Defence or attack - which is more likely to keep you in the Championship?

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Boring alert - this is a statistical look at the last 33 seasons in the Championship (and its other titles) since it became a 24 team division and the defensive and attacking records of the teams in the bottom 3 each season.

Defence:

Teams with the worst defensive record in the division went down 23 times out of 33.
Teams with the 2nd worst defensive record went down 22 times out of 23.
Teams with the worst 5 defensive records went down 66 times out of 99.

Attack:

Teams with the worst scoring record in the division went down 18 times out of 33.
Teams with the 2nd worst scoring record went down 20 times out of 33.
Teams with the worst 5 scoring records went down 56 times out of 99.

In both cases, 5 sides that were among the top 10 best scoring and conceding records were relegated. Leicester had the 2nd best defensive record in 2008 when they went down but had the worst scoring record that season. Wigan have twice had defensive records in the top 10 when they went down.

There is little else to separate them in the stats. 44 sides have gone down where their goals conceding rank is worse than their goalscoring rank, compared with 42 the other way.

On the 8 occasions where a relegated side has been in the top half for scoring goals, all bar one of them have been in the bottom 3 for conceding goals.
There have also been 8 occasions where a relegated side has been in the top half for conceding goals, only half of them have been in the bottom 3 for scoring.

By a narrow margin, a poor defence is slightly more likely to see you relegated than a poor attack.

[NYCBlue]

I thought the difference would be greater than that. Taking it to extremes, a clean sheet every game gets you at least 46 points. Chuck in a goal every other game and you'd be very unfortunate not to make top 2.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

I thought the difference would be greater than that. Taking it to extremes, a clean sheet every game gets you at least 46 points. Chuck in a goal every other game and you'd be very unfortunate not to make top 2.

On the flip side, failing to score every game gets you 46 points. Concede a goal every other game and you're relegated with several matches to spare.

It's not as simple to say that tightening up in defence or being bolder in attack will work, either. Throwing more caution to the wind means you can be more exposed at the back, while being more cautious will affect how you attack.

If a team has a habit of conceding goals continually, they put a lot of pressure on their attacking game to bail them out. Teams don't tend to survive by going gung ho.

[NYCBlue]

Failing to score every game gets you anywhere between 0 and 46 points. But I see your point.

[logic]

On the flip side, failing to score every game gets you 46 points. Concede a goal every other game and you're relegated with several matches to spare.

It's not as simple to say that tightening up in defence or being bolder in attack will work, either. Throwing more caution to the wind means you can be more exposed at the back, while being more cautious will affect how you attack.

If a team has a habit of conceding goals continually, they put a lot of pressure on their attacking game to bail them out. Teams don't tend to survive by going gung ho.

Logic would indicate that the flip side you mention isn't the whole picture.

A) Fail to score in 46 matches - the best you could do is to draw all 46, so the maximum points tally you could achieve would be 46.

B) Fail to concede in 46 matches - the worst you could do is to draw all 46, so the minimum points tally you could achieve would be 46.

To achieve scenario A's total of 46 points, due to not scoring, you'd have to not concede in all 46 if those games in addition, ie every game would have to end 0-0.

If you don't concede, you cannot lose. Therefore, in scenario B to achieve that minimum 46 points, you'd have to also not score as every game would end up 0-0.

In the real world, you'd expect in scenario A to concede and in scenario B to score during the season; it's therefore clear that in a hypothetical situation, you'd want to go for the scenario that gives you the highest guaranteed "minimum" points from scenario B, given nicking goals gives you additional points.

Would scenario B be inherently dull? To some, sure, but a good defensive performance can be as entertaining as a good attacking performance.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Logic would indicate that the flip side you mention isn't the whole picture.

A) Fail to score in 46 matches - the best you could do is to draw all 46, so the maximum points tally you could achieve would be 46.

B) Fail to concede in 46 matches - the worst you could do is to draw all 46, so the minimum points tally you could achieve would be 46.

To achieve scenario A's total of 46 points, due to not scoring, you'd have to not concede in all 46 if those games in addition, ie every game would have to end 0-0.

If you don't concede, you cannot lose. Therefore, in scenario B to achieve that minimum 46 points, you'd have to also not score as every game would end up 0-0.

In the real world, you'd expect in scenario A to concede and in scenario B to score during the season; it's therefore clear that in a hypothetical situation, you'd want to go for the scenario that gives you the highest guaranteed "minimum" points from scenario B, given nicking goals gives you additional points.

Would scenario B be inherently dull? To some, sure, but a good defensive performance can be as entertaining as a good attacking performance.

In other words, you've covered what me and NYCBlue said between us.