Betfair Bozo
Well-known member
- Jul 24, 2007
- 2,096
This is the key factor for Saints. Confidence or self pity.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Still 7 points clear
- Thread starter throbinson
- Start date
This is the key factor for Saints. Confidence or self pity.
The Camel
Well-known member
Umm, I'm no McManaman fan, but there is absolutely a correlation between the points needed to survive and the quality of the league.
The bottom clubs are taking less points from the excellent teams in the top 6.
That's why the points needed to survive is trending downwards.
But it doesn't tell you whether the bottom clubs are worse than other seasons, or the top FIVE have got even better.
The Camel
Well-known member
The top teams are doing more or less what they always do in the Champions League. (One in the semi final, 2 in the Qtrs).
I think Man City are probably very very good. One of the best sides (if not the best side) of the EPL era.
But I doubt Chelsea, Liverpool, Man United or Spurs are any better or worse than teams who finished in the top 5 a decade or 20 years ago.
Disagree, tbh.
City are the best side the PL has ever seen.
United do what they do, and grind out wins consistently.
Both Spurs and Liverpool's current sides are the best they've put out in over a decade (and have overtaken Chelsea and Arsenal who have stood still).
City are the best side the PL has ever seen.
United do what they do, and grind out wins consistently.
Both Spurs and Liverpool's current sides are the best they've put out in over a decade (and have overtaken Chelsea and Arsenal who have stood still).
The Camel
Well-known member
Maybe you're right.
20 years ago I'd be very surprised if the team in 13th had garnered 0 points from the top 5 in 6 attempts.
Feels totally standard now.
nicko31
Well-known member
When Norwich sacked CH they were on 27 pts in their second season, quite a bit different
Chickenlittle
Active member
casbom
Well-known member
- Jul 24, 2007
- 2,581
Nope just checked, they were on 32pts in 17th after 33 games - 5 points clear:
15 - Swansea 33 -4 33
16 - West Brom 32 -11 32
17 - Norwich 33 -26 32
18 - Fulham 33 -41 27
19 - Cardiff 33 -35 26
20 - Sunderland 30 -20 25
Norwich's run-in:
Sat 12 April: v Fulham (A)
Sun 20 April: v Liverpool (H)
Sat 26 April: v Man Utd (A)
Sat 3 May: v Chelsea (A)
Sun 11 May: v Arsenal (H)
Luckily this time we have more teams who can drop into the relegation places. Being 17th at that stage there was no wriggle room. Still it was a horrible run-in for them.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I'm not sure he's partly right. The top 4 have accumulated 292 points for 33 games played. At that same mark previous seasons:
2017 280pts
2016 259pts
2015 270pts
2014 285pts
...
2010 278pts
...
2005 277pts
...
2000 264pts
The top 4 this season have dropped less points in any of those listed, and I expect it is probably one of the really high figures for any 3 pt a win season after 33 games played – largely due to the lower end of the table not taking points off the higher end. There are clearly reasons for this due to the huge money the top 4 are spending in comparison to everyone else. The reason the points for survival is less is that more teams are taking less points from those at the top. That would suggest a growing gap in quality.
- Jun 27, 2012
- 13,880
Better than Arsenal Invincibles ? , Man Utd late 07/08/ Champions League Winners with Ronaldo etc, Man Utd 98/99, treble winners - Beckham, Scholes, Nevilles in their pomp?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I agree, far to early to call them the best post 1992 side we have seen. I would have thought one of the prerequisites of that would be back to back title wins. It is one thing winning the PL as Blackburn and Leicester have done, it is another retaining that title the following season. Next season for me will be the time to start crowning whether City are the best or not...
Arthritic Toe
Well-known member
The numbers don't back up your view. The points to survive is dictated by the points total of the 18th team. This is no indication of the quality of, for example, the bottom 14 sides - it just depends how the three worst sides have done in that particular year. Here are the figures to back that up (well you asked for it!):
Here are the 'points required to survive' from 2010 - 2018 (2018 in brackets - projected pro-rata):
38, 40, 37, 37, 34, 36, 38, 35, (33)
And the sum of the bottom 14's points from those years:
606, 619, 601, 582, 590, 610, 616, 579, (574)
There is no correlation between the first set of figures and the second set. The fourth figure for example (2013), had a high 'points to survive' at 37. By McManaman's argument, that would make it a higher quality league, but the sum of the points of the bottom 14 was low at 582. This year's will be low, but it's hardly a trend.
"The bottom clubs are taking less points from the excellent teams in the top 6." Also false.
Here's the sum of the top six's points tally from those years:
447, 410, 446, 450, 472, 437, 417, 477, (467)
No statistically significant trend here either.
Last edited:
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
I'm mildly contented that I've been proved right within just one game.
Not safe yet, but we're getting closer
Yes.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
I take it you're in this statistics game (I'm not), but there does seem to be some kind of correlation (perhaps there's an alternative word) between the sets of figures you've given between the survival points total and the sum of the bottom 14. You've only pointed to an anomaly, but there is broad agreement there.
