All-time Football League Positions 1888-2018

[Nomalice]

NO# CLUB TITLES DETAILS
1 Manchester United 42 20 League Titles, 12 FA Cups, 5 League Cups, 3 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 1 FIFA Club WC
2 Liverpool 41 18 League Titles, 7 FA Cups, 8 League Cups, 5 European Title, 3 UEFA Cups
3 Arsenal 30 13 League Titles, 13 FA Cups, 2 League Cups, 2 UEFA Cups
4 Chelsea 22 6 League Titles, 7 FA Cups, 5 League Cups, 1 European Title., 3 UEFA Cups
5 Aston Villa 20 7 League Titles, 7 FA Cups, 5 League Cups, 1 European Title
6 Everton 15 9 League Titles, 5 FA Cups, 1 UEFA Cups
7 Tottenham 17 2 League Titles, 8 FA Cups, 4 League Cups, 3 UEFA Cups
8 Man City 14 4 League titles, 5 FA Cups, 4 League Cups, 1 UEFA Cup
9 Newcastle Utd 11 4 League, 6 FA Cups, 1 UEFA Cup
10 Sunderland 8 6 League Titles, 2 FA Cups
11 Blackburn 10 3 League Titles, 6 FA Cups, 1 league Cup
12 Wolverhampton 9 3 League Titles, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups
13 Nottingham Forest 9 1 League Title, 2 FA Cup, 4 League Cups, 2 European Title
14 Sheffield Wed 8 4 League Titles, 1 FA Cup, 3 League Cup
15 Leeds United 7 3 League Title, 1 FA Cup, 1 League Cup, 2 UEFA Cup
16 West Brom 7 1 League, 5 FA Cups, 1 League Cup
MOST MAJOR TROPHIES IN ENGLISH FOOTBALL (as of February 2018)

/www.totalsportek.com/list/most-successful-clubs-in-english-football-history/

[Newcy Wolf]

Yep.

You cannot be selective when it comes to things that have been won.

You either finish top of the tree or you don't.

I bet the creator of his own table on here will look at this and feel a bit stupid after his 'statistics' have Everton as a more successful club than Man Utd.

This one looks about right to me.

[talkSAFT]

"Most Successful" is a different title to "All-time Football League". It's like saying Wimbledon are greater than Blues (say), for winning the Cup back in the 80s. (HaHa - bad example, using Blues!)

What the "All-time League" gives you is the ups and downs situation:
Wo1ve5 started in 1888, same as us, but despite winning the League 3 times c/w Albion's once, are way way behind us, due to the fact that we haven't bothered winning the 4th Division (would you like respect for that?) In other words, we've been consistently above you. Without the Stan Cullis years you'd be miles behind, probably about where Blues are (but the 50s ARE included). You're nearly 400 pts behind Albion - so if you finish a full 20 places above us for the next 20 years, you will overtake us. (I'll be dead by then, so they'll lay me out with a big smile on my face).

ps ManU were nothing before Matt Busby in the 50s (that's 60 years of winning nothing).

[Nomalice]

It is almost as if you are trying to use a flawed system in order to prove what you would like to be true as opposed to what is actually true.
Your system puts teams who appear in the top division for a long time- even if they achieve nothing -above teams who do win trophies but who may suffer relegation.
A prime example is ,if we use your system over the last 10 years teams like Swansea,Stoke, not to mention Villa and West Brom would be placed higher than Leicester, which is ridiculous.It is not how long you languish in a Division ,it's what you win that counts.
Albion's Golden era was 1920 to 1931 when they won the top league for the only time, were runners up once and FA cup winners
so not too sure what your concentration on the 50s is.......

[Evewolf65]

"Most Successful" is a different title to "All-time Football League". It's like saying Wimbledon are greater than Blues (say), for winning the Cup back in the 80s. (HaHa - bad example, using Blues!)

What the "All-time League" gives you is the ups and downs situation:
Wo1ve5 started in 1888, same as us, but despite winning the League 3 times c/w Albion's once, are way way behind us, due to the fact that we haven't bothered winning the 4th Division (would you like respect for that?) In other words, we've been consistently above you. Without the Stan Cullis years you'd be miles behind, probably about where Blues are (but the 50s ARE included). You're nearly 400 pts behind Albion - so if you finish a full 20 places above us for the next 20 years, you will overtake us. (I'll be dead by then, so they'll lay me out with a big smile on my face).

ps ManU were nothing before Matt Busby in the 50s (that's 60 years of winning nothing).

