spurious1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 20, 2005
- 994
- 848
Because we aren't buying any players this off-season, not even fullbacks of which we generally like to buy a few every six months, I have to invent some other way to pass the time.
So, here is the average league table over the last 5 years, the latest "modern" Spurs era, (Santini-Jol-Ramos-Harry), considering only the teams which have been in the Prem every year (up till now...)
TEAM W D L GS GA GD pts
Chelsea 26.4 8.2 3.4 68.2 22.2 46.0 87.4
Man U 26.0 7.2 4.8 72.2 26.6 45.6 85.2
Arse 21.6 9.8 6.6 72.0 34.0 38.0 74.6
'pool 21.6 9.2 7.2 62.0 29.6 32.4 74.0
Everton 16.6 9.6 11.8 48.2 40.2 8.0 59.4
Spurs 14.8 10.4 12.8 53.6 47.8 5.8 54.8
Villa 13.2 12.6 12.2 51.0 49.4 1.6 52.2
B'burn 13.6 10.4 14.0 45.0 49.4 -4.4 51.2
Bolton 13.4 9.4 15.2 44.4 48.8 -4.4 49.6
Man City 13.4 8.2 16.4 44.4 46.8 -2.4 48.4
Pmouth 12.0 9.8 16.2 42.2 52.0 -9.8 45.8
N'castle 11.2 10.8 16.0 43.4 54.0 -10.6 44.4
M'brough 11.0 11.0 16.0 43.2 52.6 -9.4 44.0
Fulham 11.2 10.4 16.4 43.0 54.4 -11.4 44.0
It comes out pretty much as one might expect. Except there is not really a "big four", rather a "big two" followed by a "pretty big two" significantly behind, then a tail of also-rans as far back again. A graph:
Everton looks solidly to be the number five team, we're number six but there's really not much in it as the points trail off toward relegation. Our edge over the next few is basically one win/season.
Looks a bit better if you look at goal difference:
As you average enough seasons goal difference and points should lead to exactly the same result, already they are pretty well correlated. From that graph you might say that the distinctions are more clear:
1. big two
2. biggish two not too far behind
3. UEFA/Europa hopefuls way behind (Everton, us, Villa)
4. Mid-table anonymous (Blackburn, Bolton, ManC)
5. Relegation battlers (a couple of whom lost the battle this last season)
Of course it can always change, we hope, although the most likely changer would be City (we assume Fulham's over achievement last season will not be a permanent trend). Since team budget and success are about 100% correlated, the system tends to be self-propagating.
So, here is the average league table over the last 5 years, the latest "modern" Spurs era, (Santini-Jol-Ramos-Harry), considering only the teams which have been in the Prem every year (up till now...)
TEAM W D L GS GA GD pts
Chelsea 26.4 8.2 3.4 68.2 22.2 46.0 87.4
Man U 26.0 7.2 4.8 72.2 26.6 45.6 85.2
Arse 21.6 9.8 6.6 72.0 34.0 38.0 74.6
'pool 21.6 9.2 7.2 62.0 29.6 32.4 74.0
Everton 16.6 9.6 11.8 48.2 40.2 8.0 59.4
Spurs 14.8 10.4 12.8 53.6 47.8 5.8 54.8
Villa 13.2 12.6 12.2 51.0 49.4 1.6 52.2
B'burn 13.6 10.4 14.0 45.0 49.4 -4.4 51.2
Bolton 13.4 9.4 15.2 44.4 48.8 -4.4 49.6
Man City 13.4 8.2 16.4 44.4 46.8 -2.4 48.4
Pmouth 12.0 9.8 16.2 42.2 52.0 -9.8 45.8
N'castle 11.2 10.8 16.0 43.4 54.0 -10.6 44.4
M'brough 11.0 11.0 16.0 43.2 52.6 -9.4 44.0
Fulham 11.2 10.4 16.4 43.0 54.4 -11.4 44.0
It comes out pretty much as one might expect. Except there is not really a "big four", rather a "big two" followed by a "pretty big two" significantly behind, then a tail of also-rans as far back again. A graph:
Everton looks solidly to be the number five team, we're number six but there's really not much in it as the points trail off toward relegation. Our edge over the next few is basically one win/season.
Looks a bit better if you look at goal difference:
As you average enough seasons goal difference and points should lead to exactly the same result, already they are pretty well correlated. From that graph you might say that the distinctions are more clear:
1. big two
2. biggish two not too far behind
3. UEFA/Europa hopefuls way behind (Everton, us, Villa)
4. Mid-table anonymous (Blackburn, Bolton, ManC)
5. Relegation battlers (a couple of whom lost the battle this last season)
Of course it can always change, we hope, although the most likely changer would be City (we assume Fulham's over achievement last season will not be a permanent trend). Since team budget and success are about 100% correlated, the system tends to be self-propagating.
