The measure of superiority

This topic contains 17 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  nine nine nine 4 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1781187
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    I posted this on another forum and since its international break and not much going on here in general I thought I would post it here as some may find interesting:

    As we all know, when it comes to ranking our teams each year in the league we all submit to the league table and the points system. 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, the team with the most points is the winner and declared the undisputed best. We all then repeat “the table never lies” and accept the outcome like good sports. If my team gets 50 points and yours gets 40, my team is better we all agree. But how much better? 10 points you may say, but is that really the best method of answering the question or understanding the differences in the strengths of the team? I dont think it is. I think the league table tells us who is best, but that there is a better measure for “how much better?”.

    I think the better measure is to consider the goals a team scores over a season relative to goals conceded. The reason I think this is better is that the league awards 3 points whether you win 8-0 or 1-0, and so over a league season just how much better team A is than team B is not fully reflected in the points totals. By dividing the number of goals scored by the number conceded you get number that is fairly representative of the overall strength of a team relative to all its opposition that year. This then becomes a very useful tool for comparison as every other teams number is a measure of their strength relative to the same opposition.

    Now I say strength, what I mean is how many goals you score for every one you concede. This is the measure because its about winning and that means scoring more than you concede. Its not just who scores the most as obviously defence is a vital strength too, its about balance.

    When you look at these numbers for last years teams in order, you can see how intuitive and right it looks, and also how close it is to the league table order. Remember GF/GA:

    1) Man city-4.13
    2) Liverpool-4.05
    3) Tottenham-1.72
    4) Chelsea-1.62
    5) Arsenal-1.43
    6) Man utd-1.20
    7) Everton-1.17
    8) Leicester-1.06
    9) Wolves-1.02
    10) Crystal Palace-0.96
    11) West Ham-0.95
    12) Watford-0.88
    13) Newcastle-0.88
    14) Bournmouth-0.80
    15) Southampton-0.69
    16) Burnley-0.66
    17) Brighton-0.58
    18) Cardiff-0.49
    19) Fulham-0.42
    20) Huddersfield-0.29

    I think this further illustrates 1)Just how far ahead Pool and City were last year 2) just how close the margins were between them.

    Now when it comes to measuring the differences in the strength of teams I think you could literally factor the numbers above to get a general measure of relative strength.

    Ie, If we round up for convenience and take pool as 4 and wolves as 1, I think it means that over the 38 games liverpool were, in general, 4 times stonger/better than wolves.

    It means imo both city and Pool were over twice as strong as their nearest rivals, spurs and chelsea. Again when I say strong I am referring to their ability to score more goals than they concede relative to all opposition over 38 games

    Looking at how impressive City and Liverpools numbers are, 4.13 and 4.05 respectively, I wanted to look at this ratio for all the premier league champions past. Please note before reading this list that it is not a list of champions in order of objective strength, it couldnt be as they never played the same opposition, but it is a very good way of measuring who was the strongest champions relative to the opposition the year they won

    1) Chelsea(04/05)-4.80
    2) Man city(18/19)-4.13
    3) Man city(17/18)-3.92
    4) Man utd(07/08)-3.64
    5) Chelsea(05/06)-3.27
    6) Chelsea(09/10)-3.22
    7) Man City(11/12)-3.21
    8) Man utd(06/07)-3.07
    9) Man utd(08/09)-2.83
    10) Arsenal(03/04)-2.81
    11) Man city(13/14)-2.76
    12) Chelsea(16/17)-2.58
    13) Man utd(00/01)-2.55
    14) Chelsea(14/15)-2.28
    15) Arsenal(01/02)-2.19
    16) Man utd(02/03-2.18
    17) Man utd(98/99)-2.162
    18) Man utd(92/93)-2.161
    19) Man utd(99/00)-2.15
    20) Man utd(10/11)-2.11
    21) Man utd(93/94)-2.10
    22) Man utd(95/96)-2.09
    23) Arsenal(97/98)-2.06
    24) Blackburn(94/95)-2.05
    25) Man utd(12/13)-2.00
    26) Leicester(15/16)-1.89
    27) Man utd(96/97)-1.73

    I find this an interesting list and hope some of you guys too. What strikes me is that in terms of superior strength relative to all opponents, the only champions to ever out do Liverpool’s runners up effort last year are Jose’s first title winning chelsea side, and last years champions city.

