Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="IthacaMatt, post: 2486319, member: 405"]
I like your responses for the most part, but I'll disagree on two:

Spurs are not a finesse team under Pochettino; they are robust in holding midfield and defense and they can put some bite in a tackle.  Dele Alli is about as dirty a player as you'll want to see, and Harry Kane is a big strong, very English forward.

I would say that Spurs' comparable would be somebody like Miami or Florida State.  Or maybe Purdue.  They haven't won anything, but they have some big strong athletes.

As for Chelsea, they did not just arrive with Abramovich in 2003.

They have the following accomplishments in their last Pre-Roman decade:
[LIST]
[*]1994 FA Cup Final
[*]1997 FA Cup Winner 
[*]1998 League Cup Final
[*]1998 Cup Winners Cup Final
[*]2000 FA Cup Winners
[*]2000 Champions League group stage
[*]2002 FA Cup Final
[/LIST]
This was the era with Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli, Dennis Wise, Gianfranco Zola, Mario Melchiot, Frank Lebouef, Didier Deschamps and Roberto Di Matteo.  They made a lot of Finals without winning them, but they were right there in the mix.  It's not like Abramovich bought the worst team in the league.

Then mix in that they have won the most trophies in the Premier League over the last 10 years, including 3 Premier League Championships since 2010, plus the first London club to win Champions League, plus winning Europa League, 3 or 4 more FA Cups and 2 or 3 more League Cups, and I would say that Chelsea's basketball comparable would be:  Louisville.  Recent success, but disliked intensely in some circles.  (Pitino = Mourinho)  But still has some decent history, about a generation ago.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?