Not even in this season?
That was only true for teams at the top. For relegation issues, i.e. in cases of negative identical goal difference, the higher scorers had the advantage. The fact that you could improve your goal average by losing (and vice versa) showed the system's illogicality.
I didn't know it was that close; always assumed the closest was in 1988-89 when Arsenal's unlikely 2-0 victory at Anfield in the last match won it, whereas a 1-0 victory would have resulted in their opponents becoming champions instead.
I'm not missing the point at all. Numeracy levels were much higher than they are now (nobody had calculators). All shop assistants - plus booking clerks, bus conductors, etc, - had to be able to add up. And this was in pounds, shillings and pence too, with half pennies involved (and up to 1960, quarter pennies too).
Presumably you don't improve your average by losing, you improve it by completing the game, and losing would be less good for your average than drawing or winning. Obviously at the end of the season all teams have completed the same number of games. They were just rewarding teams that let in fewer goals.
Not sure what you're saying there but take this example: You've conceded twice as many as you've scored but then go and lose 2-3.The revised ratio is slightly improved whereas if you had lost 2-4, it would be unchanged.
Yeah, so you haven't been rewarded for losing, your average would have been improved more had you won or drawn, and losing 2-3 isn't as bad as losing 2-4, so it makes sense it's better.
Not necessarily. If you'd drawn the match 0-0 instead, your goal average would have been unchanged and therefore slightly inferior to the GA improved by the 2-3 defeat.
