State of the League

[WoollyJumper]

££££££££££££££££££££££££

Playoffs at the top end make sense financially as you can take advantage of the feel good factor around clubs, as well as that intensity that surrounds a knockout race for promotion. You could get some interest for a "relegation playoff", but the cost to interest would be far lower than a promotion playoff. The only way it could really work is if the playoff was between a number of teams in the higher division (going down) and the lower diving (going up), because at least then you'd have that added feel good factor from the teams with a chance of promotion, but that would be at a cost of the current playoff system, which seems a real money generator. It's not the only thing that's just there to add that `excitement' factor.

Sorting the table by goal difference rather than results between teams is, from what I've seen, to keep the table alive on the last day, and to get media interest in games that would otherwise be dead rubbers. It also encourages attacking play, but leagues where they sort the league by results between league don't seem to have an issue in that department (La Liga has got around 2.88 goals per match to the Premier League's 2.68 and the Championship's 2.54).

Then of course there's 3 points for a win, another gimmicky little rule that has just become natural. From what I can tell it's a way of getting teams to push for wins more often, and again, this is down to making the game more exciting.

This all said, there's nothing wrong with doing these kinds of rules, as long as it's kept subtle. With the playoffs, the best team should win, and to be blunt, if 3rd can't beat the teams it's finished above in the league, it probably doesn't deserve the Premier League anyhow. The playoffs as they are give interest late in the season all the way down to teams that haven't even got a real chance anymore (and I assure you, supporters of teams that my analysis wrote off with less than a 1 in 100 chance of making the playoffs, the Watfords and Middlesbroughs of the world, will surely still fancy themselves with some kind of chance). Keep in mind that without the playoffs, teams that currently have something to really get excited about right now, would now be near no chance of a promotion spot. Consider the top 3 chances of current teams that are Top 6 hopefuls, but not a serious chance of the Top 2.

Playoffs

Forest: 73.7%

Wigan: 43.9%

Reading: 38.4%

Brighton: 19.6%

Blackburn: 19.6%

Ipswich: 6.3%

Leeds: 5.5%

<1%

This group by Top 3 chances

Forest: 16.6%

Wigan: 3.43%

Reading: 2.06%

Brighton: 0.6%

Blackburn: 0.6%

Ipswich: <0.1%

Leeds: <0.1%

Forest would be the only team with any kind of real hope of making it now, and whilst I don't doubt that even Leeds would hold out some hope of making it, none of them would have any serious chance. That is the nature of the issue. It would be nice to have the best 3 teams go up, instead of the best 2 and a playoff winner, but keeping it interesting helps keep the league interesting, and keep fans coming through the gates. At the end of the day even with this system in place 6th place promoted teams haven't exactly made fools of themselves, but 3rd placed promoted teams have been known to.

While I certainly inderstand the financial windfall that can be created by a promotion play off series, it in essence diminishes the achievement of the season long sucess of the team that finishes 3rd. Those achievements can be extinguished by a knock out game/s of chance, and can come at a time in the season when some teams can then be at a potential disadvantage.  I guess that's why I said I can't think of a logical reason why the playoff concept exist. However that is what it is, and we may find out soon enough if will work for or agin us.

[TroyDyer]

Its all well and good Albert, but do you have any statistics to back up your claims?

[Ewetube]

I hate the play-offs, they are just too contrived in my view.

 

To finish a hard league season with a mini cup competition to determine the outcome detracts from the season as a whole just to provide some manufactured excitement at the end of the season.

 

Some may say we benefited from the play-off system. Did we, really? We had a moments glory paid for with a season that left us as laughing stocks; very nearly sent us into a freefall that we have only just recovered from in that we have only just regained our pre play-off league placing.

 

I would rather us battle hard all season long for a top 3 finish knowing for certain what the prize would be. If we missed out and finished 4th so be it, hunker down and prepare for another go next year.

[Albert]

Its all well and good Albert, but do you have any statistics to back up your claims?

