mickfoot 0 Posted January 24, 2008 Using the stats from http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/englandcontent.htm and with the help of an excel spreadsheet I''ve worked out the average postwar league position and attendance for every team in the Championship (46/47 to 06/07) to work out the comparitive size of each club. Norwich and Ipswich come out pretty much the same (Norwich has a better average attendance at 18,537 compared to Ipswich''s 17,853, whereas Ipswich has a better average league position, 26th against Norwich''s 32nd). Anyway here are the results.Average attendanceAv League PosWolves25,42520Sheff W24,61024West Brom21,72220Leicester City21,58622Sheff U20,35626Saints19,06923Coventry18,96128Norwich 18,53732Stoke18,42126Ipswich17,85326Palace16,66541Burnley16,06232Charlton16,02228Preston14,48539Bristol C14,20045QPR14,06034Cardiff13,99644Blackpool12,32039Plymouth11,95349Watford11,63047Barnsley10,10548Hull*8,68650Col Utd **4,65769Scunthorpe3,73465 *Att only for last 19 seasons**Begins season 50/51So if you rank both league position and attendance equally this is the list of clubs in terms of size.WolvesWest BromSheff Wed/LeicesterSouthamptonSheffield UnitedStokeCoventry/IpswichNorwichCharltonBurnleyCrystal PalacePrestonQPRBlackpoolBristol CityCardiffWatfordPlymouthBarnsleyHullScunthorpe/Colchester Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ricardo 8,034 Posted January 24, 2008 Quite interesting Mick but I think you have gone back a bit too far for most posters. Wolves are artificially high because of their great days in the immediate post war years. They have done virtually nothing in the last quarter century. A similar comment could apply to Sheff wed and Stoke.It would be interesting to see if there is much difference if you did the exercise for say the last 25 or 30 years. It might be a bit more relevant to the modern game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted January 24, 2008 [quote user="mickfoot"] Using the stats from http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/englandcontent.htm and with the help of an excel spreadsheet I''ve worked out the average postwar league position and attendance for every team in the Championship (46/47 to 06/07) to work out the comparitive size of each club. Norwich and Ipswich come out pretty much the same (Norwich has a better average attendance at 18,537 compared to Ipswich''s 17,853, whereas Ipswich has a better average league position, 26th against Norwich''s 32nd). Anyway here are the results.Average attendanceAv League PosWolves25,42520Sheff W24,61024West Brom21,72220Leicester City21,58622Sheff U20,35626Saints19,06923Coventry18,96128Norwich 18,53732Stoke18,42126Ipswich17,85326Palace16,66541Burnley16,06232Charlton16,02228Preston14,48539Bristol C14,20045QPR14,06034Cardiff13,99644Blackpool12,32039Plymouth11,95349Watford11,63047Barnsley10,10548Hull*8,68650Col Utd **4,65769Scunthorpe3,73465 *Att only for last 19 seasons**Begins season 50/51So if you rank both league position and attendance equally this is the list of clubs in terms of size.WolvesWest BromSheff Wed/LeicesterSouthamptonSheffield UnitedStokeCoventry/IpswichNorwichCharltonBurnleyCrystal PalacePrestonQPRBlackpoolBristol CityCardiffWatfordPlymouthBarnsleyHullScunthorpe/Colchester[/quote]Sorry but this is meaningless going back so far. Football is all about the here and now these days and if you want to know who the biggest are now, in the present, you can only really look at this and the last few seasons or so. That would be more intresting and should put us near the top. You can only go so long being consistenly one of the ''big 4'' in any league before the success follows. No doubt we will severely stretch that theory however! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted January 24, 2008 [quote user="mickfoot"] Using the stats from http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/englandcontent.htm and with the help of an excel spreadsheet I''ve worked out the average postwar league position and attendance for every team in the Championship (46/47 to 06/07) to work out the comparitive size of each club. Norwich and Ipswich come out pretty much the same (Norwich has a better average attendance at 18,537 compared to Ipswich''s 17,853, whereas Ipswich has a better average league position, 26th against Norwich''s 32nd). Anyway here are the results.Average attendanceAv League PosWolves25,42520Sheff W24,61024West Brom21,72220Leicester City21,58622Sheff U20,35626Saints19,06923Coventry18,96128Norwich 18,53732Stoke18,42126Ipswich17,85326Palace16,66541Burnley16,06232Charlton16,02228Preston14,48539Bristol C14,20045QPR14,06034Cardiff13,99644Blackpool12,32039Plymouth11,95349Watford11,63047Barnsley10,10548Hull*8,68650Col Utd **4,65769Scunthorpe3,73465 *Att only