Ultimate League 2017/18: Overachieving and underachieving clubs revealed

[davieG]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/11373570/sky-sports-ultimate-league-201718-overachieving-and-underachieving-clubs-revealed

 

 

Probably need to read the link.

[Ted Maul]

Interesting way of seeing things- takes into consideration the modern era and the back end of the old. Probably a good cut off point, anything before that is irrelevant to most now.

[Golden Fox]

I think this may be somewhat simplistic data... I think we can all applaud Swansea for a fantastic 2017/18 season, over-achieving by 32 places! Stoke can also be proud of their over-achievement... Blackburn need to have a long think about what they could have done better this year, with a 22 place under-achievement. Strangely, none of these clubs were mentioned in the commentary...

[Ted Maul]

14 minutes ago, Golden Fox said:

I think this may be somewhat simplistic data... I think we can all applaud Swansea for a fantastic 2017/18 season, over-achieving by 32 places! Stoke can also be proud of their over-achievement... Blackburn need to have a long think about what they could have done better this year, with a 22 place under-achievement. Strangely, none of these clubs were mentioned in the commentary...

I think 'over or underachieving' is simplifying it too much, but the current position compared to historical position over 50 years is interesting.

 

We're above some massive clubs and considerably higher than a few similarly sized clubs- impressive, considering it's such a long period of time and we've had a couple of our worst eras in that time.

[norwichfox]

warralodabollocks.....

[David Guiza]

I would not have guessed that Arsenal would be above United for average league finish. I know United had a poor spell pre-Fergie, but still. Also wouldn't have expected QPR to be so high considering they seem to have barely been in the top flight for ages. 

 

Looks as though we will topple Forest next season too. 

[4everfox]

I just can't take an article seriously when Leeds, Forest, Southampton and Ipswich are 'expected' to finish above us. It's nonsense. 

[Golden Fox]

 

14 minutes ago, Ted Maul said:

but the current position compared to historical position over 50 years is interesting.

I actually agree that it is a very interesting table: I just object to the headline and then the skewed commentary to fit the story, trying to put a spin on it, rather than just portraying it as a "this is where clubs currently are compared to their 50 year average" which wouldn't get as many readers, but would do what it says on the tin.

 

5 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Looks as though we will topple Forest next season too. 

Notice that too

 

I also find the following site, which is the all-time premier league statistics an interesting read.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/All-TimePremierLeagueTable1992-93to2010-11.html

In the Premier League era, we'd be sat in the relegation zone, but we should overtake Bolton next year, but Sunderland will probably be out of reach after the last few months...

[David Guiza]

6 minutes ago, Golden Fox said:

 

I actually agree that it is a very interesting table: I just object to the headline and then the skewed commentary to fit the story, trying to put a spin on it, rather than just portraying it as a "this is where clubs currently are compared to their 50 year average" which wouldn't get as many readers, but would do what it says on the tin.

 

Notice that too

 

I also find the following site, which is the all-time premier league statistics an interesting read.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/All-TimePremierLeagueTable1992-93to2010-11.html

In the Premier League era, we'd be sat in the relegation zone, but we should overtake Bolton next year, but Sunderland will probably be out of reach after the last few months...

Of course football existed way before the Premier League, but it does make for somewhat amusing reading when the likes of Wimbeldon and Cov have a better recent record than Derby and Forest. 

[Izzy]

I don’t get it. But then I am a thick twat 

[Corky]

Too thin, didn't read.

[The Doctor]

56 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I don’t get it. But then I am a thick twat 

So, where a team finished this season in the pyramid (e.g. 1st in the championship is 21st in the country) vs the average of those over the last 50 seasons

[Izzy]

34 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

So, where a team finished this season in the pyramid (e.g. 1st in the championship is 21st in the country) vs the average of those over the last 50 seasons

So we've gone up 6 places from 22.3 to 15? 

 

Sorry, think I get it now. Our average position over the last 50 years is 22.3rd (yo-yo) which puts us 15th overall? 

Edited 15 May 2018 by Izzy Muzzett

[The Doctor]

6 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

So we've gone up 6 places from 22.3 to 15? 

 

Sorry, think I get it now. Our average position over the last 50 years is 22.3rd (yo-yo) which puts us 15th overall? 

 

So our average placing in the last 50 years is 22.3, which is the 15th highest average placing - we then finished six places ahead of that

[Izzy]

12 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

So our average placing in the last 50 years is 22.3, which is the 15th highest average placing - we then finished six places ahead of that

Cool, thanks.

 

Still can’t get my head around why we’re not 22nd overall if our average is 22.3 but maths never was my strong suit 

[Fox92]

They do these league tables every year but I'm more interested in the overachievers and underachievers bit.

[Strokes]

53 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Cool, thanks.

 

Still can’t get my head around why we’re not 22nd overall if our average is 22.3 but maths never was my strong suit 

Because the teams below average more than 22.3.....

[Vulpecula]

Interesting that the 'traditional' big 5 still occupy the top 5 places, even though Everton have been mediocre for years.

[Izzy]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Because the teams below average more than 22.3.....

Cheers. I think I get it now