Les-TA-Jon Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 I've analysed the performances of the teams finishing 17th over the last 10 premier league seasons. This will hopefully give an impression of what Leicester need to achieve in order to stay up. Hopefully it’ll go some way towards addressing recent fears of us ‘being doomed’, although I've not got an agenda here - just trying to relay these stats. I think what they demonstrate is that teams staying up generally have bad seasons, or at the very least inconsistent ones, with few wins, separated by long winless sequences. It's just about picking up enough wins here and there - if they don't go on forever, bad runs aren't the end of the world. The headlines are: Teams finishing 17th need on average 0.96 points per game. LCFC are currently achieving 0.9 points per game. Finishing 17th, involved winning only 8.7 games on average, 6 at the lowest and 11 at the most, leaving LCFC with somewhere between 4 and 9 more wins to achieve out of the remaining 28 matches. Meaning on average we could win just 1.7 out of every 7 games remaining and probably stay up. Drawing games makes a vital contribution, with teams on achieving 10.7 draws on average. On the low end of the scale, we need only draw 1 out of every 7 games remaining. At the top of the scale, with need to achieve 3.25 draws out of 7 games. Teams finishing 17th, on average lose 18.6 times. The smallest amount of losses by a team finishing 17th is 16; the largest is 21. This means LCFC could lose somewhere between 11 and 16 of their remaining 28 matches and still stay up. Teams finishing 17th have bad runs. 1 win out of 23. 1 in 18. 1 in 11. 2 out of 19. 2 out of the final 29 matches. These awful runs were all achieved by teams that stayed up. Good runs are present in teams finishing 17th but small in size and frequency. 6 out of 10 teams finishing 17th managed only one winning sequence. On average teams finishing 17th achieve 4.9 unbeaten sequences. 78% of them were only 3 or less games in length. Points Totals For teams finishing 17th the lowest points total was 34, by West Brom in 2004/05 – 0.89 points per game The highest points total required to finish 17th was 40, by Wolves in 2010/11 – 1.05 points per game The average points required to finish 17th was 36.8 points – 0.96 points per game. LCFC Focus: We are currently performing at 0.9 points per game. The Points gap between 17th and the Drop The largest points gap between 17th and 18th place was 5, by West Ham in 2009/10 The smallest gap, was of course, 0 points, by Wigan in 2006/07 and Fulham in 2007/08 On four occasions, in 04/05, 08/09, 10/11 and 11/12 the gap was only 1 point. The average gap between 17th and the drop was 1.9 points – showing just how thin the margins are between success and failure. Winning Games For teams finishing in 17th place the most wins was 11, by Wolves in 2010/11. The lowest amount of wins was 6 by West Brom in 2004/05 The average number of wins amongst teams finishing 17th was 8.7 – a contribution of 26.1 points LCFC Focus: We have won 2 games in 10 matches so far, leaving us with somewhere between 4 and 9 more games to win out of the remaining 28 matches if we are to match the performance of teams finishing 17th. Meaning a winning ratio of 1 wins out of every 7 games required. Or if we use the top of the scale, the winning ratio required would be 2.25 wins out of 7 games. We could win only 1 out of every 7 games remaining and potentially stay up. Using the average, we need only win 6.7 more wins, or 1.7 wins out of every 7 games. Even using a 10 year high requirement for winning games to stay up, we need only win 2.25 wins out of every 7 games. This does however represent increasing our winning ratio from its current state of 2 out of every 10 games, to 2.25 out of every 7 games. Drawing Games For teams finishing in 17th place, the most draws was 16, by West Brom in 2004/05 The lowest amount of draws was 7, by Wolves in 2010/11 and QPR in 2011/12 The average amount of draws among teams finishing 17th was 10.7 – an important contribution in staying up. LCFC Focus: We have drawn 3 games in 10 matches so far, leaving us with somewhere between 4 and 13 draws to achieve out of the remaining 28 matches if we are to match the performance of teams finishing 17th. Meaning a ‘drawing’ ratio of 1 draw out of every 7 games required. Or using the top of the scale, a drawing ratio of 3.25 out of every 7 games is needed. Losing Games For teams finishing in 17th place the least amount of loses was 16, by West Brom in 2004/05 and again in 2013/14. The most amount of loses was 21, by QPR in 2011/12. The average number of loses was by teams finishing 17th was 18.6 LCFC Focus: We have lost 5 games in 10 games so far. This leaves us with somewhere between 11 and 16 losses to achieve (or lower of course!!!) out of the remaining 28 matches to match the performance of teams finishing 17th. We could lose just over half of our remaining matches and potentially stay up. This means a ‘losing’ ratio of 2.75 losses out of every 7 games. Or using the top of the scale, 4 out of every 7 games lost. Bad Runs – All relate to teams finishing 17th – unless otherwise noted West Brom, in 2013/14, won 1 in 18, a run from fixture 11 to 28. 8 of the games were lost. 12 points gained out of a possible 54. Hull, (finishing 16th) in 2013/14, lost a total of 21 matches. They lost 15 out of their last 25 matches. (20 out of 75 points). Or 9 out of their last 13 matches. They had a run of 1 win in 11 from fixture 14 to 24. Aston Villa (15th) in 2013/14 lost 7 of their last 9 games, winning once, 4 points out of 36 available. QPR, in 2011/12, won just 2 out of 19 games from fixture 10 to 28, 10 points out of 57. In 2010/11, Wolves won only 3 of their opening 16 games, with only 12 points on the board, out of a possible 48. West Ham, in 2009/10, won once out of their opening 10 games. They lost 6 games in a row, from fixture 27 to 32. Hull City, in 2008/09 amazingly won only 2 out of their final 29 games of the season. This run contained 18 losses, and runs of 6 and 5 consecutive defeats. 