Not sure on what team to follow (EPL)

[NUFC Tiger]

I started watching the BPL regularly in early December. Was originally warming to Newcastle mainly and also the Spurs but I watched games with a Chelsea supporting mate and I got to know all the players and all of a sudden during games I was yelling at Mikel for not pulling the trigger when passing. So I thought that was a sign.

If you want to stay away from the bandwagon tag then maybe look at Newcastle, Everton or the Spurs even. If you're ok with being a kind of bandwagoner then look no further than Chelsea.

Disappointing mate!

Didn't you see the 3-2 win at St James' Park this season or Cisse's double at the Bridge the season before? Sure Chelsea challenge and win things and spend lots of money on big name world class players but wouldn't you much rather have those special wins that you remember until the end of your days. If newcastle ever win a cup, I daresay it would be far sweeter for us fans than it would be for you big club folks who win them every other year

Not too late to switch back though buddy and get on board again. Chelsea may have got the Special one back but we have Joe Kinnear (comedy gold)

 

[NUFC Tiger]

I'd check out Newcastle, they seem to attract a few Australian fans. Them or Swansea, but it's up to you in the end.

Just don't go for Stoke or you'll want to kill yourself by years end.

cross#4 speaks the truth - get on board the Aussie Mags

If I can do a shameless plug for my own team - supporting newcastle takes a special kind of fan. There will be lots of frustration, anger, bewilderment and disappointment but there are also some incredible highs that make the journey worth it. Chances of seeing us win a cup or the league are next to nothing but we have fanatical supporters who love attacking football. I still maintain that a St James' Park (our home stadium) when rocking and vibrating from 52,000 fans going off is something truly awe inspiring and magical. The most contagious thing in the world next to the Richmond theme song

Our club colours are black and white (unfortunately like Collingwood who coincidentally were formed in the same year as Newcastle...) but despite that, nothing is ever black and white at Newcastle. If you like drama, there is no other club to follow but us!

If not us, I'd tip either West Ham (amazing supporters too plus they get to sing 'bubbles' which is probably the best song in football IMO) or Crystal Palace (both have red and blue - demon colours - technically claret though).

 

[NUFC Tiger]

When I first started watching EPL I wanted to follow Newcastle due to the Pies colours. The first game I watched was Newcastle vs Chelsea. Funnily enough by the end of the game I hated Newcastle and loved the Chelsea players. Ever since then I've been In love. So just watch some games. You'll take a preference soon.

What game was this???

It saddens me to hear you've lost your way brother

 

[Jatz]

If you follow a solid Championship team then you could get success every second year. It's a pretty cool thought.

Not just a thought

The Championship is a cruel beast though. For instance, last year Leicester sneak into the playoffs by beating a rival at their home ground in the 90th min (pure elation!!!) only to then get kicked out of the playoffs to Watford in such an extravagant way that it made the headlines in Aus.

 

[Magma]

in the end it's just a team

 

[NUFC Tiger]

How I chose Newcastle funnily enough was because I saw the logo in a colouring book when I would have been 6-7 years old. I then started watching the games a few years later and started to feel connected to the fans, the stadium, the players etc.

I would suggest that is a possible way for you to start finding a team - find a logo you like (If you become a fan, that logo when you see it, should fill you with pride and love so make sure you choose one you'll like) and then start sussing out that team by watching a few games.

 

[Bardo State]

Disappointing mate!

Didn't you see the 3-2 win at St James' Park this season or Cisse's double at the Bridge the season before? Sure Chelsea challenge and win things and spend lots of money on big name world class players but wouldn't you much rather have those special wins that you remember until the end of your days. If newcastle ever win a cup, I daresay it would be far sweeter for us fans than it would be for you big club folks who win them every other year

Not too late to switch back though buddy and get on board again. Chelsea may have got the Special one back but we have Joe Kinnear (comedy gold)

Can't see myself switching now but have a definite soft spot for Newcastle. Funnily enough the second Chelsea game I watched was when they went down to the maggies with Sissoko playing a ripper. The first being the loss to West Ham so I'm not too sure how I ended up supporting them Sadly the last game I saw of Newcastle was when Coutinho treated the defense like Swiss cheese

 

[biggiemediums]

What game was this???