Wolves were formed in 1877, WBA in 1878 The Football League began in 1888

[Evewolf65]

"Most Successful" is a different title to "All-time Football League". It's like saying Wimbledon are greater than Blues (say), for winning the Cup back in the 80s. (HaHa - bad example, using Blues!)

What the "All-time League" gives you is the ups and downs situation:
Wo1ve5 started in 1888, same as us, but despite winning the League 3 times c/w Albion's once, are way way behind us, due to the fact that we haven't bothered winning the 4th Division (would you like respect for that?) In other words, we've been consistently above you. Without the Stan Cullis years you'd be miles behind, probably about where Blues are (but the 50s ARE included). You're nearly 400 pts behind Albion - so if you finish a full 20 places above us for the next 20 years, you will overtake us. (I'll be dead by then, so they'll lay me out with a big smile on my face).

ps ManU were nothing before Matt Busby in the 50s (that's 60 years of winning nothing).

Man utd had won 2 league titles before Busby took over that's one more than WBA have won in their history!!

[talkSAFT]

It is almost as if you are trying to use a flawed system in order to prove what you would like to be true as opposed to what is actually true.
Your system puts teams who appear in the top division for a long time- even if they achieve nothing -above teams who do win trophies but who may suffer relegation.
A prime example is ,if we use your system over the last 10 years teams like Swansea,Stoke, not to mention Villa and West Brom would be placed higher than Leicester, which is ridiculous.It is not how long you languish in a Division ,it's what you win that counts.
Albion's Golden era was 1920 to 1931 when they won the top league for the only time, were runners up once and FA cup winners
so not too sure what your concentration on the 50s is.......

You're suggesting that the "All-time League Placings" gives extra marks (say 100) for actually winning the League. Fine. But that's not what it says. How many extra points for winning the League in 1889 (when there were 12 in the League)? An extra 3, say?
However you twist the data, Wo1ve5 would still be miles behind the Albion. Full stop.
Before I collected the data, I would have expected D1ngle5 to have been ahead of the Albion, (and that's probably because your fans have got bigger gobs than ours). I would have still posted the League just for information, but I honestly didn't expect the gulf between our Clubs to be so great. Most Albion fans see Villa as our main local rivals, simply because Aston is much closer, but also because Wo1ve5 have been nowhere near us until the 50s. Your main rivals have been Stoke, and even Port Vale and Shrewsbury.

[Nomalice]

OK,perhaps we are talking about two different things here.
You find it a greater achievement to stay in the top division even if that means being a mediocre team who struggles in that league season after season than it is to win trophies.
On that analysis you can rightly say that Albion have had more points than Wolves-
Everton have had more points than Manchester United, and Aston Villa have had more points than Chelsea.
Now if you have this strange notion that it is more important to stay in the top division than to win trophies,then congrats and I'm glad you can find consolation in this idea.
Whereas most fans take the logical idea that it is better to win trophies than to always stay in the top division.
So Manchester United fans know they have been more successful than Everton when it comes to winning trophies -
So Chelsea fans know they have been more successful than Aston Villa when it comes to winning trophies.
So Wolves fans know that they have been more successful than West Brom when it comes to winning trophies
I appreciate all fans want a little bit of glory for their teams but your analysis does not show how successful teams have been (but if your not interested in being successful,that's fine) or maybe you are just grasping at straws.
Oh,and there is no problem in having Stoke and Shrewsbury as rivals as you could quite possibly be playing both of them next season!

[Newcy Wolf]

You're suggesting that the "All-time League Placings" gives extra marks (say 100) for actually winning the League. Fine. But that's not what it says. How many extra points for winning the League in 1889 (when there were 12 in the League)? An extra 3, say?
However you twist the data, Wo1ve5 would still be miles behind the Albion. Full stop.
Before I collected the data, I would have expected D1ngle5 to have been ahead of the Albion, (and that's probably because your fans have got bigger gobs than ours). I would have still posted the League just for information, but I honestly didn't expect the gulf between our Clubs to be so great. Most Albion fans see Villa as our main local rivals, simply because Aston is much closer, but also because Wo1ve5 have been nowhere near us until the 50s. Your main rivals have been Stoke, and even Port Vale and Shrewsbury.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous childish posts I can recall reading on this board.

[talkSAFT]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous childish posts I can recall reading on this board.

Have you got a mirror, Alf?

And to Nomalice: If it's just gold medals that excite you, what do you say to the Olympians who strive all their sporting lives to win a bronze medal? Do you tell them they've wasted their lives?
If it's just WINNING the League, we may all as well stop playing and watching now. Just have a League for the top 6 or 7 full stop.

What a pair of gobsh*tes!