Oxford United

[Alexander Litvinenko]

But by building such a small stadium Oxford have effectively closed the door on any hopes they may have of competing at the top level any more - so they won't ever be in a position to compete with us at any time in the foreseeable future.

It's a definite cap on their future.

Unless of course some Russian who has been a student at Oxford asks his dad for some money to buy the club and extend the stadium.
That would never happen would it?

Yes, but I think a total rebuild or a relocation would be the only option there, rather than just an extension.

[handbags_harris]

Handbags seems to have summed it up quite well when confirming
(a) they have beaten us more times than we have them
(b)they have spent more time than us in the higher divisions
(c) they have won a major English trophy.

a) Our league record against Manchester City is P16 W 7 D2 L7. Does this make us as at least as big as Citeh?
b) Surely something more appropriate - like a points system should be employed for this one. Say 4 points for D1, 3 for D2, 2 for D3 and 1 for D1. Of course no points when a team isn't even in the league. Someone with more time on their hands can work it out.
c) Can't disagree with this - although we have more championships than them.

You make the error of taking each factor in isolation. All of the three factors combined point to the fact that Oxford United, for whatever reason, have been more successful than Reading since they entered the league. Taking individual points in isolation tends to scew an argument one way or another:-

a) Of course not because they have won major trophies and have spent significantly longer in a higher division than us than we have been in a higher division than them. In fact, have we ever been in a higher division than them?
b) I disagree. Simple facts make better reading, so a simple single "point" for each season that each respective club has been in a higher division suffices.
c) That's a fair point, but what I didn't calculate was whether they had more promotions than us or not...

[Royal With Cheese]

Handbags seems to have summed it up quite well when confirming
(a) they have beaten us more times than we have them
(b)they have spent more time than us in the higher divisions
(c) they have won a major English trophy.

a) Our league record against Manchester City is P16 W 7 D2 L7. Does this make us as at least as big as Citeh?
b) Surely something more appropriate - like a points system should be employed for this one. Say 4 points for D1, 3 for D2, 2 for D3 and 1 for D1. Of course no points when a team isn't even in the league. Someone with more time on their hands can work it out.
c) Can't disagree with this - although we have more championships than them.

You make the error of taking each factor in isolation. All of the three factors combined point to the fact that Oxford United, for whatever reason, have been more successful than Reading since they entered the league. Taking individual points in isolation tends to scew an argument one way or another:-

a) Of course not because they have won major trophies and have spent significantly longer in a higher division than us than we have been in a higher division than them. In fact, have we ever been in a higher division than them?
b) I disagree. Simple facts make better reading, so a simple single "point" for each season that each respective club has been in a higher division suffices.
c) That's a fair point, but what I didn't calculate was whether they had more promotions than us or not...

OK.
a) Trophy, not trophies. The rest of your argument is bollocks and you need to think before you type.
b) That's fine providing you make sure you take the record since the formation of the lower leagues in 1921. You can take it form the beginning of the club's existences if you want. Merely using their entry into the league is totally unacceptable.
c) We concur.

[Ian Royal]

Since they entered the league says it all for me. You can't make a big thing about their history of winning a cup and being above us a lot 20 years ago, and then ignore the fact that they were a non-league club (with a different name) for 40 years of our League existence.

So actually, they've got a cup and we've got 35 years high league status on them. Whoop-di oxf*rd do they were bigger and more successful than us in the 70s and 80s. Or whatever. They aren't now. They haven't been for about 10 - 15 years and they weren't for about our first 90 odd. And most importantly, they are extremely unlikely to be for another 10 years at least.

[handbags_harris]

a) Our league record against Manchester City is P16 W 7 D2 L7. Does this make us as at least as big as Citeh?
b) Surely something more appropriate - like a points system should be employed for this one. Say 4 points for D1, 3 for D2, 2 for D3 and 1 for D1. Of course no points when a team isn't even in the league. Someone with more time on their hands can work it out.
c) Can't disagree with this - although we have more championships than them.

You make the error of taking each factor in isolation. All of the three factors combined point to the fact that Oxford United, for whatever reason, have been more successful than Reading since they entered the league. Taking individual points in isolation tends to scew an argument one way or another:-

a) Of course not because they have won major trophies and have spent significantly longer in a higher division than us than we have been in a higher division than them. In fact, have we ever been in a higher division than them?
b) I disagree. Simple facts make better reading, so a simple single "point" for each season that each respective club has been in a higher division suffices.
c) That's a fair point, but what I didn't calculate was whether they had more promotions than us or not...

OK.
a) Trophy, not trophies. The rest of your argument is bollocks and you need to think before you type.
b) That's fine providing you make sure you take the record since the formation of the lower leagues in 1921. You can take it form the beginning of the club's existences if you want. Merely using their entry into the league is totally unacceptable.
c) We concur.

a) Manchester City's 5 FA Cups, 2 League Cups, Cup Winners Cup and 3 league titles suggests to me they have trophies, not a trophy. You might want to look at my comment in context to the question posed (by you) before you type.
b) You can't compare a pair of clubs when one was a league club and the other wasn't, particularly when the Football League was pretty much a closed shop until the late 80's. IMO you can only compare once both are league clubs and competing on the same plane.