It saddens me to hear you've lost your way brother

Haha! I believe it was 98' Newcastle shalacked Chelsea 3-1. I just wasn't happy and from then on it was always Chelsea for me. Very strange how the mind chooses its preferences.

 

[jethro11]

Chelsea may have got the Special one back but we have Joe Kinnear (comedy gold)

For Sunderland fans.

 

[Shoei]

Don't follow any team.

Watch the league and enjoy the players from each side.

Eventually you'll tune in to watch one player more than the others. Ask most people here and they'll associate a player with the club around the time they started following. It takes more than one season to establish a link to a club, generally you'll find a player you want to follow first.

Just don't become a complete one eyed campaigner once you settle on a team.

Or a Tottenham fan.

 

[sabre_ac]

I think you genuinely need a reason to support a team and the fact they win all the time or can afford to buy the best players isn't sufficient.

Granted most Australians are going to be clutching at straws when it comes to choosing a side, I think there still needs to be a reason.

I was in your position a few years ago, eventually decided to go with the Spurs due to the Croatian connection at the time (Modric, Kranjcar and Corluka). I have supported the Croatian national team since I was a kid and it was a natural fit. All Croatian connection has since left but my loyalty to the spurs remains. They play an exciting unpredictable style of game, can match it with the big boys and their future remains completely up in the air. Last few seasons it has come down to the wire and I've loved it (Untill the end )

For what it's worth this is my opinion on the obvious choices.

1. Liverpool: A fan base with a massive chip on their shoulder and have to be the most one eyed supporters in any sport I have ever encountered. Also the first to throw their hands in the air when things don't go their way. I've met allot of Liverpool supporters (Australians,Irish, English) and never encountered one I could have an enjoyable discussion about the game with. Can't even look at the club because of this.

2. Chelsea: The club is quite soulless but they play good football and the fan base can at least admit that life is easy. They have a couple of players which would potentially be enough to put me off supporting them (Terry, Luiz and Cole). I don't think Chelsea is a bad choice, especially if your other sport teams are battlers. Just be honest with yourself and other supporters.

3. Manchester United: Hard not to respect this club and its players, consistently are at the top of their game. The fan base is a bit of a mixed bag, though most go about their "winning" calmly and with little arrogance. Not a bad choice either. An easy life

3 City: The other soulless club in the mix, will continue to cycle through managers and players with few given the opportunity of becoming long servants of the club. Supporter base is similar to Chelsea, most rational fans acknowledge that life is very easy as a city fan and can have a normal conversation about other clubs. My experience is many disappeared this year, so perhaps not the most hardy of fan bases.

4. Arsenal: As a Spurs supporter I should hate them, but I still find their fan base more tolerable than Liverpools, can be a little precious though. It's also hard to fault how they go about their business and their style of play.

5. Everton/Newcastle/Swansea: Hard working battlers, it'll be a tough slog supporting them but you won't encounter too much attitude when you talk "Soccer" with other supporters. Any success is thoroughly earned.

So..In sum..

If your hunting glory and success my choices would be.

1. Manchester United
2. Chelsea

If your hunting excitement and unpredictability

1. Spurs
2. Arsenal

If you support any of West Coast/Collingwood/Geelong or Sydney (You already get enough success)

1. Newcastle
2. Everton.
3. Swansea

Narrow it down and find a some connection (Any will do)

 

[moomba]

3 City: The other soulless club in the mix, will continue to cycle through managers and players with few given the opportunity of becoming long servants of the club. Supporter base is similar to Chelsea, most rational fans acknowledge that life is very easy as a city fan and can have a normal conversation about other clubs. My experience is many disappeared this year, so perhaps not the most hardy of fan bases.

I don't get why people think that having money or not having money has anything to do with the soul of a club, to me it just shows that these people don't really know what football clubs are all about.

I sit next to the same people I've sat next too since the Stuart Pearce days, and still see the people I used to sit next too in the Kevin Keegan days when I first got my ST. Most of them were about and can talk about the Brian Horton, Alan Ball, Frank Clark years 20 odd years ago when I first started following the club.

Did we all lose our soul four years ago when one rich owner was replaced by another rich owner?

And PSML if you think supporting City is, or ever has been easy.

Oh, and FWIW Spurs have hired and fired the same number of managers since the takeover in September 2008 as we have.

