All time league table of English league teams based on their end of season positions

In recent times there's been some discussion on where Cardiff City's overall rightful position should be. In order to try and calculate this, I've taken all the league tables from 1888 and ranked each team on where they finish. For example, the team that wins the league is placed first. If you win the Championship, you are ranked 21st. Bottom of the league and your rank is 92nd. Divide the total of the ranks by the number of seasons played and you have an average league position.

Our average league position is 39th, which would currently be 19th in the Championship. I'll post the whole table lower in the thread.

Of interest, the top 5 are Liverpool, Arsenal, Man Utd, Everton and Aston Villa.

Bristol City's average is 40th, Swansea's 47th, Newport's is 68th.

I've also looked at this table since the resumption of play after World War 2. We had 4 divisions, which didn't happen in the earlier days of the league, so that affects the stats of some clubs a little.

This has barely any effect on us - our average league position over this timescale is 40th, again better than both of our rivals. While we have only managed 9 seasons in the top flight since the war, we have spent 44 seasons in the second tier, longer than any other club over the same time.

Anyway, here's the list of teams and their average positions since time began. Removed are those teams that spent a brief amount of time in the football league prior to having 4 divisions. Due to the method of calculation, a team that spent a few seasons in division 3 when there were only 3 divisions appears to have done better than a similar team with a brief stint in the 4th tier.

Liverpool 8.1
Arsenal 8.6
Manchester United 9.1
Everton 9.7
Aston Villa 11.8
Tottenham Hotspur 11.9
Chelsea 13.1
Manchester City 13.5
Newcastle United 14.2
Sunderland 16.3
West Bromwich Albion 17.9
West Ham United 18.5
Blackburn Rovers 20.0
Derby County 20.5
Wolverhampton Wanderers 20.7
Leeds United 20.7
Middlesbrough 21.1
Sheffield Wednesday 21.6
Bolton Wanderers 22.0
Sheffield United 22.3
Leicester City 22.4
Stoke City 22.8
Birmingham City 23.0
Nottingham Forest 23.2
Southampton 25.2
Burnley 26.5
Ipswich Town 27.0
Preston North End 30.0
Wimbledon 30.1
Portsmouth 32.4
Charlton Athletic 32.4
Fulham 32.9
Huddersfield Town 33.3
Norwich City 34.1
Coventry City 34.6
Blackpool 36.0
Queens Park Rangers 36.6
Crystal Palace 37.8
Cardiff City 39.2
Bristol City 40.6
Luton Town 41.1
Notts County 42.1
Hull City 42.6
Barnsley 42.7
Watford 43.5
Millwall 44.4
Grimsby Town 44.5
Bury 45.2
Oldham Athletic 45.6
Swansea City 47.4
Wigan Athletic 47.7
Brighton & Hove Albion 47.7
Reading 48.4
Bradford Park Avenue 48.5
Plymouth Argyle 49.2
Bradford City 50.5
Rotherham United 52.0
Brentford 52.3
Port Vale 52.6
Leyton Orient 53.1
Swindon Town 53.2
Oxford United 53.5
Bristol Rovers 54.5
AFC Bournemouth 55.0
Walsall 56.0
Chesterfield 57.4
Milton Keynes Dons 57.8
Lincoln City 57.9
Tranmere Rovers 58.4
Stockport County 59.0
Accrington Stanley 59.6
Doncaster Rovers 60.6
Carlisle United 60.8
Shrewsbury Town 60.8
Southend United 61.0
Gillingham 61.5
Wrexham 62.0
Peterborough United 63.3
Burton Albion 64.2
Crewe Alexandra 64.6
Colchester United 65.4
Northampton Town 65.5
Southport 65.9
Scunthorpe United 66.0
Barrow 66.0
Yeovil Town 66.8
Cambridge United 67.1
Mansfield Town 67.4
Wycombe Wanderers 67.6
Newport County 68.2
York City 68.5
Halifax Town 69.4
Exeter City 69.8
Chester City 69.9
Rochdale 70.8
Torquay United 71.3
Hartlepool United 71.8
Darlington 72.0
Aldershot 72.4
Crawley Town 73.8
Workington 73.8
AFC Wimbledon 74.1
Stevenage 74.5
Salford City 77.0
Cheltenham Town 77.3
Rushden & Diamonds 78.2
Hereford United 78.4
Forest Green Rovers 80.0
Dagenham and Redbridge 81.2
Barnet 82.6
Maidstone United 82.7
Scarborough 82.8
Boston United 83.2
Kidderminster Harriers 83.2
Macclesfield Town 83.5
Morecambe 83.8

You should factor in FA Cup results too for a complete picture.
How did you count the North/South leagues?
Wimbledon's position can't be right.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

You should factor in FA Cup results too for a complete picture.
How did you count the North/South leagues?
Wimbledon's position can't be right.....