Which one? If you mean teams from the top 6 in the Premier League, then here's some numbers:

Let's go back as far as reasonable here, so the 1995-96 season onwards. Playoff positions by winners (Times - Av. Points - Survival %):

3rd: 7 - 39 - 71%

4th: 1 - 36 - 0%

5th: 5 - 36 - 40%

6th: 4 - 40 - 25%

So it seems that they across the board average around the same points totals, the key stat is that survival one though. It does indeed seem that 3rd is better equipped to survive, even though the average points seems fairly similar. 3rd also seems to go up most often, with 41.2% of the 17 seasons listed (it's actually 38.9% with Crystal Palace included from last season). Astonishingly 4th has only gone up once in those last 18 seasons (including last season), and that was Charlton in 1997-98. Seems a bit of a cursed position, now on a 15 year drought. It might just be a hard position to make the playoff final though. Consider that they are up against an opponent in a similar position to them, except they are likely a failed automatic promotion chaser (or at least see themselves as), whilst 5th is likely a team that has pushed into the playoffs. In those cases you'd except that 5th would take out 4th more often than not. Even a slight advantage added to toughness of facing likely the best team in the playoffs (3rd) or another red hot team that's pushed into the playoffs late (6th) would make it the cursed position. In terms of them failing against 5th in the first round of the playoffs, 5th has won 11 of 18 of the last playoffs first rounds, a staggering 61.1%, nearly doubling 4th's total over the same period.

I hate the play-offs, they are just too contrived in my view.

 

To finish a hard league season with a mini cup competition to determine the outcome detracts from the season as a whole just to provide some manufactured excitement at the end of the season.

 

Some may say we benefited from the play-off system. Did we, really? We had a moments glory paid for with a season that left us as laughing stocks; very nearly sent us into a freefall that we have only just recovered from in that we have only just regained our pre play-off league placing.

 

I would rather us battle hard all season long for a top 3 finish knowing for certain what the prize would be. If we missed out and finished 4th so be it, hunker down and prepare for another go next year.

If 3rd had gone up in 2006-07, it would have been us anyhow.

[Day]

So let me get this right, we're safe from relegation this season?

[Ewetube]

If 3rd had gone up in 2006-07, it would have been us anyhow.

 

The point I was fumbling to make was that we'd have known our destiny sooner and may have had chance to prepare better. It's all conjecture, I know, but that is how I feel about.

 

We finished 8 points clear of West Brom, so that's maybe a week or 2 plus the time taken to participate in the play-offs could have been extra preparation time for the following season.

 

Admittedly we had a t1t of a manager more concerned with his own needs than the needs of his club; under normal circumstances though surely the longer you have to prepare, the better.

[Ewetube]

So let me get this right, we're safe from relegation this season?

 

Yeah, Nigel would be so proud. 

[Albert]

The point I was fumbling to make was that we'd have known our destiny sooner and may have had chance to prepare better. It's all conjecture, I know, but that is how I feel about.

 

We finished 8 points clear of West Brom, so that's maybe a week or 2 plus the time taken to participate in the play-offs could have been extra preparation time for the following season.

 

Admittedly we had a t1t of a manager more concerned with his own needs than the needs of his club; under normal circumstances though surely the longer you have to prepare, the better.

I seriously doubt the extra weeks would have made any material difference. No team that has done up by the playoffs has come even close to struggling as we did. To be completely honest I don't even understand using that as an excuse, particularly when no other team has struggled like that due to the playoffs, in fact, the only other case as disastrous came from the a table topping Sunderland side. For a full review though, there is performance by method:

Performance by method (Times - Av. Points - Survived):

Autos: 34 - 40.5 - 62%

Playoffs: 17 - 38.3 - 47%

Breaking it down into position by position:

1st: 17 - 40.2 - 59%

2nd: 17 - 40.9 - 65%

3rd: 7 - 39.0 - 71%

4th: 1 - 36.0 - 0%

5th: 5 - 36.4 - 40%

6th: 4 - 40.0 - 25%

Long story short the playoffs are absolutely no excuse, and in fact, even including that disaster that was our 2007-08 campaign coming up in 3rd through the playoffs has the best survival rate of the lot. The total points for teams coming up by the playoffs is fairly close to those in the automatic positions as well. Overall the only result really to say here is that coming up 3rd through the playoffs is absolutely no excuse for that season, and there is nothing to say that being given automatic promotion that season would have changed anything.