[The Gent]

Our fans deserve better, and hopefully someday soon things will improve.


Oxford till I die

[Victor Meldrew]

I can't believe Handbags that you and I are defending Oxford United at all but I have responded early on because of the billy big-time arrogance of Ian Royal and some of the other posters.
They just don't seem able to give respect to other clubs and are the first to whinge when the really big clubs' fans mock Reading as a plastic little club that has never won f*** all.
It's probably because I saw my late in-laws following a team that kept on winning the Southern League and eventually got admitted to the Football League.
They were rewarded for those trips to Kings Lynn,Weymouth and the like by seeing their beloved team go from non-league all the way through to the top level in an incredibly short period of time (helped by the wonderful manager that we ruthlessly sacked when 3rd in the league) and even win a trophy at Wembley.
That IMHO is some achievement and not to be knocked by some Reading plastics who can see no further than John Madejski's a**e.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

b) Surely something more appropriate - like a points system should be employed for this one. Say 4 points for D1, 3 for D2, 2 for D3 and 1 for D1. Of course no points when a team isn't even in the league. Someone with more time on their hands can work it out.

Since they joined the league, on average, we've been in a higher division than them.

Season at each level

Reading
1 - 3
2 - 14
3 - 26
4 - 8
Average level - 2.76

Oxford
1 - 3
2 - 18
3 - 15
4 - 11
5 - 4
Average level - 2.9

In short, their highs have been a bit better than ours, but their lows have been worse.

There's not a lot in it though, and it's only recent history that's really turned things around.


My impression from these boards is that those who grew up watching Reading in the 1970s almost believe the 4th division is our natural home, even though we've hardly spent any time there at all.

[LUX]

My impression from these boards is that those who grew up watching Reading in the 1970s almost believe the 4th division is our natural home, even though we've hardly spent any time there at all.

Lol, very fair point

[Wimb]

Have been watching Reading since 1995 and in that time Oxford have only spent 1 season at a higher level, 98/99. So in my eyes they're a much smaller club but then I'm fortunate to have been born when I was

However, looking at it deeper and Oxford's glory days were more a case of hanging in there rather than prospering. They have spent 12 seasons in the top 2 tiers since 84/85 and they've finished.

1 (promotion to Div1), 18,18, 21 (relegation) 17, 17, 10, 21, 14, 23 (relegation) then after promotion again in 95/96, 17, 12, 23.

Oxford's peak was scrapping against relegation for 10 seasons. As mentioned, Reading haven't finished outside of the top 10 in the top two tiers since 2002 (not to mention a top 2 finish in 95).

I understand Harris and VM's point that if you take 1962-2012 as a whole that Oxford have been marginally more 'successful', and a trophy is a trophy, but Reading have been far, far more competitive in their peak than Oxford have and this 'glory' period for Reading has yielded more success.

[handbags_harris]

Have been watching Reading since 1995 and in that time Oxford have only spent 1 season at a higher level, 98/99. So in my eyes they're a much smaller club but then I'm fortunate to have been born when I was

However, looking at it deeper and Oxford's glory days were more a case of hanging in there rather than prospering. They have spent 12 seasons in the top 2 tiers since 84/85 and they've finished.

1 (promotion to Div1), 18,18, 21 (relegation) 17, 17, 10, 21, 14, 23 (relegation) then after promotion again in 95/96, 17, 12, 23.

Oxford's peak was scrapping against relegation for 10 seasons. As mentioned, Reading haven't finished outside of the top 10 in the top two tiers since 2002 (not to mention a top 2 finish in 95).

I understand Harris and VM's point that if you take 1962-2012 as a whole that Oxford have been marginally more 'successful', and a trophy is a trophy, but Reading have been far, far more competitive in their peak than Oxford have and this 'glory' period for Reading has yielded more success.

Indeed we have, there's no denying that, but in a direct 1-2-1 since Oxford joined the league in 1962 the bare fact is that they have a better record than us. There is absolutely no spin you can put on the raw facts.

Couldn't have put it better than the good Reverend though, that their lows have been lower than ours, yet their highs have been higher.

All in all we're debating about 5 defining seasons really, there's a wafer thin wedge between the two clubs with regards to football history as a whole and, quite frankly, nobody else really gives a shit about the both of us apart from Swindon and Aldershot.

[Royal With Cheese]

Indeed we have, there's no denying that, but in a direct 1-2-1 since Oxford joined the league in 1962 the bare fact is that they have a better record than us. There is absolutely no spin you can put on the raw facts.

As has been pointed out, your parameters of success are so narrow and specialised that it almost makes the comparison and therefore the fact irrelevant.

All people that eat carrots die. That does not mean that carrots will kill you.

Anyway as for the Man City example, I still thought you were referencing Oxford. I can see now you're not. It's a moot point as that statistic will be well and truly in their favour come December 22nd unless there's a miracle in Manchester!

[Stuboo]

Started a new job three weeks ago. Found out today that my new boss is an Oxford fan.