    I’ll leave it there, hope some of you find it interesting reading.

    #1781188
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Also made some predictions based around goal averages regards how this seasons table will shape up and will be interesting to compare with table after all 38 games:

    Champions
    Only one team had achieved an average higher than 4 before pool and city both did it last season. At this stage I see no reason why they will not come very close if not repeating it.

    My Prediction, Champs will have goal average of 4+

    Top 4

    I think with leicester and everton in particular in the mix with utd, chelsea, and maybe even arsenal and spurs, these teams are going to eat each other up and reduce the average possibly required to finish top 4.

    My Prediction, every top 4 team will have an average of 1.4+

    Top 6

    Similar logic as top 4 reasoning, I dont think this average will be as high as in some previous seasons.

    My Prediction, Every top 6 team will have an average of 1.2+ (would not be too surprised if slightly lower but will go with 1.2)

    Top 10

    My prediction, Every team in top 10 will have an average of 0.9+

    11th-17th

    I will make two predictions for teams in this range;

    1) No team in this range will average higher than 1
    2) No team in this range will average lower than 0.5

    Relegation

    I will make two predictions here also;

    1)Any team with an average of 0.5 or less will be relegated
    2)None of the 3 relegated teams will have an average higher than 0.65

    #1781231
    chelsea1967
    chelsea1967
    Participant
    • :

    Interesting that the Arsenal team of 03/04 only finished 10th in the list above yet were tagged the invincibles. Now this must reflect on the quality of the opposition compared to other champions, the lack of goals scored by Arsenal – only 73, and drawing 12 games which is in effect the points value of 8 losses yet they still accumulated 90 points to beat the runners up Chelsea by 11 points. Interesting reading. Thanks Lucky. 🙂

    #1781232
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Hey 67, glad you liked the post.

    I have always believed as good as the invincibles were, and as fine as an achievement going unbeaten is, that they were slightly over rated in that there were better teams that just happened to lose one or two games. I have always argued that it took less than 12 months for the invincibles to be surpassed. Jose’s chelsea in 04/05 may have lost one game, but it won more and got more points. I will be fair, I was surprised to see chelsea 04/05 top the list above last years city, but when you consider that the average used gives as much respect to defence as it does attack its not that surprising, as the degree to which this city side is superior to that chelsea side offensively, is less than the degree to which that chelsea side was far tougher defensively.

    I know I listed the past champs in order of average but the dates are attached and if you follow it chronologically you can see a general pattern of the bar being lifted over time. At start of prem era 1.7 goals for every 1 conceded would mean title challenge and utd dominated for a decade with a gf/ga average of just over 2. Then Arsenal came along and did not really raise the bar with first 2 title wins, but then surely did with the invincible season with 2.81. If that was not enough of a blow to utd the following season jose came along and blew all previous numbers away with a jump from the invincibles 2.81 to a remarkable 4.8. What I find most impressive in all this is how Sir Alex responded with utd by rebuilding them and rising to the challenge. They went from averaging just over 2 to high 3’s and this was all as a response to Arsenal and Chelsea. They then won 3 prems in a row and the champs league and are arguably Fergies greatest generation. Utd lost one further title to chelsea and ancellotti, then went back and forth with city for remainder of fergies time and regressed to 2+ averages, but of course this was after sale of ronaldo and Tevez, and his last title was with anderson and cleverly in midfield so cant really expect that much.

    All in all out of the 27 premier league championship sides, 13 are utd teams. Now the list above is not order of strength relative to each other obviously, its how good they were relative to the teams the year they won, but when you consider fergie’s record you really see how much of a genius he was in understanding what it would take to win the league each season, and more often than not he assembled a side each season capable of reaching the required levels.

    #1781256

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    I think that what the above proves is that teams that invest reap the rewards Liverpool were nowhere near challengers until investing £250m over 6 months on the likes of Allison, VVD and Keita. Similarly ourselves and City were also rans until the massive investment of the owners.