 

[Gibbsy]

City? Easy? Where do you think the term "same old City" came from

 

[moomba]

City? Easy? Where do you think the term "same old City" came from

I do long for our days in division 3 losing to the likes of Stockport, where our non-hardy 28,000 supporters sat back, watched the scum win title after title and thought "**** me this is easy this football lark"

 

[sabre_ac]

Supporting a club that is constantly expected to succeed doesn't appeal to me, I enjoy a good fight and struggle. If you stumble upon city at the moment its going to be an easy ride.

I don't get why people think that having money or not having money has anything to do with the soul of a club, to me it just shows that these people don't really know what football clubs are all about.

I have called Chelsea/City soulless because of the rate they cycle through their managers and players despite the amount of success they have seen (By any measure). There was also little build up to the success, no building a squad. It was cash injection and shopping spree.

Mancini's sacking the following year after winning the league isn't a good start. Who of City's current squad can you genuinely expect to play their career at the club and get a game?

Due to the money spent the bar for expectations is set at winning the Premier league and advancing to the later stages of Champions league.

 

[Tulip]

City aren't really soulless. Not by a long shot.

Yet.

 

[moomba]

I have called Chelsea/City soulless because of the rate they cycle through their managers and players despite the amount of success they have seen (By any measure).

We're on our third manager since 2008. Same as Spurs. And much better record than other clubs. It doesn't have anything to do with a club having a soul.

There was also little build up to the success, no building a squad. It was cash injection and shopping spree.

Yes, how else do you expect a club to break into the top echelons?

Mancini's sacking the following year after winning the league isn't a good start. Who of City's current squad can you genuinely expect to play their career at the club and get a game?

How many players play their career at one club? Certainly none at Spurs unless you think the likes of Livermore or Kane will do it.

Due to the money spent the bar for expectations is set at winning the Premier league and advancing to the later stages of Champions league.

Yes, the same as Man United the club you seem to have a hard on for (surprisingly like many Spurs fans).

 

[sabre_ac]

Lets try not to derail this thread, I gave an opinion for anyone looking to get involved in the premier league right now.
I think you own the history of a club from when you join it's ranks, to talk of how it was run or the success it had before you had an interest doesn't really fly with me. Again that's purely an opinion.

We're on our third manager since 2008. Same as Spurs. And much better record than other clubs. It doesn't have anything to do with a club having a soul.

Redknapps sacking might have had something to do with his shift in focus when the English job became available and his legal proceedings. I also can't imagine any club but City/Chelsea sacking a manager the following year after winning the league (That screams big machine over peoples club to me)

Yes, how else do you expect a club to break into the top echelons?

I know it takes money to be successful and build a brand, it also takes time. It's the same reason we are naturally weary of over night popstars or people who wake up one day with money. There is something to be said of working hard and achieving success.

Buying young players and developing them in the system isn't a bad way to go about it either.

How many players play their career at one club? Certainly none at Spurs unless you think the likes of Livermore or Kane will do it.

King immediately springs to mind.

Lennon I suspect will play his career at the club as will Dawson. Caulker and Carroll are good chances as well.

The only fan base I really had a go at was Liverpool's and that's through experience. In any sport if the opposition supporters can pay dues where its warranted and don't equate the success of the club with their own personal ego, fair play to them.

 

[Tulip]

We're on our third manager since 2008. Same as Spurs. And much better record than other clubs. It doesn't have anything to do with a club having a soul.



Yes, how else do you expect a club to break into the top echelons?



How many players play their career at one club? Certainly none at Spurs unless you think the likes of Livermore or Kane will do it.




Yes, the same as Man United the club you seem to have a hard on for (surprisingly like many Spurs fans).

Well, you could always do what Spurs have done since Arnesen arrived and progress the suuad naturally. Buy young or from lower leagues, players with high sale value when developed correctly. Doesn't always work (Dos Santos) but is certainly the most organic way of doing things these days.

King retired last year after playing his whole career at Spurs. Caulker is certainly a chance, but he probably doesn't fit your hypothetical because it actually works.

 

[Tulip]

Lennon I suspect will play his career at the club as will Dawson. Caulker and Carroll are good chances as well.

The only fan base I really had a go at was Liverpool's and that's through experience. In any sport if the opposition supporters can pay dues where its warranted and don't equate the success of the club with their own personal ego, fair play to them.