[Wimb]

Have been watching Reading since 1995 and in that time Oxford have only spent 1 season at a higher level, 98/99. So in my eyes they're a much smaller club but then I'm fortunate to have been born when I was

However, looking at it deeper and Oxford's glory days were more a case of hanging in there rather than prospering. They have spent 12 seasons in the top 2 tiers since 84/85 and they've finished.

1 (promotion to Div1), 18,18, 21 (relegation) 17, 17, 10, 21, 14, 23 (relegation) then after promotion again in 95/96, 17, 12, 23.

Oxford's peak was scrapping against relegation for 10 seasons. As mentioned, Reading haven't finished outside of the top 10 in the top two tiers since 2002 (not to mention a top 2 finish in 95).

I understand Harris and VM's point that if you take 1962-2012 as a whole that Oxford have been marginally more 'successful', and a trophy is a trophy, but Reading have been far, far more competitive in their peak than Oxford have and this 'glory' period for Reading has yielded more success.

Indeed we have, there's no denying that, but in a direct 1-2-1 since Oxford joined the league in 1962 the bare fact is that they have a better record than us. There is absolutely no spin you can put on the raw facts.

Couldn't have put it better than the good Reverend though, that their lows have been lower than ours, yet their highs have been higher.

All in all we're debating about 5 defining seasons really, there's a wafer thin wedge between the two clubs with regards to football history as a whole and, quite frankly, nobody else really gives a shit about the both of us apart from Swindon and Aldershot.

Very fair.

[Ian Royal]

I can't believe Handbags that you and I are defending Oxford United at all but I have responded early on because of the billy big-time arrogance of Ian Royal and some of the other posters.
They just don't seem able to give respect to other clubs and are the first to whinge when the really big clubs' fans mock Reading as a plastic little club that has never won f*** all.
It's probably because I saw my late in-laws following a team that kept on winning the Southern League and eventually got admitted to the Football League.
They were rewarded for those trips to Kings Lynn,Weymouth and the like by seeing their beloved team go from non-league all the way through to the top level in an incredibly short period of time (helped by the wonderful manager that we ruthlessly sacked when 3rd in the league) and even win a trophy at Wembley.
That IMHO is some achievement and not to be knocked by some Reading plastics who can see no further than John Madejski's a**e.

get bent.

[ankeny]

b) Surely something more appropriate - like a points system should be employed for this one. Say 4 points for D1, 3 for D2, 2 for D3 and 1 for D1. Of course no points when a team isn't even in the league. Someone with more time on their hands can work it out.

Since they joined the league, on average, we've been in a higher division than them.

Season at each level

Reading
1 - 3
2 - 14
3 - 26
4 - 8
Average level - 2.76

Oxford
1 - 3
2 - 18
3 - 15
4 - 11
5 - 4
Average level - 2.9

In short, their highs have been a bit better than ours, but their lows have been worse.

There's not a lot in it though, and it's only recent history that's really turned things around.


My impression from these boards is that those who grew up watching Reading in the 1970s almost believe the 4th division is our natural home, even though we've hardly spent any time there at all.

The third division is our natural home,same as Oxford and Swindon,anything else has been a bonus.

[Victor Meldrew]

I can't believe Handbags that you and I are defending Oxford United at all but I have responded early on because of the billy big-time arrogance of Ian Royal and some of the other posters.
They just don't seem able to give respect to other clubs and are the first to whinge when the really big clubs' fans mock Reading as a plastic little club that has never won f*** all.
It's probably because I saw my late in-laws following a team that kept on winning the Southern League and eventually got admitted to the Football League.
They were rewarded for those trips to Kings Lynn,Weymouth and the like by seeing their beloved team go from non-league all the way through to the top level in an incredibly short period of time (helped by the wonderful manager that we ruthlessly sacked when 3rd in the league) and even win a trophy at Wembley.
That IMHO is some achievement and not to be knocked by some Reading plastics who can see no further than John Madejski's a**e.

get bent.

I think he is outside of our price range.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

The third division is our natural home,same as Oxford and Swindon,anything else has been a bonus.

Was our natural home. We are now an entirely different beast to the club of Elm Park days (for better and worse) and I've no idea why some still feel we really have only got about 3000 fans, and the rest are just johnny come latelies.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

I hate Oxford.

[SpaceCruiser]

I can't believe Handbags that you and I are defending Oxford United at all but I have responded early on because of the billy big-time arrogance of Ian Royal and some of the other posters.
They just don't seem able to give respect to other clubs and are the first to whinge when the really big clubs' fans mock Reading as a plastic little club that has never won f*** all.
It's probably because I saw my late in-laws following a team that kept on winning the Southern League and eventually got admitted to the Football League.
They were rewarded for those trips to Kings Lynn,Weymouth and the like by seeing their beloved team go from non-league all the way through to the top level in an incredibly short period of time (helped by the wonderful manager that we ruthlessly sacked when 3rd in the league) and even win a trophy at Wembley.
That IMHO is some achievement and not to be knocked by some Reading plastics who can see no further than John Madejski's a**e.

get bent.

What did you expect from a dick like VM?