The only real surprise about last month’s results between the Manchester giants and the two north London clubs was that anybody was truly surprised about the outcome at all. It was clear before the match that United and City were in a different class to Arsenal and Tottenham – and now there seems little doubt that the title race will be an entirely Mancunian affair. London football is in the doldrums but the truth is – and it’s hard for me to admit this – that northern clubs have always had the upper hand on southerners.
In the history of English football, northern sides have won the title 76 times, with just 22 for southern teams and 14 from the midlands. And no southern club has won the European Cup – Liverpool 5, Man United 3, Nottingham Forest 2, Villa 1. And London? A big fat zero. It’s amazing that neither Arsene Wenger nor Roman Abramovich have got their hands on club football’s greatest prize, but before those two gentlemen came along, no London club had even reached the final.
London teams have always under-achieved. When the Football League began in 1888, no southern clubs were even involved and it took 43 years for Arsenal to become its first southern champions. I joined Chelsea as a 15-year-old kid when they were league champions in 1955 and in the next 34 years, London clubs won only two titles. London has actually enjoyed its best spell in the past 15 years, thanks to the very different revolutions under Wenger and Abramovich, which brought Arsenal and Chelsea three titles each. Yet neither club has dominated English football the way Liverpool and Manchester United have.
[divider]
After three wonderful years at the start of the 1960s, Tottenham have not lived up to their status as a great club at any time since. And when you consider that the likes of Paul Gascoigne, Glenn Hoddle, Ossie Ardiles, Gary Lineker and Jurgen Klinsmann never won a title between them, you have to wonder if it’s something wrong at the heart of the club.
West Ham had three great World Cup winners in their ranks during the ’60s but rarely finished in the top half of the table, while Chelsea were always considered a frothy showbiz club until Abramovich took command. Arsenal have led the way for the south, but even they have frequently gone through long periods without a trophy – these last six years have been nothing new to older Gunners fans. In my playing days we were always labelled ‘southern softies’ but the Spurs side I played in was full of Scottish, Welsh, Irish and northern players.
[divider]
It’s difficult to put your finger on the massive differences in success. One reason has to be that there is more intensity around the great northern clubs and more tribalism among supporters. You’ll see a lot of replica United and Liverpool shirts in the south but very few Arsenal, Chelsea or Spurs tops up north. Northerners have always moaned they do all the hard graft, while southerners take the rewards – although there doesn’t seem to be any shortage of nice big houses when I go above Watford!
Maybe it’s true that southern people are more easy-going and are not so passionate about following their clubs. And football is much less a part of the fabric of London than it is in Manchester, Liverpool or Newcastle. I can’t see Chelsea winning the title this year, as they have a squad still in need of an overhaul. My money is on City to pip United – you never win the league with a dodgy keeper, and I’d choose Joe Hart over David de Gea any day. One thing is for certain, though, neither United nor City will be travelling to London with any fear this season. It truly is grim down south.