for last 19 seasons**Begins season 50/51So if you rank both league position and attendance equally this is the list of clubs in terms of size.WolvesWest BromSheff Wed/LeicesterSouthamptonSheffield UnitedStokeCoventry/IpswichNorwichCharltonBurnleyCrystal PalacePrestonQPRBlackpoolBristol CityCardiffWatfordPlymouthBarnsleyHullScunthorpe/Colchester[/quote]Sorry but this is meaningless going back so far. Football is all about the here and now these days and if you want to know who the biggest are now, in the present, you can only really look at this and the last few seasons or so. That would be more intresting and should put us near the top. You can only go so long being consistenly one of the ''big 4'' in any league before the success follows. No doubt we will severely stretch that theory however! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,902 Posted January 24, 2008 [quote user="ricardo"]Quite interesting Mick but I think you have gone back a bit too far for most posters. Wolves are artificially high because of their great days in the immediate post war years. They have done virtually nothing in the last quarter century. A similar comment could apply to Sheff wed and Stoke.It would be interesting to see if there is much difference if you did the exercise for say the last 25 or 30 years. It might be a bit more relevant to the modern game. [/quote]I''m not sure about this Ricardo. Initially I agreed with you but thinking about it I think that the longer the period researched the more accurate the results. I just did a quick comparison between us and Wolves based on average league finishing positions over 10 year periods since the war:-46/47 to 55/56 Norwich 54th Wolves 5th56/57 to 65/66 Norwich 44th Wolves 10th66/67 to 75/76 Norwich 26th Wolves 13th76/77 to 85/86 Norwich 17th Wolves 26th86/87 to 95/96 Norwich 14th Wolves 41st96/97 to 06/07 Norwich 29th Wolves 26th (11 seasons)As for relevance to the modern game - I agree with a1 in that it''s meaningless to compare. The Premiership is nothing like the old Division One. It''s now full of some of the best players in the world. That''s a far cry from the best in the UK that used to compete. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NegativeVibes 0 Posted January 24, 2008 Great. Just wait until we8wba reads this thread.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ricardo 8,034 Posted January 24, 2008 [quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="ricardo"] Quite interesting Mick but I think you have gone back a bit too far for most posters. Wolves are artificially high because of their great days in the immediate post war years. They have done virtually nothing in the last quarter century. A similar comment could apply to Sheff wed and Stoke.It would be interesting to see if there is much difference if you did the exercise for say the last 25 or 30 years. It might be a bit more relevant to the modern game. [/quote]I''m not sure about this Ricardo. Initially I agreed with you but thinking about it I think that the longer the period researched the more accurate the results. I just did a quick comparison between us and Wolves based on average league finishing positions over 10 year periods since the war:-46/47 to 55/56 Norwich 54th Wolves 5th56/57 to 65/66 Norwich 44th Wolves 10th66/67 to 75/76 Norwich 26th Wolves 13th76/77 to 85/86 Norwich 17th Wolves 26th86/87 to 95/96 Norwich 14th Wolves 41st96/97 to 06/07 Norwich 29th Wolves 26th (11 seasons)As for relevance to the modern game - I agree with a1 in that it''s meaningless to compare. The Premiership is nothing like the old Division One. It''s now full of some of the best players in the world. That''s a far cry from the best in the UK that used to compete. [/quote]Looks like those figures prove my point Nutty. Wolves pretty much nowhere since the seventies. They have improved in recent seasons but nowhere near the big name that they were in the fifties. Fulham are quite similar to Wolves, they spent 30 years in the lower leagues before regaining top division status.I also have a gripe about the way the data was presented because if you look on the website at the positions for Third Division South it looks like they have treated it like a fourth division. (no way should last position in 3S be rated at 91). As I remember it both 3rd North and 3rd South had equal statusWhen I was a boy in the fifties Huddersfield, Preston and Blackpool were regular top division teams and Ourselves, Coventry, Ipswich were regular third division south. If you had completed this exercise in 1960 you would have got a completely different result. Therefore I think it is very important to limit the range of the data if you want to get results that are relative today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,902 