---

Yes, FA cup is my next step. My gut feeling is that, despite winning it, making 2 finals and a couple of semis, our record isn't great in it, given the time spent in the top flight.

North and South was given equal ranking, so 1st in each would have been 45th with 2 divisions of 22 sides. Thinking about it, perhaps a position gap would be better. 45th for first in both, 47th for 2nd etc. That gives virtually the same weighting as 4 divisions.

Haven't bothered with non-league. I'd be there for days!

It would be interesting to find out our average position excluding the 1930's and 1990's, our really fallow periods.

Likewise I'd love to know Liverpool's average position prior to the Shankly revolution in the early 60's. Prior to that they were virtual nonentities.

Just checked Liverpool's history for myself. They weren't the nonentities I thought they were, having won 4 Division 1 titles before Bill Shankly arrived.

Since our promotion from the 3rd level, were probably rated in the top 30 quite easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

You should factor in FA Cup results too for a complete picture.
How did you count the North/South leagues?
Wimbledon's position can't be right.....

---

Wimbledon spent longer in the top division than it took them to get promoted, so it seems right to me. Think it was about 10 years to get there and they stayed for 15 years.

Well done, Eric, you produce some really interesting stuff for us

Much appreciated :thumbup:

Fascinating stuff, love statistics like this:thumbup:

Yes, great work Eric. Personally, breaking it down into different time periods to try and make us look better than we are defeats the object and, as you say, including the FA Cup would probably result in a lower position - we reached two Finals and a Semi Final in the twenties I believe and then there's 2008 of course, but we've done bugger all in the competition besides that, I can remember reading in 1977 when we reached the Fifth Round that it was our best run in the tournament since 1927.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moodybluebird

It would be interesting to find out our average position excluding the 1930's and 1990's, our really fallow periods.

Likewise I'd love to know Liverpool's average position prior to the Shankly revolution in the early 60's. Prior to that they were virtual nonentities.

---

We were crap at the end of the eighties/star of noughties too. Weren’t we? Funny that the nineties were rubbish, I remember a fair few good seasons with Welsh Cup and European Cup games added on. I feel like the real crap was end of eighties going into the nineties, then there was something of an upturn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Wimbledon spent longer in the top division than it took them to get promoted, so it seems right to me. Think it was about 10 years to get there and they stayed for 15 years.

---

Didn't realise Wimbledon were in the top flight for so long - 14 years. But they didn't get into the Football League until 1977. Portsmouth were in the First Division/Premiership for more seasons and have been in the FL since the 1920-1921 season. They must have a better record than Wimbledon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Didn't realise Wimbledon were in the top flight for so long - 14 years. But they didn't get into the Football League until 1977. Portsmouth were in the First Division/Premiership for more seasons and have been in the FL since the 1920-1921 season. They must have a better record than Wimbledon.

---

Apologies to Eric if I've got this wrong, but I think he's going by an average finish per season in the one to ninety two league structure. Therefore, a team like Wimbledon that only had something like thirty seasons in the Football League would have a higher average finishing position than a team like Portsmouth over their long Football League history because they spent so much of their time as a league club in the First division/Premier League.

If that's right, our average finishing position since 1920 is something like seventeenth in the second tier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Didn't realise Wimbledon were in the top flight for so long - 14 years. But they didn't get into the Football League until 1977. Portsmouth were in the First Division/Premiership for more seasons and have been in the FL since the 1920-1921 season. They must have a better record than Wimbledon.

---

But it's an average. 15 seasons out of 30 would be better than 48 seasons out of 100.

How did you rank teams who finished in Div 3(N) and Div 3(S)?

How did you count Newport's seasons when they were non-league?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

But it's an average. 15 seasons out of 30 would be better than 48 seasons out of 100.

---

There has to be an element of weighting for this table to work.

Best way to do it, in my opinion would be to rank points won in the top flight * 4, championship * 3, League 1 * 2 and League 2 * 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allez Allez Allez

There has to be an element of weighting for this table to work.

Best way to do it, in my opinion would be to rank points won in the top flight * 4, championship * 3, League 1 * 2 and League 2 * 1

---

Don't you think it's unfair to Eric, who must have put an awful lot of work into producing the table, to have people telling him how he has got it wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Don't you think it's unfair to Eric, who must have put an awful lot of work into producing the table, to have people telling him how he has got it wrong?