Also, it just isn't the case that there's been a top six and a bottom 14 throughout that period. Before City became big, and Spurs and Liverpool recovered, it was more like a top three (and, at times, a top two). It looks as though Arsene is currently doing his best to expel Arsenal from the top six too, dragging that down to a five. There can also be a mid-ranged group of teams too (Leicester, Burnley and Everton too).
You're looking at the wrong numbers here.
In order to prove whether or not bottom clubs are scoring points vs top 6 clubs, you need to look at how many points the (for sake of argument) bottom 6 teams scored when they played vs top 6 teams. Just looking at the total points scored by top 6 teams in any given year tells us diddly squat about how well the bottom clubs performed against the top 6 (given that you've also included in the data all of the mid-table and top-table results).
Without actually looking at any data, I'd suggest is highly likely your simplistic data here is hiding a lot of the truth. For example, if the top 6 were to produce nothing but draws between each other they'd be averaging 1 point per game. If, on the other hand, there were no draws at all between the top 6 they'd average 1.5 points per game. So completely ignoring any other results that gives us a potential range of variation that looks like this:
10 games per top 6 team in the mini-league, for 60 matches total.
All draws = 60 points
All wins = 90 points
That's a 30 point spread and we've not even looked at bottom 6 vs top 6 yet. Or top 6 vs midfield.
Looking at what you have provided, the only conclusions I can really draw is that there are a couple of stand out low years (410 (10/11) and 417 (15/16)) and a couple of standout high years (472 (13/14), 477 (16/17), and this season will 99% be even higher). So looking at those seasons specifically:
The two seasons with low top 6 scores:
10/11 - Man U got the title with exactly 80 points, but 2nd and 3rd managed only 71 each. Bottom 3 achieved 111 between them. Nice even spread of points from 2nd to 19th with no particularly large gaps, suggests that it was a highly competitive season.
15/16 - Leicester - 81 points. 2nd on 71, 3rd on 70. Spread from 2nd through 19th is pretty even, but Villa on the bottom had an absolute shocker (just 17 points). Bottom 3 totalled 88 points, substantially less than the 10/11.
Conclusions for the low seasons: Both seasons actually look quite similar (without looking into the actual results or analysing top 6 vs bottom 6 results). The only major difference is Villa's abomination of a season, which dragged down the bottom 3 points tally. That would tend to suggest, however, that the collective bottom 6 vs top 6 results from the 15/16 season will be worse than for the 10/11 season.
The two (completed) seasons with high top 6 scores:
13/14 - Nice even spread of points from top to bottom. 8th (to maintain consistency of analysis with 16/17 season) managed 56 points, 17th making 36 points, for a spread of 20 points. Bottom 3 scored 95 points total. Man U slipped out of the top 6, with 3 teams scoring more than 80 points.
16/17 - There's a distinct "two groups" feel to this season. The team that finished 8th scored just 46 points while 17th had 40 points - a spread of just 6 points. The bottom 3 between them scored just 86. This season effectively had a top 7, with Everton in 7th on 61 points. Chelsea managed 93 points, Spurs 86 points, losing just 9 games between them. Looks like this season the top 6 (and more specifically Chelsea and Spurs) walked all over everyone from 8th down, hence the high top 6 tally. I haven't looked at where the bottom 6 scored their points, but I'd guess not many of them were vs top 6 teams.
Conclusions for the high seasons: These two seasons are completely different in structure. 16/17 is clearly split between a top 7 (if you count Everton in 7th) and the rest of the table. Compare to 13/14 where the table has a less binary look to it, and the bottom 3 scored higher (but still well lower than the 111 from the 10/11 season). If we dive deeper into the match results from these two seasons, I suspect we'd see very different reasons as to why the top 6 tallies were high. Looking at this season, I suspect we'll see a third variation again - somewhere between the 13/14 and 16/17 seasons - there's a breakaway top 7 this time, but the spread beneath that breakaway looks like it'll be wider than the notably tight 8th through 17th from last season (currently a 10 point spread, and I can see that widening).
That's not quite true. A better indicator is the average of the points of the teams in 17th and 18th. I can explain more if needed.
Going with your idea of points of 18th place, the average (not inc 2018) = 36.875.
The average of the bottom 14 clubs = 600.
I've marked each year as h = high, av = average, l = low, as follows:
18th:
h, h, av, av, l, l, h, l
bottom 14:
h, h, av, l, l, h, h, l
They match on 6 of the 8 years.
I disagree.
Average of 444.5 (ignoring 2018).
av, l, av, av, h, av, l, h
In the 5 examples where 18th and the bottom 14 were both high, or both low, the top 6 are the opposite in 4 out of the 5, and average in the other.
In the 1 example where 18th and the bottom 14 were both average, the top 6 was also average.
In the 2 examples where 18th and the bottom 14 did not match, the top 6 was average.
I disagree.
warmleyseagull
Well-known member
Normally love the statto threads but honestly have no idea WTF we are trying to prove here. Can someone summarise?