15 points gained from 87 available. In 2007/08 Fulham won only 5 games out of the opening 35 games! In the following season, Wigan in 2006/07 had 2 wins in 16, from fixtures 12 to 27, losing 8 games in a row as part of the sequence. Portsmouth won only 4 games in their opening 28 matches, in 2005/06, a sequence containing 18 losses In 2004/05, West Brom only managed 1 win in their opening 23 matches. 13 points from 69 available. This left them with 13 points from 23 matches, much lower than the well-trodden 1 point per game needed for survival. All of the teams above stayed up and didn’t get relegated Good Runs Winning sequences: 9 of the 10 teams finishing 17th in the last 10 seasons, had at least one winning sequence (i.e at least 2 consecutive wins) during their season. Only four teams, (Portsmouth 2005/06, Wigan 2006/07, Fulham 2007/08 and Hull City in 2008/09) managed winning sequences of more than 2 wins during their seasons. Frequency of winning sequences is very low. Six of the ten teams managed only a single winning run in their season. Two teams achieved 2 winning runs over the course of their campaign. Sunderland in 2012/13 managed three sets of back-to-back wins and QPR stayed up in 2011/12 having never won a game after another. Winning sequences over 2 games long are uncommon. Only 4 were achieved by these ten teams. Portsmouth won 3 in a row in 2005/06. As did Fulham in 2007/08. Wigan won 4 matches in a row in 2006/07 and Hull managed the same in 2008/09. Unbeaten sequences: Clearly it’s not all about winning, with draws making a vital contribution to staying up. On average teams finishing in 17th place had 4.9 unbeaten sequences (i.e 2 or more games without a loss) over the course of their seasons. The most was 7 by West Brom in 2004/05. Wolves in 2010/11 and QPR in the following season, both only managed 3 unbeaten sequences, and finished 17th. The longest unbeaten sequences achieved by these teams were 6 games. This happened just twice, by Portsmouth in 2005/06, winning 4 and drawing 2 matches from fixture 29 to 34. The other 6 game unbeaten run, was by Hull City in 2008/09, winning 5 and drawing 1, from fixture 4 to 9. In total 49 unbeaten sequences were achieved. 78% of them were only 3 or less games in length.
babylad92 Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 nice one lad entertaining read hopefully the pearson out brigade shuts up now +1
Renart Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 I am worried about you.... Would you like to talk?
Les-TA-Jon Posted 7 November 2014 Author Posted 7 November 2014 I am worried about you.... Would you like to talk? Haha - no I'm good thanks. I do this kind of thing for a living so it was just an easy hour or so's work
willie-bell-in-rothley Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 You need to get out more.(good effort though)
AyewJoking Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 What does this tell us? That 0.9 points per game wont get 40 points so we need to win more points. People that are all doom and gloom are right to feel that way because at this rate we wont get 40 points (assuming you need 40 to stay up). Of course we can improve on the 0.9 points per game stat but isnt this what all the doom and gloomers want anyway? Therefore they are right to be doom and gloomy because given our current form we are going down (assuming you need 40 points). I'm not criticising the OP as he has made a thought provoking post but isnt he just confirming that people are right to feel gloomy as all we have to digest is our games and results which have taken place so far and so far, they arent good enough.
Guest MarshallForEngland Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 Interesting post but I guarantee most of the responses will be people taking the piss out of you for doing it. Quite a few bumpkins on here who are skeptical of anyone who does something that requires a nanowatt of brain power, so a lengthy post containing stats, facts and figures will probably be treated as some sort of witchcraft.
MooseBreath Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 Interesting read. What about performance before and after sacking the manager? I have a feeling some fans might benefit from some of that come this evening.
Stan Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 So to summarise this, and all the preceding threads on our bad run: 1) The 'Doom & Gloomers' aka the 'Pearson-Out' and 'Pearson Tactically Clueless' brigades think that our bad run will never end and we will not achieve the required 0.9 per game. 2) The 'Optimists' aka the 'Pearsonites' and 'He Deserves More Time' squad think that, although we are playing badly at the moment, our form will return and we will achieve greater than the stated 0.9 points per game.
Deucalion Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 Great piece of work and an interesting read, but rather than being reassured I am instead vindicated in my concern that our results so far indicate we are going down. One assumption you seem to make is that we are currently in a patch of poor form. If this is the case, then all will in the end be good. But what if it is our true capability this seasons? The first 5 games could've been the aberration?
Matty Hamez Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 Interesting read. What about performance before and after sacking the manager? I have a feeling some fans might benefit from some of that come this evening. This one's already been looked into a lot. The end result was that team's on a bad run of form on average got back out of it just as fast keeping the old manager as they did with a change. No difference at all. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23724517 That was the dutch league from 86-04, but I doubt that makes much difference.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.