Lennon played a couple of games at Leeds, Dawson played a few at Forest and Walker a few at Sheffield United.

All a good chance to play 10-15 years at Spurs, however.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

sabre_ac seems like my kind of mod!!

 

[moomba]

Lets try not to derail this thread, I gave an opinion for anyone looking to get involved in the premier league right now.
I think you own the history of a club from when you join it's ranks, to talk of how it was run or the success it had before you had an interest doesn't really fly with me. Again that's purely an opinion.

I've not mentioned anything about the club from before I started supporting them.

Redknapps sacking might have had something to do with his shift in focus when the English job became available and his legal proceedings. I also can't imagine any club but City/Chelsea sacking a manager the following year after winning the league (That screams big machine over peoples club to me)

Thats because you dont know anything about the club and you choose to take an angle that fits your pre conceived ideas of it.

I know it takes money to be successful and build a brand, it also takes time. It's the same reason we are naturally weary of over night popstars or people who wake up one day with money. There is something to be said of working hard and achieving success.

Buying young players and developing them in the system isn't a bad way to go about it either.

Which is why we've invested millions in an academy and have outlined plans to build teans with a core of academy players. But that sort of thing takes time.

 

[Thistle]

Don't listen to the posters saying Chelsea and City and soulless and plastic, it doesn't make sense and they don't know football. Think of it this way, we are creating history not reliving it.

Don't let us pick a team for you, as others have said watch plenty of games and keep up with the news and you'll find yourself a team in no time. There are no wrong choices.

 

[moomba]

Well, you could always do what Spurs have done since Arnesen arrived and progress the suuad naturally.
Buy young or from lower leagues, players with high sale value when developed correctly. Doesn't always work (Dos Santos) but is certainly the most organic way of doing things these days.

Building a squad naturally or organically are two of the biggest wank terms in football today. I just just don't get how one club buying and selling players to improve their chances if success is "organic" and another's isnt. Its the sort of term David Brent would use if he was involved in football.

Putting aside the fact that the bulk of our buys in the past three years have been younger players, why is it important to anyone? Leeds went "organic" and went bust, Newcastle went organic and it fell apart, Spurs went organic and still cant finish above Arsenal. We did what we did and won the league. We'll be in it again this year. Seems a pretty good strategy to me and I'd love for to explain to me how buying worse players would benefit us in yge long run

King retired last year after playing his whole career at Spurs. Caulker is certainly a chance, but he probably doesn't fit your hypothetical because it actually works.

Like Richards has been with us since 14, Hart has already bern here 6/7 years and the likes of Kompany and Zabaleta going on 5 with many more to come. We all have those sorts at our clubs, even the non "organic" ones.

 

[Tulip]

Building a squad naturally or organically are two of the biggest wank terms in football today. I just just dont get how obe club buying and selling players to imptove their chances if success is "organic" and anothers isnt. Its the sort of term David Brent would use if he was involved in football.

Putting aside the fact that the bulk of our buys in the past three years have been younger players, why is it important to anyone? Leeds went "organic" and went bust, Newcastle went organic and it fell apart, Spurs went organic and still cant finish above Arsenal. We did what we did and win the league and will be in it again this year. Seems a pretty good strategy to me.



Like Richards has been with us since 14, Hart has already bern here 6/7 years and the likes of Kompany and Zabaleta going on 5 with many more to come. We all have those sorts at our clubs, even the non "organic" ones.

Because it involves a bit of loyalty, frugalness and care. It's so easy for this new generation of cashed up mid-tier clubs, the first being Chelsea and the most recent being Monaco, to just throw money at a problem until it goes away.

City lose the title? Blow 45 million odd on two 28 year olds in Fernandinho and Navas.

Man City were put into a position through no doing of their own that allowed them to throw money around. You think the Sheikh's bought you because you had wonderful third tier crowds? More likely they bought you because you were little Man United and they wanted a challenge. Yeah, yeah I know - they develop the community and love the joint.

Do you remember Spurs before 2004? Europe was a dream after the failed Sugar years. Here we are now, 9 years later with Europa every year and competing for the CL every season too. Why? Because we bought young, we bought English, we actually had to plan for our future rather than just dropping a 500 million bombshell.

Deny it all you like, moomba. It's a fact.