[Shottaz]

Cracking post. 

[furball]

Strangest thing that jumps out at me from all that (a fantastic post btw) is that only once has the 4th place team won the place offs. 5/6th is about right with an average of 4.25 per position - so 3rd place is the most likely to go up. I wonder if this is because 4th place is usually the team that was in with a chance of automatic promotion and then struggle at the end. QPR this year? Burnley? Us?

[Ewetube]

I seriously doubt the extra weeks would have made any material difference. No team that has done up by the playoffs has come even close to struggling as we did. To be completely honest I don't even understand using that as an excuse, particularly when no other team has struggled like that due to the playoffs, in fact, the only other case as disastrous came from the a table topping Sunderland side. For a full review though, there is performance by method:

Performance by method (Times - Av. Points - Survived):

Autos: 34 - 40.5 - 62%

Playoffs: 17 - 38.3 - 47%

Breaking it down into position by position:

1st: 17 - 40.2 - 59%

2nd: 17 - 40.9 - 65%

3rd: 7 - 39.0 - 71%

4th: 1 - 36.0 - 0%

5th: 5 - 36.4 - 40%

6th: 4 - 40.0 - 25%

Long story short the playoffs are absolutely no excuse, and in fact, even including that disaster that was our 2007-08 campaign coming up in 3rd through the playoffs has the best survival rate of the lot. The total points for teams coming up by the playoffs is fairly close to those in the automatic positions as well. Overall the only result really to say here is that coming up 3rd through the playoffs is absolutely no excuse for that season, and there is nothing to say that being given automatic promotion that season would have changed anything.

 

I agree in our case that all the preparation in the world would probably not made have made a difference. That was, as I eluded to, down to the incompetence of our management in assembling a competitive team.

 

I was using our 06/7 season as an example of how much additional preparation time would have been available with automatic promotion  vs. playoffs, in some cases it could be a lot more time or some seasons could be down to the last game.

 

Forgive me if I'm misreading your statistics but don't they show a 15% higher survival rate for automatically promoted teams? Could that not be seen as proof that longer preparation gives you a greater chance of survival?

 

Also I'm interested in how the the number of teams that came through the play-offs and survived compares with the number of automatically promoted 3rd placed teams that survived pre-playoffs. I don't know if you have that information but it would be interesting to juxtapose the two.

[RodleyRam]

££££££££££££££££££££££££

Playoffs at the top end make sense financially as you can take advantage of the feel good factor around clubs, as well as that intensity that surrounds a knockout race for promotion. You could get some interest for a "relegation playoff", but the cost to interest would be far lower than a promotion playoff. The only way it could really work is if the playoff was between a number of teams in the higher division (going down) and the lower diving (going up), because at least then you'd have that added feel good factor from the teams with a chance of promotion, but that would be at a cost of the current playoff system, which seems a real money generator. It's not the only thing that's just there to add that `excitement' factor.

Sorting the table by goal difference rather than results between teams is, from what I've seen, to keep the table alive on the last day, and to get media interest in games that would otherwise be dead rubbers. It also encourages attacking play, but leagues where they sort the league by results between league don't seem to have an issue in that department (La Liga has got around 2.88 goals per match to the Premier League's 2.68 and the Championship's 2.54).

Then of course there's 3 points for a win, another gimmicky little rule that has just become natural. From what I can tell it's a way of getting teams to push for wins more often, and again, this is down to making the game more exciting.