---

Are you saying that, because someone has put a lot of work into something, that it cannot be questioned? The list has been passed off as being scientific, and it is to a degree, but isn't the list supposed to be the average position over the lifetime of the league? In which case, Wimbledon, Wigan, and even Morecambe and Kidderminster are in false positions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allez Allez Allez

Are you saying that, because someone has put a lot of work into something, that it cannot be questioned? The list has been passed off as being scientific, and it is to a degree, but isn't the list supposed to be the average position over the lifetime of the league? In which case, Wimbledon, Wigan, and even Morecambe and Kidderminster are in false positions.

---

I'm saying that he deserves better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allez Allez Allez

There has to be an element of weighting for this table to work.

Best way to do it, in my opinion would be to rank points won in the top flight * 4, championship * 3, League 1 * 2 and League 2 * 1

---

Go for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allez Allez Allez

There has to be an element of weighting for this table to work.

Best way to do it, in my opinion would be to rank points won in the top flight * 4, championship * 3, League 1 * 2 and League 2 * 1

---

what about when point changed from 2 to 3 for a win?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allez Allez Allez

Are you saying that, because someone has put a lot of work into something, that it cannot be questioned? The list has been passed off as being scientific, and it is to a degree, but isn't the list supposed to be the average position over the lifetime of the league? In which case, Wimbledon, Wigan, and even Morecambe and Kidderminster are in false positions.

---

I don't have a problem with being questioned on it. It's a work in progress and anything constructive is welcomed.

Firstly, I haven't passed off such a list as being scientific. Mathematically correct for the criteria I used, but definitely not scientific, neither have I suggested such a table would be definitive. It's meant to be fun to some extent. There isn't a perfect method for calculating this and all ways have flaws to some degree.

The list is meant as an average position for each team for their time in the league. Wimbledon is a good example as already mentioned. For their relatively short spell in the league, they were a pretty successful club. Wigan, to a lesser extent, the same. On average, Wimbledon did better in the league than us, not much question about that.

If you want to talk cumulatively, then we have got more points and more better finishes in the league than them because we've been there longer. I wasn't interested in that. There are all-time points tables elsewhere on the net. I was interested solely in, first of all, what is Cardiff City's average end of season league position. Only one way to calculate that. Then I thought it would be interesting to compare ours with other clubs average league positions.

Obviously a cumulative points table, even weighted, gives some different results. Taking your suggestion on board, it only takes a couple of minutes in the spreadsheet and it's done. The only massive difference is that clubs that haven't been in the league for most of its duration are lower down. If you create averages of those weighted points tallies, there is little difference with my table, not saying that all teams are in the same place, but those in 1-10 are pretty much the same in both etc.

There are also flaws with points tallies. While there's a need for some weighting, here's a reason why it isn't always accurate. Derby won 11 points when they were relegated over 10 years ago. That would give them 44. Reading got promoted with 106 points around the same time, which would give them 318 points. Winning the Championship is a big achievement, but worth 7 times (in an extreme case like this) more than a side actually in the top flight that finishes bottom? Not for me.

All interesting stuff, nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

I don't have a problem with being questioned on it. It's a work in progress and anything constructive is welcomed.

Firstly, I haven't passed off such a list as being scientific. Mathematically correct for the criteria I used, but definitely not scientific, neither have I suggested such a table would be definitive. It's meant to be fun to some extent. There isn't a perfect method for calculating this and all ways have flaws to some degree.

The list is meant as an average position for each team for their time in the league. Wimbledon is a good example as already mentioned. For their relatively short spell in the league, they were a pretty successful club. Wigan, to a lesser extent, the same. On average, Wimbledon did better in the league than us, not much question about that.

If you want to talk cumulatively, then we have got more points and more better finishes in the league than them because we've been there longer. I wasn't interested in that. There are all-time points tables elsewhere on the net. I was interested solely in, first of all, what is Cardiff City's average end of season league position. Only one way to calculate that. Then I thought it would be interesting to compare ours with other clubs average league positions.

Obviously a cumulative points table, even weighted, gives some different results. Taking your suggestion on board, it only takes a couple of minutes in the spreadsheet and it's done. The only massive difference is that clubs that haven't been in the league for most of its duration are lower down. If you create averages of those weighted points tallies, there is little difference with my table, not saying that all teams are in the same place, but those in 1-10 are pretty much the same in both etc.

There are also flaws with points tallies. While there's a need for some weighting, here's a reason why it isn't always accurate. Derby won 11 points when they were relegated over 10 years ago. That would give them 44. Reading got promoted with 106 points around the same time, which would give them 318 points. Winning the Championship is a big achievement, but worth 7 times (in an extreme case like this) more than a side actually in the top flight that finishes bottom? Not for me.

All interesting stuff, nonetheless.

