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

[Allez Allez Allez]

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.

[the other bob wilson]

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.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

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.

[Allez Allez Allez]

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).

[the other bob wilson]

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.

[Allez Allez Allez]

"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.

[the other bob wilson]

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.

You said "There has to be an element of weighting for this table to work." - the implication being that it didn't as it stood.

Anyway, I accept that I'm taking this further than it needs to go, so you won't hear from me again on this especially as Eric seems happy enough about what you said.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

"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

[the other bob wilson]

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

Interesting stuff. What you call the dark years surprised me a little because it struck me that we were much more a Fourth division than a Third division side during that time, so I wasn't expecting our average position over those eighteen years to be getting promoted from the basement.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Interesting stuff. What you call the dark years surprised me a little because it struck me that we were much more a Fourth division than a Third division side during that time, so I wasn't expecting our average position over those eighteen years to be getting promoted from the basement.

No doubt swayed a bit by 4th and 6th place finishes in what is now League 1. Prior to that we had 6 seasons in that division. Our highest finish was 16th and we suffered 4 relegations, so we were either a basement side or soon to be one! We did manage a few promotions and a couple of other high finishes in the bottom division though.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

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).

That's what I have since done, I think I put that in a reply further up the thread. Originally I had given them both 45 for first, 46 for second etc (given there were always 44 teams in the 2 divisions above), but the two divisions were, in effect, what become divisions 3 and 4, so yes, the positions needed to reflect that.