    It’s a very big mountain to climb without significant investment to get back to challenging both City and Liverpool who also have the best Managers.

    #1781272
    chelsea1967
    chelsea1967
    Participant
    • :

    Ours is work in progress and if talents like Mount ,Tamori, CHO, RLC, James and Pulisic come through as top level players and add to that the likes of Kante, Rudiger, Kepa then we have 9 players which could be the future of the club long term and something to build around. Next summer and some quality additions and I reckon next season top four should be achievable consistently and then in Four or five seasons time with the above mentioned maturing ( 25, 26,27) we could be back up there battling with the best. Note that I haven’t included Abraham as I am not convinced he will be the future but love to be proven wrong.

    #1781276
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Nine, I agree liverpool were nowhere near challenging until Klopp made some very expensive and needed quality signings in certain areas, but it is selling them way short to suggest it was on the back of 250m investment, especially when considering the investment city have made compared to them and the tiny margins between them on the field.

    Personally I think pool are the shining light here and the example we should be looking to. In terms of net spend liverpool are below 100m since klopp arrived

    Liverpool Net Transfer Gain Under Jurgen Klopp

    It goes without saying that in order to be challenging you need top players, and these top players generally cost a lot of money, but its not so much how much you spend it is how well you spend it and how well coached the players are to reach their potential. Sure Salah and Mane are 100m+ players, but they werent when liverpool signed them, far from it.

    If pool can compete with city with 5 times less net spend, then imo a chelsea that fully maximises the abilities of our younger players, spends smartly in the market with the relatively healthy budget we have, and is well coached over next 3 seasons, can do the same. If we dont compete with city it may well come down to the difference in spending power, but if we dont compete with pool the same excuse will not work.

    Along the lines of your post though it is telling that the 2 generally strongest teams relative to the other teams when they won league were jose’s first chelsea squad and peps city last year, the same 2 teams that received the greatest outside investment, each had the most expensive squad ever assembled at the time of winning.

    #1781279
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    67, in the short time we have had Abraham as a starter I already feel he is a better striker for us than morata was. The reason I am bringing this up is that morata cost best part of 70m, and imo if Tammy scores 20+ goals this season then spending that kind of money again on another striker this summer would be waste as we would not be guaranteed an improvement. Its all in Tammy’s hands, he either proves he can be our number 9 this season or he doesnt, I personally believe he has all the attributes required and if his confidence can keep growing under lamps he could be a top striker for us.

    If Mount, Ruben, Hudson-odoi, Tomori, James and Tammy can all establish themselves as top prem players this season (which I truly believe is possible for at least 4 of the 6 this season) Then we will be in a similar situation as pool were 12 months ago imo and significant improvement will only really be needed in a few key areas, centre back, possibly left back, and jorginho replacement. That is the kind of scenario I am hoping for.

    #1781310

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Lucky, Liverpool spent well and sold well before they invested the £250m in Allison, VVD, Keita and Fabiniho but it was those signings that turned them from 4th place chasers to real title contenders, that and Klopp and his longevity.

    You get nowhere by chopping and changing Managers.

    It is no accident that three most condistent Clubs in the PL are managed by the three longest serving Managers and had Levy given Pochettino £250m to spend in the 6 month period leading up to the start of last season it would have been interesting to have seen how Spurs progressed.

    Chelsea have a good crop of youngsters couple that with the right investment in the right players and sticking with Frank. And you never know where we might end up! 🙂

    #1781312
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Totally agree re managerial longevity, but its about getting good value for investment too.

    To compare with spurs as you have, you would have to imagine they sold eriksen for 100m and alderweirald for say 25m then subsidised that with 125m over two windows so 250m is reinvested in to the team, but 250m isnt the true level of investment in this scenario and it wasnt for Klopp either.

    I would imagine with money from Hazard plus basically two windows worth of budget next summer we will be in a position to “reinvest” as much as 250m, be interesting to see how we shape up after that and the youngsters getting settled this year. We can make tremendous strides forwards in the next 12 months imo if we a) Give lampard the time and patience to get the best of the young players this year, and b) Ensure that we strive to be as smart as liverpool have been in how we invest in the squad over the next two windows. Tough ask to do as good as job as they did, but we need to be as smart as we can.

