The Fish 10677 Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Interesting trendlines. Take note Leazes, that's why qualifying for Champions League is harder now than it was in '97. Pretty effective demonstration of the growing inequality in the Premier League as well with the relegated teams becoming less and less able to accumulate points. Good shit HF. Top Graphing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44234 Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 What would make that graph even sexier is a line showing the average points achieved by the newly promoted sides. I would expect it to fall at a steeper rate than the relegation line, demonstrating the growing inequality between Premiership and Championship. Do you feel that HF? That itch? Only a matter of time til you're gonna need to scratch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 What would make that graph even sexier is a line showing the average points achieved by the newly promoted sides. I would expect it to fall at a steeper rate than the relegation line, demonstrating the growing inequality between Premiership and Championship. Do you feel that HF? That itch? Only a matter of time til you're gonna need to scratch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizenerased 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) Interesting trendlines. Take note Leazes, that's why qualifying for Champions League is harder now than it was in '97. It was much harder in 97 - up until 97/98 they only let the League winners in, hence the reason why we never made it under Keegan, despite finishing 2nd and 3rd but got in under Ku Klux Kenny. Under todays system, Keegan would've qualified twice. Edited April 17, 2012 by citizenerased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerbarton 24 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The biggest myth going is that promoted teams are struggling more and more each season. When was the last time all three promoted teams went down? How often do even two of the promoted teams go down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10677 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The biggest myth going is that promoted teams are struggling more and more each season. When was the last time all three promoted teams went down? How often do even two of the promoted teams go down? I think it's the teams who've cluttered up the Premier League with some turgid football that're being found out. There was a couple of seasons where the consensus seemed to be that it's better to go out there looking to Not Lose, than it is to go out their looking to Win. Everyone from Chelsea to Blackburn were at it. Awful spectacles. It's unfortunate for Bolton as they were building a decent side around the only two guys that can actually play, the same players that they lost to injury for the season. Is anyone surprised that Wolves, Blackburn, Bolton, Villa, are down there? They've not played "good football" for years, struggling by off the back of dull as fuck draws here, there and everywhere. Honestly don't think QPR would be down there if they could get their players to actually perform, as they've got some decent players in their team. If Stoke don't evolve they will be usurped by the likes of Reading and Southampton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34763 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 The biggest myth going is that promoted teams are struggling more and more each season. When was the last time all three promoted teams went down? How often do even two of the promoted teams go down? Without checking though I'd bet a few go down the following season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Interesting trendlines. Take note Leazes, that's why qualifying for Champions League is harder now than it was in '97. It was much harder in 97 - up until 97/98 they only let the League winners in, hence the reason why we never made it under Keegan, despite finishing 2nd and 3rd but got in under Ku Klux Kenny. Under todays system, Keegan would've qualified twice. Apologies. Should have said harder to finish 4th. xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) I don't think promoted teams are struggling particularly more than they were. All 3 have gone down only once almost 15 years back. Of the teams relegated immediately, 13 went down in the first 10 year of the PL, and 13 went down in the last 10 year. That said, the argument could be made that 2 or more of the promoted sides have been relegated immediately 4 times in the last 8 years (50%). It only happened 3 times in the first 11 years of the Premier league (less than 30%). Edited April 18, 2012 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 According to the Premier League site, newly promoted teams have averaged a position of 14.8. Highest finish for a newly promoted side was us - 3rd under KK. The highest for a 20-man Premier League was Ipswich who came 5th in 01/02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 The highest for a 20-man Premier League was Ipswich who came 5th in 01/02. That was gonna be my quiz question, who's scored most points in the 20 team system. Impressive that they got 66 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 With a young Titus Bramble as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) A bit more to look at there. The trend id for a tiny drop off in the points scored for each of the best, worst and average promoted teams totals. Not significant iyam. Interesting how the best and worst lines seem to follow each other (apart from a few years), thought they'd be more independent. Edited April 18, 2012 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now