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="ricardo"]Looks like those figures prove my point Nutty. Wolves pretty much nowhere since the seventies. They have improved in recent seasons but nowhere near the big name that they were in the fifties. Fulham are quite similar to Wolves, they spent 30 years in the lower leagues before regaining top division status.I also have a gripe about the way the data was presented because if you look on the website at the positions for Third Division South it looks like they have treated it like a fourth division. (no way should last position in 3S be rated at 91). As I remember it both 3rd North and 3rd South had equal statusWhen I was a boy in the fifties Huddersfield, Preston and Blackpool were regular top division teams and Ourselves, Coventry, Ipswich were regular third division south. If you had completed this exercise in 1960 you would have got a completely different result. Therefore I think it is very important to limit the range of the data if you want to get results that are relative today.[/quote]They do prove your point in a way I agree Ricardo. But in the same way we could take out 1975/95 from our figures because they were the only years where we were consistently a top 20 team. That''s a good point about the data from Third Division South. I treated it as the Third Division in my average positions. The only fair way would be to treat 10th in Third Division South as equal 54th in the Overall League with 10th in Third Divison North.But I still agree with a1. The comparisons are pointless really. Even attendances can''t really be compared fairly. Back in the 60''s and 70''s we were packed on the terraces, it was relatively cheap and we could turn up on the day. As a boy I got in the Barclay for 2 bob. Now in the days of all seater stadiums, safety issues and tickets in advance it''s not like for like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
we8wba 0 Posted January 25, 2008 thing is though you say wolves were 50s blah blahbut you say wolves havnt been anywhere since 80s truebut norwich have in 90sisnt that completly covering what you all saying the 90s in pastbut history wise wolves are much bigger team with many titles, fa cups and few league cups and uefa cup final. but....does this matter? no, because fulham techniqually have more pulling power than both of us nowwould you guys critisise the table if norwich were top of it? i somewhat doubt itstastics dont lie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
we8wba 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="ricardo"]Quite interesting Mick but I think you have gone back a bit too far for most posters. Wolves are artificially high because of their great days in the immediate post war years. They have done virtually nothing in the last quarter century. A similar comment could apply to Sheff wed and Stoke.It would be interesting to see if there is much difference if you did the exercise for say the last 25 or 30 years. It might be a bit more relevant to the modern game. [/quote]yes a uefa cup final and couple cups to our name isnt doing much in the last 20th centrury Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted January 25, 2008 Of course the real test would be to factor in cup competitions by scoring points for each round navigated, etc, etc. You could also include an attendance column as a percentage of the capacity as well. Unfortunately whatever way you do it and how much data you include those $%&£$ down the road will always be above us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
we8wba 0 Posted January 25, 2008 course il bleat on bout my team being top of it, obviosuly prefer to be there than anywhere elsebut as i said its all inconclusive reallyteams like wigan and fulham have more potenital being in the prem than any team in this league.im guessing leeds utd and forest would be top of that table as well Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tickers 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="we8wba"]stastics dont lie[/quote]You''re right they don''t -they are a set of numbers with no moral grounding whatsoever, unable to form allegiances. However just because a number set doesn''t lie you cannot make the conclusion that they automatically tell the truth either.The analysis here really doesn''t show anything due to the changes in the game since the post war period - for example the removal of the wage cap, the introduction of foreign players and the Premier League and so on. As the old adage goes - garbage in leads to garbage out.I can see the intent behind the analysis, and it''s a good try, but it''s still pointless I''m afraid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="nutty nigel"]As a boy I got in the Barclay for 2 bob... [/quote]You''re giving your age away nutty! Obviously we only have the posts to go on but you come across like you wouldn''t be old enough to have been going to games back in the day for 2 bob!Why? I don''t know - a more inclusive and tolerant outlook perhaps, which is at odds with many of the ''older'' posters on here!? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