This all said, there's nothing wrong with doing these kinds of rules, as long as it's kept subtle. With the playoffs, the best team should win, and to be blunt, if 3rd can't beat the teams it's finished above in the league, it probably doesn't deserve the Premier League anyhow. The playoffs as they are give interest late in the season all the way down to teams that haven't even got a real chance anymore (and I assure you, supporters of teams that my analysis wrote off with less than a 1 in 100 chance of making the playoffs, the Watfords and Middlesbroughs of the world, will surely still fancy themselves with some kind of chance). Keep in mind that without the playoffs, teams that currently have something to really get excited about right now, would now be near no chance of a promotion spot. Consider the top 3 chances of current teams that are Top 6 hopefuls, but not a serious chance of the Top 2.

Playoffs

Forest: 73.7%

Wigan: 43.9%

Reading: 38.4%

Brighton: 19.6%

Blackburn: 19.6%

Ipswich: 6.3%

Leeds: 5.5%

<1%

This group by Top 3 chances

Forest: 16.6%

Wigan: 3.43%

Reading: 2.06%

Brighton: 0.6%

Blackburn: 0.6%

Ipswich: <0.1%

Leeds: <0.1%

Forest would be the only team with any kind of real hope of making it now, and whilst I don't doubt that even Leeds would hold out some hope of making it, none of them would have any serious chance. That is the nature of the issue. It would be nice to have the best 3 teams go up, instead of the best 2 and a playoff winner, but keeping it interesting helps keep the league interesting, and keep fans coming through the gates. At the end of the day even with this system in place 6th place promoted teams haven't exactly made fools of themselves, but 3rd placed promoted teams have been known to.

I totally take all these points. However, the play offs are effectively a knock out competition after 46 games of hard slog. In the end the stats of teams performance matter little across 3 isolated games.

I wonder what the correlation is on league position and promotion through the playoffs. I wouldn't put my money on the 3rd placed team being much more successful in the playoffs than those finishing 4-6.

I totally get the financial benefits and that it keeps the season alive for longer but if I had a choice I'd rather we avoided them and they didn't exist!

It won't matter much to us anway as we're going to thump Burnley on sat and romp home to the title in the next few months.

EDIT - I see you've answered the final position question. Lets just hope we don't finish 4th...

[TroyDyer]

Which one? If you mean teams from the top 6 in the Premier League, then here's some numbers:

Let's go back as far as reasonable here, so the 1995-96 season onwards. Playoff positions by winners (Times - Av. Points - Survival %):

3rd: 7 - 39 - 71%

4th: 1 - 36 - 0%

5th: 5 - 36 - 40%

6th: 4 - 40 - 25%

So it seems that they across the board average around the same points totals, the key stat is that survival one though. It does indeed seem that 3rd is better equipped to survive, even though the average points seems fairly similar. 3rd also seems to go up most often, with 41.2% of the 17 seasons listed (it's actually 38.9% with Crystal Palace included from last season). Astonishingly 4th has only gone up once in those last 18 seasons (including last season), and that was Charlton in 1997-98. Seems a bit of a cursed position, now on a 15 year drought. It might just be a hard position to make the playoff final though. Consider that they are up against an opponent in a similar position to them, except they are likely a failed automatic promotion chaser (or at least see themselves as), whilst 5th is likely a team that has pushed into the playoffs. In those cases you'd except that 5th would take out 4th more often than not. Even a slight advantage added to toughness of facing likely the best team in the playoffs (3rd) or another red hot team that's pushed into the playoffs late (6th) would make it the cursed position. In terms of them failing against 5th in the first round of the playoffs, 5th has won 11 of 18 of the last playoffs first rounds, a staggering 61.1%, nearly doubling 4th's total over the same period.

If 3rd had gone up in 2006-07, it would have been us anyhow.

Mate, I was kidding. You provide more stats than a weekend in Brighton.

http://stats.urbanup.com/666432

[zippy]

Hi Albert, given just how important the next game is , statistically what's our best available (barring injuries) team??

 

Do you have stats for this?

[ChaddesdenRam]

Hi Albert, given just how important the next game is , statistically what's our best available (barring injuries) team??

