cup, Forest beat Malmo. Yeah, Malmo.

I say this a little tongue-in-cheek, but: fu.ck you and your arrogance. How dare you tell Malmo that they were not really a big deal? That their appearance in the final was indicative of football being shit instead of their own team being great?

You know who Ajax beat for their first European Cup? Panathinaikos.
You know who Bayern beat for their third? Saint-Etienne.
You know who Barcelona beat for their first? Sampdoria.
You know who Real Madrid beat for 4 of their first 5? Stade de Reims (x2), Fiorentina and Eintracht Frankfurt.

Does anything take away from those victories? No, it doesn't. And if your complaint is that the rest of Europe was relatively 'equal' in shitness, this actually doesn't matter because the format was different anyway -- it was not the modern system of 3 or 4 teams from each league entering. It was ONLY the league champions and the reigning European champions which made it.

Which makes Forest's feat even more impressive.

Leicester is so remarkable because there was zero hint whatsoever that they were about to do what they did,

There was zero hint that Forest were going to do it either. Good grief, what do you think football was like? Do you think the world looked at Forest when they got promoted and thought: "ooh, those guys are going to be BIG..."? No, they didn't. It was completely out of the blue, and then when Forest won the 2 European Cups, it was clear that it was thanks to Clough's genius.

Just like Ranie... oh wait, Leicester are now fighting for relegation, and not very likely to win a European trophy.

And you still think Forest's achievement was lesser? LOL.

If Bournemouth were tomorrow to spend 100M on someone, I'm pretty sure we'd notice.

Considering that Bournemouth would have to win the league first to make it an appropriate analogy, I think we'd notice a lot, lot sooner than that. ;)

Seriously mate, obviously I'm being blunt for internet effect in this post, but, I really think this is one area in which you should respect your elders...

but the difference between elite teams and, say, second-division teams was nowhere near as high as it is now.

I want you to qualify that statement, because as it stands it is a claim forged by merely your opinion, which as you've admitted in the past is only about 8 years old in terms of footballing knowledge. Not trying to be mean, but that's kind of like having a 20-year old tell you that Star Wars: The Force Awakens was the best movie of all time, because it's the high watermark of their own (rather meager) observation.

So tell me, how exactly are you going to measure the gap in quality between 1st and 2nd tiers from bygone ages, in order to sustain your claim?

keeping mind that Forest bought players such as Trevor Francis...

...AFTER winning the title. And your argument about his cost isn't relevant because even if we talk about the core of a team being in place, it's still true that the team's journey began in the 2nd division. It's not like Forest were rich at the time; they simply invested what they had won, so they could keep on winning.

Not unlike, say, how Leicester picked up half of their title-winning squad AFTER getting promoted to the Prem, and thus able to afford the wages of the players they did buy. The only difference is that Forest spent it all in one place, on one of the best players in the league/world.

As if you needed any more reason to suspect the quality of the time, to win their first European Cup, Forest beat Malmo. Yeah, Malmo.

I say this a little tongue-in-cheek, but: fu.ck you and your arrogance. How dare you tell Malmo that they were not really a big deal? That their appearance in the final was indicative of football being shit instead of their own team being great?

You know who Ajax beat for their first European Cup? Panathinaikos.
You know who Bayern beat for their third? Saint-Etienne.
You know who Barcelona beat for their first? Sampdoria.
You know who Real Madrid beat for 4 of their first 5? Stade de Reims (x2), Fiorentina and Eintracht Frankfurt.

Does anything take away from those victories? No, it doesn't. And if your complaint is that the rest of Europe was relatively 'equal' in shitness, this actually doesn't matter because the format was different anyway -- it was not the modern system of 3 or 4 teams from each league entering. It was ONLY the league champions and the reigning European champions which made it.

Which makes Forest's feat even more impressive.

Leicester is so remarkable because there was zero hint whatsoever that they were about to do what they did,

There was zero hint that Forest were going to do it either. Good grief, what do you think football was like? Do you think the world looked at Forest when they got promoted and thought: "ooh, those guys are going to be BIG..."? No, they didn't. It was completely out of the blue, and then when Forest won the 2 European Cups, it was clear that it was thanks to Clough's genius.

Just like Ranie... oh wait, Leicester are now fighting for relegation, and not very likely to win a European trophy.

And you guys still think Forest's achievement was lesser? LOL. C'mon. Switch your brain on.

If Bournemouth were tomorrow to spend 100M on someone, I'm pretty sure we'd notice.

Considering that Bournemouth would have to win the league first to make it an appropriate analogy, I think we'd notice a lot, lot sooner than that. ;)

Seriously mate, obviously I'm being blunt for internet effect in this post, but, I really think this is one area in which you should respect your elders...

but the difference between elite teams and, say, second-division teams was nowhere near as high as it is now.

I want you to qualify that statement, because as it stands it is a claim forged by merely your opinion, which as you've admitted in the past is only about 8 years old in terms of footballing knowledge. Not trying to be mean, but that's kind of like having a 20-year old tell you that Star Wars: The Force Awakens was the best movie of all time, because it's the high watermark of their own (rather meager) observation.

So tell me, how exactly are you going to measure the gap in quality between 1st and 2nd tiers from bygone ages, in order to sustain your claim?

keeping mind that Forest bought players such as Trevor Francis...

...AFTER winning the title. And your argument about his cost isn't relevant because even if we talk about the core of a team being in place, it's still true that the team's journey began in the 2nd division. It's not like Forest were rich at the time; they simply invested what they had won, so they could keep on winning.

Not unlike, say, how Leicester picked up half of their title-winning squad AFTER getting promoted to the Prem, and thus able to afford the wages of the players they did buy. The only difference is that Forest spent it all in one place, on one of the best players in the league/world.

As if you needed any more reason to suspect the quality of the time, to win their first European Cup, Forest beat Malmo. Yeah, Malmo.

I say this a little tongue-in-cheek, but: fu.ck you and your arrogance. How dare you tell Malmo that they were not really a big deal? That their appearance in the final was indicative of football being sh.it instead of their own team being great?

You know who Ajax beat for their first European Cup? Panathinaikos.
You know who Bayern beat for their third? Saint-Etienne.
You know who Barcelona beat for their first? Sampdoria.
You know who Real Madrid beat for 4 of their first 5? Stade de Reims (x2), Fiorentina and Eintracht Frankfurt.

Does anything take away from those victories? No, it doesn't. And if your complaint is that the rest of Europe was relatively 'equal' in shitness, this actually doesn't matter because the format was different anyway -- it was not the modern system of 3 or 4 teams from each league entering. It was ONLY the league champions and the reigning European champions which made it.

Which makes Forest's feat even more impressive.

Leicester is so remarkable because there was zero hint whatsoever that they were about to do what they did,

There was zero hint that Forest were going to do it either. Good grief, what do you think football was like? Do you think the world looked at Forest when they got promoted and thought: "ooh, those guys are going to be BIG..."? No, they didn't. It was completely out of the blue, and then when Forest won the 2 European Cups, it was clear that it was thanks to Clough's genius.

Just like Ranie... oh wait, Leicester are now fighting for relegation, and not very likely to win a European trophy.

And you guys still think Forest's achievement was lesser? LOL. C'mon. Switch your brain on.

If Bournemouth were tomorrow to spend 100M on someone, I'm pretty sure we'd notice.

Considering that Bournemouth would have to win the league first to make it an appropriate analogy, I think we'd notice a lot, lot sooner than that. ;)

Seriously mate, obviously I'm being blunt for internet effect in this post, but, I really think this is one area in which you should respect your elders...