Mediocrity to end ?

[macbeth]

There used to be a guy on here who liked to tell us how well we were doing under the stewardship of the current board. One of the things quoted was our "average" finishing position. Of much debate was how you defined "average" finishing position. One way if to take all the finishing positions and divide it by the number of years. This one is shown below, and covers the last 10 seasons. We are now dead equal with Villa, a side most of us would view as being nothing special at all. Under the present board we have been the equivalent of Villa in the league.

 

We have hugely underachieved in the last 10 years. 6 times in the bottom half of the league, twice in the top 4.

 

Hopefully the mediocrity that the departing chairman has overseen while trying to bankrupt the club has now passed. It cannot happen too soon

 

Man Utd             1.8

Arsenal               2.1

Chelsea             3.4

Liverpool     3.9

Aston Villa     9.4

Newcastle   9.4

Tottenham   9.9

Everton             12.0

Middlesbrough  13.2

West Ham 13.9

Blackburn   14.7

 

 

 

[ChezGiven]

What happened 10 years ago that makes it a cut off point? Surely since 93/94 is a better cut off point?

[Guest]

I think an average points tally would be a better way to work it out, because one season, say 55 points might get you 5th, another it might only get you 8th.

 

[ChezGiven]

Agree with Nut.

[Wullie]

What happened 10 years ago that makes it a cut off point? Surely since 93/94 is a better cut off point?

 

Shepherd took over?

 

Anyway, this thread's only going one way - that'll be the best thing about Ashley, no more of this shite, touch wood.

[Parky]

Lock it.

[Lagerstedt]

Premiership Table  All Time

TEAM PLAYED POINTS

  1 Man Utd 582 1232

  2 Arsenal 582 1081

  3 Chelsea 582 1013

  4 Liverpool 582 999

  5 Newcastle 540 829

  6 Aston Villa 582 817

  7 Tottenham 582 788

  8 Blackburn 506 747

  9 Everton 582 735

  10 Leeds 468 692

  11 West Ham 464 596

  12 Southampton 506 587

  13 Middlesbrough 460 559

  14 Man City 392 452

  15 Coventry 354 409

  16 Sheff Wed 316 392

  17 Wimbledon 316 391

  18 Bolton 304 376

  19 Charlton 304 361

  20 Leicester 308 342

 

[Taylor Swift]

Don't lock it. This could be the last one ever. Cherish the moment people!

[Mick]

I think an average points tally would be a better way to work it out, because one season, say 55 points might get you 5th, another it might only get you 8th.

 

 

Nobody really cares about points, it's about league position, you get nowt for 90 points if somebody else gets 91, league position is all that matters.  Of course points are what determines your final position but they're unimportant after that.

[brummie]

There used to be a guy on here who liked to tell us how well we were doing under the stewardship of the current board. One of the things quoted was our "average" finishing position. Of much debate was how you defined "average" finishing position. One way if to take all the finishing positions and divide it by the number of years. This one is shown below, and covers the last 10 seasons. We are now dead equal with Villa, a side most of us would view as being nothing special at all. Under the present board we have been the equivalent of Villa in the league.

 

We have hugely underachieved in the last 10 years. 6 times in the bottom half of the league, twice in the top 4.

 

Hopefully the mediocrity that the departing chairman has overseen while trying to bankrupt the club has now passed. It cannot happen too soon

 

Man Utd              1.8

Arsenal               2.1

Chelsea              3.4

Liverpool      3.9

Aston Villa      9.4

Newcastle    9.4

Tottenham   9.9

Everton             12.0

Middlesbrough  13.2

West Ham 13.9

Blackburn    14.7

 

 

 

 

Of course, another way of looking at it would be to say Newcastle and Villa are joint fifth behind the big four, which sounds far more "impressive" if that is the appropriate word.

 

Look on the bright side, at least its better than Spurs.

[Guest]

In my opinion though, 8th to 14th in the table is much of a muchness. How can Villa be more successful than us when they've not once finished 5th in the last 10 years?

[brummie]

In my opinion though, 8th to 14th in the table is much of a muchness. How can Villa be more successful than us when they've not once finished 5th in the last 10 years?

 

We finished 5th in 96-7 and 6th 3 times in the last 10 years.

 

You finished higher than us 5 times, we finished higher than you 5 times. Over the last 10 years, we finished outside the top 1- on two occasions, you did on 5 occasions. But your highest finish was 2nd against our 5th.

 

That's how it balances out.

[Guest]

96-97 finishes outside of the 10 years though, else our 2nd place would count.

[brummie]

96-97 finishes outside of the 10 years though, else our 2nd place would count.

 

Your second place does count.

 

Actually, no it doesn't, I've just looked. Still, see above post for other evidence.

 

Although I failed to count up the league finishes correctly, we finished above you 6 out of the 10 years.

 

[brummie]

PS can we go back to 1993 so we can have our second place, too? Or back to 1990 so we can have our other second place as well? Or even 1981 for that matter?

 

Screw the past, the future is what counts

[Guest]

If we go back to 1993, then we have another 2nd, 3rd & 6th to be included. 

[Guest gggg]

Didnt Villa nearly get relegated in 94 or 95?

 

Edit -yes

 

18. Aston Villa      42 11 15 16 51 56  48

    ---------------------------------------------

R  19. Crystal Palace    42 11 12 19 34 49  45

R  20. Norwich City      42 10 13 19 37 54  43

R  21. Leicester City    42  6 11 25 45 80  29

R  22. Ipswich Town      42  7  6 29 36 93  27

 

that would take the average down.

 

 

 

[brummie]

If we go back to 1993, then we have another 2nd, 3rd & 6th to be included. 

If we go back to 1993, then we have another 2nd, 3rd & 6th to be included. 

 

I think we should really go back to 1874 for a true assessment.

[brummie]

Didnt Villa nearly get relegated in 94 or 95?

 

Edit -yes

 

18. Aston Villa       42 11 15 16 51 56   48

    ---------------------------------------------

R   19. Crystal Palace    42 11 12 19 34 49   45

R   20. Norwich City      42 10 13 19 37 54   43

R   21. Leicester City    42  6 11 25 45 80   29

R   22. Ipswich Town      42  7  6 29 36 93   27

 

that would take the average down.

 

 

 

 

But as we're going back to 1993, we'll take our second, and assign Newcastle 23rd place for being top of the second flight, so that puts that one right ;-)

[Guest]

Nice one.

[Guest Knightrider]

Long-term; yes. Short-term; it isn't going to happen over night.

[Mick]

Long-term; yes. Short-term; it isn't going to happen over night.

 

The point is that we can see and end to it, things don't always go to plan but at least we can see a glimmer of hope, that wasn't possible as little as a month ago.

[Parky]

Little did poor Brummie know as he bet £50 that my friend here in Germany was advising Laura Cashley.

[brummie]

Little did poor Brummie know as he bet £50 that my friend here in Germany was advising Laura Cashley.

 

I'd still take the bet. And as of now, lest we forget, Parkster, Fat Freddy is still in charge!

 

Muhahahahaha!!

[macphisto]

Well if SA gets the sort of money that has been spoken about in today's papers then I'd expect Newcastle to be challenging at least for 5th place. By challenging I mean that say a week or two before the end of the season I'd want to be within 3 points of that position. I don't think this is being too unrealistic because our league is not that great after the top three.