 

Do you have stats for this?

 

It would depend on the best team for what scenario.

 

 

Im sure there are stats to show which starting XI has scored the most goals this season.

 

However there would also be a starting XI that has conceded the least amount of goals too. So it would depend on the style of play you want to achieve. 

 

 

I dont think stats should play too big a part in the starting XI unless it is to do with fitness and injuries.

 

Any other in game stats such as pass completion or successful dribbles are things that can be worked on on the training ground. 

 

 

That's just my opinion, im in no way saying that is correct. I just think if I was manager i wouldn't pick a team for Burnley based on which group have players statistically have won the most points. I think each game has different needs.

[BOB BIGGS]

Yeh even then I'd say fair play to the side in 3rd, they deserved to go up over the whole season.

 

 

I thought exactly that in 1992

[RodleyRam]

I thought exactly that in 1992

I was 7 in 1992...

[BOB BIGGS]

I was 7 in 1992...

I can beat that by some distance unfortunately but your point remains as good today as it was then.

 

Play offs are just a money making idea. Yes, they keep everyone on their toes but why should 6th go up rather than 3rd, based on a max of 3 games.

[Albert]

Hi Albert, given just how important the next game is , statistically what's our best available (barring injuries) team??

 

Do you have stats for this?

It would depend on the best team for what scenario.

 

 

Im sure there are stats to show which starting XI has scored the most goals this season.

 

However there would also be a starting XI that has conceded the least amount of goals too. So it would depend on the style of play you want to achieve. 

 

 

I dont think stats should play too big a part in the starting XI unless it is to do with fitness and injuries.

 

Any other in game stats such as pass completion or successful dribbles are things that can be worked on on the training ground. 

 

 

That's just my opinion, im in no way saying that is correct. I just think if I was manager i wouldn't pick a team for Burnley based on which group have players statistically have won the most points. I think each game has different needs.

Exactly. The complexity of teams and the limited data also makes it virtually useless from what I've seen. The methods I've tried in the past whilst offering some food for thought, generally don't say much of much value. For example, our best left fullback for Nigel's era was rated as Jay McEveley (at the time of that particular analysis, which was at the end of 2011-12 if I recall), whilst Barker wasn't rated particularly highly. Another oddity that came out of such an analysis (this was last seasons if I recall) was that Ward, despite stunning form over some seasons, wasn't actually correlated with overall team performances as much as some would expect.

The issue really comes down to sample sizes though. Whole team stats by this points is in excess of 30 data points over a set that should average out quite nicely (that is, difficultly of opposition, injuries, poor form and good ol' fashion luck), but for players it's hard to get their "signal" out as players who appear most games become inseparable from the team as a whole, and players who have played less than say 20 matches could simply have played during a period of good form.

Ultimately I wouldn't even pick a team on such numbers even if they could be reliably calculated. When done right they can offer some interesting insights, but ultimately the variables, the difference in matches, opposition, injuries, form and team dynamics make it something of little to no value.

I agree in our case that all the preparation in the world would probably not made have made a difference. That was, as I eluded to, down to the incompetence of our management in assembling a competitive team.

 

I was using our 06/7 season as an example of how much additional preparation time would have been available with automatic promotion  vs. playoffs, in some cases it could be a lot more time or some seasons could be down to the last game.

 

Forgive me if I'm misreading your statistics but don't they show a 15% higher survival rate for automatically promoted teams? Could that not be seen as proof that longer preparation gives you a greater chance of survival?

 

Also I'm interested in how the the number of teams that came through the play-offs and survived compares with the number of automatically promoted 3rd placed teams that survived pre-playoffs. I don't know if you have that information but it would be interesting to juxtapose the two.

The key was the survival rate for 3rd being promoted (71%, which was higher than 1st and 2nd with automatic promotion), which also offers something to the argument that the playoffs are a bit cruel on a team that has clearly performed better over the season.