---

Thanks for the measured response, and glad to see that the internet has it's usual race of people clamouring to be offended on behalf of others. I don't think I dismissed your efforts as futile, and I reckon it is largely reflective. The problem with stats, though, is that there will always be outliers and I think Wimbledon are definitely an example. Saying that, if the question is "what is each team's average league finish" then you have answered that, but it still feels strange to have Wimbledon so high up. Maybe I was more taken by the fact that, for example, four teams are placed 22nd in the FL.

Sheffield Wednesday 21.6
Bolton Wanderers 22.0
Sheffield United 22.3
Leicester City 22.4

The point you make about weighting the points is a good one, in isolation it won't work as in your example. But, in saying that, Derby would have amassed a load of points the season before in getting promotion from the Championship.

Out of interest, when a team finished bottom in Div 3(N) and Div3(S) did they get the same ranking and what was it?

I'd have made their regionalised total something like ((Final Position * 2) - 1) (so a team finishing 1st in Div 3(N) and Div 3(S) would get 1, a team who finished 2nd would get 3, and so on).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allez Allez Allez

Thanks for the measured response, and glad to see that the internet has it's usual race of people clamouring to be offended on behalf of others. I don't think I dismissed your efforts as futile, and I reckon it is largely reflective. The problem with stats, though, is that there will always be outliers and I think Wimbledon are definitely an example. Saying that, if the question is "what is each team's average league finish" then you have answered that, but it still feels strange to have Wimbledon so high up. Maybe I was more taken by the fact that, for example, four teams are placed 22nd in the FL.

Sheffield Wednesday 21.6
Bolton Wanderers 22.0
Sheffield United 22.3
Leicester City 22.4

The point you make about weighting the points is a good one, in isolation it won't work as in your example. But, in saying that, Derby would have amassed a load of points the season before in getting promotion from the Championship.

Out of interest, when a team finished bottom in Div 3(N) and Div3(S) did they get the same ranking and what was it?

I'd have made their regionalised total something like ((Final Position * 2) - 1) (so a team finishing 1st in Div 3(N) and Div 3(S) would get 1, a team who finished 2nd would get 3, and so on).

---

"Clamouring to be offended"? I wasn't offended, more disappointed that you saw fit to say the table didn't work - it does if you take it for what it is, rather than what you want it to be.

I'm ready to be proved wrong on this, but it seems to me that any all time table, whether it be based on average position, points gained or any other method you choose to measure a club's performances over the duration of its time in the Football League would see City in the thirty to forty region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

"Clamouring to be offended"? I wasn't offended, more disappointed that you saw fit to say the table didn't work - it does if you take it for what it is, rather than what you want it to be.

I'm ready to be proved wrong on this, but it seems to me that any all time table, whether it be based on average position, points gained or any other method you choose to measure a club's performances over the duration of its time in the Football League would see City in the thirty to forty region.

---

Just checked back, and didn't once say, nor dismiss, Eric's table as "it doesn't work".

As I said in response to Eric's more measured reply, it is the outlliers that skew the data. I think I misread the table, if it shows average finishing positions in the League then that is what it does. I still think that teams who spent a period out of the FL have benefitted because, for a significant percentage of their history, they were outside the FL structure. Accrington Stanley, for example, have benefitted two-fold. Their average finish is 60, but they spent 50 years out of the FL. They also benefited, although Eric may confirm otherwise, from the fact that placing 22nd in Div 3(N) earned them better ranking scores than finishing 20th in Div 4. They also benefited from being in the "top flight" in the late 19th century.

Also, thinking more on the points totals, even averaging those would have the impact of teams who spent 70 years playing for 2 points for a win being disadvantaged over a club like Wimbledon who mostly only ever played for 3 points for a win. I know people argue that you just make it 3 points for a win for all history, but that is wrong too because there was a different mentality in the 70s and 80s with teams basing success on coming home with a 0-0.

I will have a stab at my "weighted table" and see what comes out in terms of an overall table although I am also coming around to the fact that this is likely to be inaccurate too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

"Clamouring to be offended"? I wasn't offended, more disappointed that you saw fit to say the table didn't work - it does if you take it for what it is, rather than what you want it to be.

I'm ready to be proved wrong on this, but it seems to me that any all time table, whether it be based on average position, points gained or any other method you choose to measure a club's performances over the duration of its time in the Football League would see City in the thirty to forty region.

---

Pretty much so. Here's a few others from a more selective timeframe.

1920-1931 (promotion, longest consecutive spell in the top flight): 16.5
1931-1946 (seasons in the third division): 58.6
1947-1962 (yo-yo between 1&2 tiers): 32.0
1962-1985 (nearly all 2nd division): 38.0
1985-2003 (the dark years): 70.0
2003-2020 (back in the 2nd tier and return to top flight): 27.1