    #1781362

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Lucky,as I stated in my post Liverpool spent well and sold well before they invested the £250m on VVD, Allison, Keita and Fabinho but it was those 4 signings and the £250m spent in 6 months that turned Liverpool from 4th place contenders to title contenders.

    It doesn’t matter where the money came from and probably circa £100m plus came from the Coutinho sale but those players are the ones that made the difference added to the already good buys of Mane, Firmino and Salah etc.

    Both Guardiola and Klopp have made less mistakes in the transfer market over the last 3 seasons too and both are now long term established in their Clubs.

    If we want to move forward successfully we must strive to do the same over the next two or three seasons that’s the point I’m making which will take considerable investment and sticking with Frank, Chelsea’s net spend over the last 5 seasons is lower than any of our competitors at under £17m a season average.

    Not all the Liverpool fans wanted to stick with Klopp in his first couple of seasons and there were questions about Pep too in his first season if I remember correctly. Hopefully Chelsea fans and indeed Roman will be more patient I’m sure the match going fans will be.

    Both Pep and Klopp have made the odd mistake in the transfer market but they key has been that they’ve made fewer mistakes than anyone else and of course Guardiola has previously had much deeper pockets than anyone else and inherited a great squad too.

    It will be a big task to get back to where we were but giving Frank the time he needs some meaningful investment in the areas that need investing in with some sensible buying and with what we’ve already got and what’s coming through it’s not impossible.

    #1781437

    kopite
    Participant
    • :

    Nine: Actually Spurs have the lowest net spend followed by Pool and then Chelsea

    #1781440

    kopite
    Participant
    • :

    To be fair, you could be right given the minor difference between the 3 teams.

    #1781455

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Kopite, Chelsea’s net spend over the past 5 seasons is the lowest of all of the top 6.*

    But it’s immaterial really in relationship to the main points in my post which are all Chelsea related.

    *Source:Transfer League.

    #1781490
    aindro
    aindro
    Participant
    • :

    I think what we are trying this season is to put faith in youngsters. It’s a gamble honestly as it’s not sure yet on how good our youngsters will become. But what isn’t a gamble? We bought Morata for 55m and turned out to be a flop. I think what we must realize is that nothing is sure.

    Liverpool and (City currently & Chelsea in the past) showed 2 different ways to achieve success. City currently & Chelsea in the past bought players who have the skill set that fits to the system. Mou bought Essien, Drogba, Carvalho, Ferreira and they turned out to be our backbone. Same as Pep here who bought Kyle Walker, Sterling, Gundogan, Laporte, Bernardo etc. Of course there must be pre-existing players who are good like Lampard, Cech, Robben for us and Kun Aguero, de Bruyne etc.

    Liverpool’s approach IMO was completely different. They develop good core of players before from their rank (Trent, Henderson, Milner, Gomez, Robertson) and also from buying cheap (Gini Wijnaldum, Matip) or relatively cheal (Salah, Mane, Firmino) and then when they realized that what they had wasn’t enough: they bought really big in Alisson and van Dijk. And look at what they have become.

    I think our current approach would be more similar to Klopp’s Liverpool than to Chelsea in the past or Pep’s City.

    #1781505
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    I am with you nine, I am not unaware of the size of the task at hand, or the need for patience, but I do think it is within the clubs ability to make great strides forward over the next 24 months and was looking to pool as a great example of how to do it.

    #1781536

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Agree with that Lucky.

    #1782081

    nine nine nine
    Moderator
    • :

    Another measure of superiority which doesn’t necessarily reflect itself on the pitch is in worldwide fan bases.

    I see Jay Leno is claiming today in the Express that Arsenal are the “team” of London with a bigger worldwide fan base than either Spurs or Chelsea which of course doesn’t stack up because Chelsea are bigger than Arsenal on social media and considerably bigger in worldwide shirt sales.

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply this topic.