we8wba 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="Tickers"][quote user="we8wba"] stastics dont lie[/quote]You''re right they don''t -they are a set of numbers with no moral grounding whatsoever, unable to form allegiances. However just because a number set doesn''t lie you cannot make the conclusion that they automatically tell the truth either.The analysis here really doesn''t show anything due to the changes in the game since the post war period - for example the removal of the wage cap, the introduction of foreign players and the Premier League and so on. As the old adage goes - garbage in leads to garbage out.I can see the intent behind the analysis, and it''s a good try, but it''s still pointless I''m afraid.[/quote]the thread should be done on last 5years which would clearly show wba, charlton, sheffutd as biggest teams. just out of question, who would you say the best team in the championship is so far? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buncey 1 Posted January 25, 2008 Stats do lie. How can wolves and WBA have the same overall position? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stevo 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="we8wba"]just out of question, who would you say the best team in the championship is so far?[/quote]At this stage of the season you just have to look at the league don''t you?Depends how you define ''best''. Baggies have been the most successful because they have the most points - does that make them the best? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
we8wba 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="Stevo"][quote user="we8wba"]just out of question, who would you say the best team in the championship is so far?[/quote]At this stage of the season you just have to look at the league don''t you?Depends how you define ''best''. Baggies have been the most successful because they have the most points - does that make them the best?[/quote]thats the point i was going to make, stats dont lie but not always acurate, like if you asked most succesful out those last 10yrs wolves would be behind wba palace charlton so prob 4th if 20yrs we more likely be about 8th in the tablestats are guideline not always correct. but gives you general indication of who near the top.as to wolves being it, would i comment these if say we were 4th, would you comment your comments if you were 1st? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tickers 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="we8wba"]just out of question, who would you say the best team in the championship is so far?[/quote]So far the best team in the division is West Brom, since they are top. I''m not sure what you''re looking for from that though as tjhe season isn''t over. Also the original post refers to biggest (not best) - but there are many things we could all add in as ''big'' factors - wage bill, turnover, size of squad, transfer kitty and so on.But even analysis over a short period of time is somewhat fruitless because there is no constant. You can finish 3rd one year and then 22nd the next - while the ''average'' position would indicate you to be a mid table team, you''ve still been relegated - if you went on a run of finishing 3rd in the league below it would be some time before the ''average'' would show you as being relegated.With this information all you can really do are plot graphs and see if you can spot a recent trend for a club, but with all the factors in football that you''re unable to control you can''t really draw any decent conclusion from it. It''s data analysis for its own sake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barclay seats 4849 0 Posted January 25, 2008 Blimey.......don''t you lot have something more important to do ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Carlos Valderrama 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="mickfoot"]Using the stats from http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/englandcontent.htm and with the help of an excel spreadsheet I''ve worked out the average postwar league position and attendance for every team in the Championship (46/47 to 06/07) to work out the comparitive size of each club. Norwich and Ipswich come out pretty much the same (Norwich has a better average attendance at 18,537 compared to Ipswich''s 17,853, whereas Ipswich has a better average league position, 26th against Norwich''s 32nd). Anyway here are the