Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Ultimate League Table

http://m.skysports.com/article/football//9864832

Takes a club's league position for the last 50 years. About where i would expect us, not too many above us I think we could clearly say we are bigger than

Comments

  • Can't really argue with that. I was a bit disappointed to see Stoke, Palace and QPR above us, but they've all done well in the last ten years whilst we've let ourselves go. A useful reminder of where our expectations should lie (perhaps).

    The one that surprised me was Liverpool. I thought Man Utd might have made it to the top by now, and I certainly didn't think the difference would be that great. Sky put it down to, "their phenomenal success during the 1970s and 80s". But I think that's only half the story. I think the real difference in this war of averages is that for much of the time whilst Liverpool were relentlessly winning, Man Utd were floundering near the bottom (and in one season getting relegated). Whereas in the nineties and naughties when Man Utd were winning everything, Liverpool were always near the top and never finished lower than 7th.

    There's a lesson in this for me, and one that Charlton would do well to learn from. That is that every match counts. The way we played for the last month this season was if the job was done and we didn't have to win anymore. If we are to haul the club up long term league tables like this we need to put 100% effort into winning every match whatever our position in the table.
  • Stig said:

    Can't really argue with that. I was a bit disappointed to see Stoke, Palace and QPR above us, but they've all done well in the last ten years whilst we've let ourselves go. A useful reminder of where our expectations should lie (perhaps).

    The one that surprised me was Liverpool. I thought Man Utd might have made it to the top by now, and I certainly didn't think the difference would be that great. Sky put it down to, "their phenomenal success during the 1970s and 80s". But I think that's only half the story. I think the real difference in this war of averages is that for much of the time whilst Liverpool were relentlessly winning, Man Utd were floundering near the bottom (and in one season getting relegated). Whereas in the nineties and naughties when Man Utd were winning everything, Liverpool were always near the top and never finished lower than 7th.

    There's a lesson in this for me, and one that Charlton would do well to learn from. That is that every match counts. The way we played for the last month this season was if the job was done and we didn't have to win anymore. If we are to haul the club up long term league tables like this we need to put 100% effort into winning every match whatever our position in the table.

    Except there are no prizes or rewards whatsoever for long-term league tables, so why bother worrying about it? Man United have more titles than Liverpool who haven't won one for a quarter of a century. I know the Scousers can be a pretty desperate lot, but I doubt even they could look themselves in the face if their retort to United fans was by boasting that they still top the "ultimate" Sky Sports league table.

    Similarly I reckon most of our players would have quickly dismissed Luzon as the new David Brent if he'd tried to gee them up for our completely inconsequential last day of the season fixture against Bournemouth by telling them it was an all or nothing, life or death fixture where defeat could potentially see the unthinkable happen, with Charlton dropping catastrophically out of our top 30 spot in the all time table.
  • agree that ultimately it doesn't serve any purpose, but its a useful tool to see where you fit in football pecking orders. Generally i think 50 years is a bit too long a run as it can been too influenced by things that happened a long time ago (you might as well take all history into account if you are doing that).

    20-30 years would be a more useful guide for me.
  • edited May 2015

    agree that ultimately it doesn't serve any purpose, but its a useful tool to see where you fit in football pecking orders. Generally i think 50 years is a bit too long a run as it can been too influenced by things that happened a long time ago (you might as well take all history into account if you are doing that).

    20-30 years would be a more useful guide for me.

    I more or less agree - or if you are going to go back to an arbitrary date, make it 1958 when the four division system was implemented.
  • Swansea at 53rd is interesting even if not surprising.
  • Well, the attached table shows how each team's current position varies from its average over the last 50 years. A remarkable number of teams are close to their average. Swansea and Brentford are the biggest gainers while Coventry, Stockport and Portsmouth are at the other end of the table. We're in the middle somewhere, of course.
  • Very interesting Thai
  • Stig said:

    Can't really argue with that. I was a bit disappointed to see Stoke, Palace and QPR above us, but they've all done well in the last ten years whilst we've let ourselves go. A useful reminder of where our expectations should lie (perhaps).

    The one that surprised me was Liverpool. I thought Man Utd might have made it to the top by now, and I certainly didn't think the difference would be that great. Sky put it down to, "their phenomenal success during the 1970s and 80s". But I think that's only half the story. I think the real difference in this war of averages is that for much of the time whilst Liverpool were relentlessly winning, Man Utd were floundering near the bottom (and in one season getting relegated). Whereas in the nineties and naughties when Man Utd were winning everything, Liverpool were always near the top and never finished lower than 7th.

    There's a lesson in this for me, and one that Charlton would do well to learn from. That is that every match counts. The way we played for the last month this season was if the job was done and we didn't have to win anymore. If we are to haul the club up long term league tables like this we need to put 100% effort into winning every match whatever our position in the table.

    Liverpool were promoted in 1962 so if this went further back they would probably drop below Man U. It should go back to after WW2 because then we'd be above Palace.
  • The Women's World Cup can't come round fast enough...
  • Sponsored links:


  • The massives are 28th???????????????????? This table is clearly wrong
  • So who over that period would you say has outperformed their natural support base?

    Top 15 I'd suggest Ipswich and West Brom, top 20 definitely Coventry
  • So who over that period would you say has outperformed their natural support base?

    Top 15 I'd suggest Ipswich and West Brom, top 20 definitely Coventry

    Southampton - based on gates at the Dell
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!