[Football] Our all time league position

[El Turi]

As mentioned above, football only started in 1992 and we are 29th in the all time Premier League table:

Premier League - All time standings

Die ewige Tabelle ist ein Ranking aller Vereine, die je am Wettbewerb Premier League teilgenommen haben. Die Tabelle ist geordnet nach den Punkten die bei ihren Teilnahmen erreicht wurden.

www.transfermarkt.co.uk

 

[Bozza]

As mentioned above, football only started in 1992 and we are 29th in the all time Premier League table:

Premier League - All time standings

Die ewige Tabelle ist ein Ranking aller Vereine, die je am Wettbewerb Premier League teilgenommen haben. Die Tabelle ist geordnet nach den Punkten die bei ihren Teilnahmen erreicht wurden.

www.transfermarkt.co.uk

So, below the relegation zone?

Barber out!

 

[GT49er]

Something up with the method there. Wigan Athletic didn't join the league until 1978. We joined the third division in 1920. So for 58 years we were definitely higher up the pyramid than Wigan. They are a placed above us calculating their record from 1978 onwards without any weighting for them not being in the league before that. If you drill down to the individual club records you see that they've spent eight seasons in the first tier, compared with our twelve and eight seasons in the second tier compared with our twenty four. The calculation gives them an artificially high position because of the seasons they spent outside of the football league.

It's average positions, not all time positions. Wigan's average position is calculated over 50ish years, ours over 100ish - both are valid averages.

It's the equivalent of rating strikers in terms of minutes played per goal, not on the total number of goals they've scored.

 

[Commander]

Actually a bit surprised and annoyed with how high Chelsea are. It doesn't fit that well with my "Small club before Abramovich came along" viewpoint.

I guess there is no point in allowing prejudice to be influenced by by facts though.

 

[Stato]

It's average positions, not all time positions. Wigan's average position is calculated over 50ish years, ours over 100ish - both are valid averages.

It's the equivalent of rating strikers in terms of minutes played per goal, not on the total number of goals they've scored.

I understand that, but they haven't taken a consistent approach to which seasons are included. As per my post mentioning Boston United, they have included seasons below the top four teams for some, but not for others.

 

[Trevor]

I understand that, but they haven't taken a consistent approach to which seasons are included. As per my post mentioning Boston United, they have included seasons below the top four teams for some, but not for others.

Do you mean divisions?

 

[Stato]

Do you mean divisions?

Yes, sorry.

 

[wardy wonder land]

I had a look at calculating actual positions each season and then making an average from that. But the number of leagues, the nature of the competition and the variation in the number of teams in each league make it really difficult. Maybe that's one for the long Xmas holidays.

Edit: I did some dirty maths and got this:

View attachment 192376

I've only looked at the data from 1958, when there have been four comparable leagues (Div 3 N and S previosuly, so not possible to compare).

You can see the inexorable rise since the dark days at the end of the last century.

But across the whole period, our average league position has been 44th.

 

[Stato]

The two teams either side of us shows the anomaly. Wigan's decades of seasons at 93rd or below, previous to their election to the league are not considered in the calculation of their average position. Oldham's two seasons in the fifth tier have been in the last couple of years, so are included in their calculation. The methods are not like for like, so you can't fairly rank them.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

View attachment 192380

That's lovely. All I would say is that the 20s to the 50s there was also a Div 3 North. So it's very hard to day we were in a certain position because we can't include them. For example, some northern side could do the same exercise and claim to be in the same position that we are in 1933. Does that make sense?

So I removed everything before four divisions so we could compare like with like.

 

[Mellotron]

I had a look at calculating actual positions each season and then making an average from that. But the number of leagues, the nature of the competition and the variation in the number of teams in each league make it really difficult. Maybe that's one for the long Xmas holidays.

Edit: I did some dirty maths and got this:

View attachment 192376

I've only looked at the data from 1958, when there have been four comparable leagues (Div 3 N and S previosuly, so not possible to compare).

You can see the inexorable rise since the dark days at the end of the last century.

But across the whole period, our average league position has been 44th.

Further evidence that this is the strongest period of sustained success in our entire history. Enjoy it, folks.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Further evidence that this is the strongest period of sustained success in our entire history. Enjoy it, folks.

Since the league was split into 4 divisions this current run in the Premier League is the longest continuous period we’ve spent in the same division. So not only our strongest period of sustained success but also our most consistent period too.

 

[GT49er]

The two teams either side of us shows the anomaly. Wigan's decades of seasons at 93rd or below, previous to their election to the league are not considered in the calculation of their average position. Oldham's two seasons in the fifth tier have been in the last couple of years, so are included in their calculation. The methods are not like for like, so you can't fairly rank them.

Those are aberrations to be sure. Nothing below 92 should be included, ever. Just the positions between 1 and 92, divided by the number of years the team was in the leagues - the principle is fine, just with some (minor) anomalies, which make little or no difference to the overall integrity of the outcome.
History does make a difference though - there were much fewer big moves up and down the ladder in division 3(N) and (S) days; most teams in those divisions stayed there for most of the 30 odd years those divisions existed, ditto for the higher divisions. So, the first 20 or so on that list looks very similar to the first division when I first started following football in the late 50s.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Since the league was split into 4 divisions this current run in the Premier League is the longest continuous period we’ve spent in the same division. So not only our strongest period of sustained success but also our most consistent period too.

That's incredible. Best place to be having our longest run!!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

There is only one ranking system that is 100% scientifically correct.

1. Brighton = brilliant
2. All others = shit

So it is close, but we are top.

Personally I think the bottom half of the current Premier League table is as it should be, and in fact the PL should draw a line now and finalise the positions.

 

[Pavilionaire]

So, below the relegation zone?

Barber out!

The great thing about that table is you can define the reporting period, so when you sort from 2017/18 to the present day (i.e. our first season in the Prem) it shows our cumulative 338 points tally has us in 9th position overall, so 2 ahead of Everton in 10th and - crucially - 9 ahead of Palace in 11th.

Indeed, this table makes for very pleasant reading. Notably below us are Villa (14th), Southampton (16th), Dirty Leeds don't even make the top 20 (21st) whilst Sheffield Wednesday are on 0 points, which is strange as they are a massive club.

Significantly, over 7 and a bit years there is a 99 point gap between the Big 6 / Top 6 and Newcastle in 7th.