results.Average attendanceAv League PosWolves25,42520Sheff W24,61024West Brom21,72220Leicester City21,58622Sheff U20,35626Saints19,06923Coventry18,96128Norwich 18,53732Stoke18,42126Ipswich17,85326Palace16,66541Burnley16,06232Charlton16,02228Preston14,48539Bristol C14,20045QPR14,06034Cardiff13,99644Blackpool12,32039Plymouth11,95349Watford11,63047Barnsley10,10548Hull*8,68650Col Utd **4,65769Scunthorpe3,73465 *Att only for last 19 seasons**Begins season 50/51So if you rank both league position and attendance equally this is the list of clubs in terms of size.WolvesWest BromSheff Wed/LeicesterSouthamptonSheffield UnitedStokeCoventry/IpswichNorwichCharltonBurnleyCrystal PalacePrestonQPRBlackpoolBristol CityCardiffWatfordPlymouthBarnsleyHullScunthorpe/Colchester[/quote]You have either got far too much time on your hands or no girlfriend. Possibly both.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ricardo 8,034 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="we8wba"]thing is though you say wolves were 50s blah blahbut you say wolves havnt been anywhere since 80s truebut norwich have in 90sisnt that completly covering what you all saying the 90s in pastbut history wise wolves are much bigger team with many titles, fa cups and few league cups and uefa cup final. but....does this matter? no, because fulham techniqually have more pulling power than both of us nowwould you guys critisise the table if norwich were top of it? i somewhat doubt itstastics dont lie[/quote]I don''t dispute that WE8WBA.I am just commenting that a clubs relative size in the order of things can and does change over time.Even Bury won the FA cup once (1904)As for your statement about statistics, have you never heard the saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"Depending on where you take your data from you can do almost anything with staistics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
we8wba 0 Posted January 25, 2008 jimmy post made me laughricardo - prob me just being full of myself, i do see your side of the coin on the matter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Camuldonum 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="ricardo"][quote user="we8wba"] thing is though you say wolves were 50s blah blahbut you say wolves havnt been anywhere since 80s truebut norwich have in 90sisnt that completly covering what you all saying the 90s in pastbut history wise wolves are much bigger team with many titles, fa cups and few league cups and uefa cup final. but....does this matter? no, because fulham techniqually have more pulling power than both of us nowwould you guys critisise the table if norwich were top of it? i somewhat doubt itstastics dont lie[/quote]I don''t dispute that WE8WBA.I am just commenting that a clubs relative size in the order of things can and does change over time.Even Bury won the FA cup once (1904)As for your statement about statistics, have you never heard the saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"Depending on where you take your data from you can do almost anything with staistics.[/quote] The problem for me is that even the lies, damned lies and statistics all sadly agree that Colchester/Scunthorpe are at the bottom. Sighs........................ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
we8wba 0 Posted January 25, 2008 [quote user="camuldonum"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="we8wba"] thing is though you say wolves were 50s blah blahbut you say wolves havnt been anywhere since 80s truebut norwich have in 90sisnt that completly covering what you all saying the 90s in pastbut history wise wolves are much bigger team with many titles, fa cups and few league cups and uefa cup final. but....does this matter? no, because fulham techniqually have more pulling power than both of us nowwould you guys critisise the table if norwich were top of it? i somewhat doubt itstastics dont lie[/quote]I don''t dispute that WE8WBA.I am just commenting that a clubs relative size in the order of things can and does change over time.Even Bury won the FA cup once (1904)As for your statement about statistics, have you never heard the saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"Depending on where you take your data from you can do almost anything with staistics.[/quote] The problem for me is that even the lies, damned lies and statistics all sadly agree that Colchester/Scunthorpe are at the bottom. Sighs........................[/quote]good point to be fair, the table may not show who the best/biggest what ever are. but all teams you expect to be up their nowdays are in top 8 or 9 in that table. whilst the smaller clubs are the other endso there is some truth in the table, may not be 100% accurate mind you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