Going back to pre-playoff days would also be a bit of an odd thing to analyse, the world of football even going back to just the 90s was quite different, let alone back before the advent of the Premier League. The analysis used was back to as far back as the current system has been in place. Whilst it would be possible to compare such survival rates back then, I'm not sure what benefit it would really have as it would be like analysing a completely different country. It would be better suited comparing foreign leagues now in a more modern context (particularly money wise) and seeing what difference those different promotion methods have.

On those numbers for promoted teams by position though:

1st: 17 - 40.2 - 59%

2nd: 17 - 40.9 - 65%

3rd: 7 - 39.0 - 71%

All 7 of those examples of 3rd being promoted made it through the playoffs, and with 71% survival they did remarkably well, even better than 2nd and 1st placed teams in that regard, and only just worse by points. Keep in mind that our 07-08 season is in those 3rd statistic there. Without that season it would read:

1st: 17 - 40.2 - 59%

2nd: 17 - 40.9 - 65%

3rd: 6 - 43.7 - 83%

So a lot can be said of teams that are promoted from 3rd through the playoffs. Of course, there is some level of logic for a playoff system though, and that think those numbers bare it out. Whilst cup football isn't as popular as it once was, at least on the national scale, it certainly is a beast of its own. The way I always saw it was that league and cup football test two entirely different things for the most part, with the league being a test of consistency and endurance, and cups for a test of being able to rise to the occasion. There are in fact many countries that decide their `champions' by a post season playoff (particularly in the Americas, including South and Central), and at least in Australia, I've heard people argue for such a system because "Champions should be capable of rising to the occasion". Of course in Australia they don't have FA Cup style competitions in any sport to my knowledge (although the Football Federation of Australia recently announced a new FFA cup starting this year), so I guess those systems fill that void. I do know though that having Grand Final in the A-league (Australia's Association Football League) does divide opinion directly down these lines though, those who think that it's needed to be "true Champions" and those that think that the league stage should decide that on it's own.

Anyhow, back to the Championship, that test of "Champions Qualities" or "performance under pressure" in the playoffs seems to get a much better result out of teams who finish 3rd and actually push on and win it (and they tend to be most likely to win it), leading to even better performances in the Premier League than the teams who were automatically promoted. What's also interesting is that 2nd tends to perform better than 1st as well, which suggests that those last few matches to secure promotion might also be another test of those "Champions Qualities", as teams that fail to rise to the occasion in those late season battles would end up falling into the playoff spots, and ultimately going straight out (this may tie in with the 4th placed teams generally failing repeatedly in the playoffs). What's more is that whilst teams in 5th and 6th tend to perform much worse than 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the Premier League, those fighting qualities seem to come out somewhat in their average points totals, which are pretty much identical to 1st, 2nd and 3rd, it's simply that less teams tend to survive.

I don't know if any of that was the intention when the playoffs were brought in, or even if it is the reason for the better performances for 3rd placed teams that have been promoted, but it is another side of the argument, and the numbers do at least to an extent bare it out.

[Ewetube]

Exactly. The complexity of teams and the limited data also makes it virtually useless from what I've seen. The methods I've tried in the past whilst offering some food for thought, generally don't say much of much value. For example, our best left fullback for Nigel's era was rated as Jay McEveley (at the time of that particular analysis, which was at the end of 2011-12 if I recall), whilst Barker wasn't rated particularly highly. Another oddity that came out of such an analysis (this was last seasons if I recall) was that Ward, despite stunning form over some seasons, wasn't actually correlated with overall team performances as much as some would expect.

The issue really comes down to sample sizes though. Whole team stats by this points is in excess of 30 data points over a set that should average out quite nicely (that is, difficultly of opposition, injuries, poor form and good ol' fashion luck), but for players it's hard to get their "signal" out as players who appear most games become inseparable from the team as a whole, and players who have played less than say 20 matches could simply have played during a period of good form.

Ultimately I wouldn't even pick a team on such numbers even if they could be reliably calculated. When done right they can offer some interesting insights, but ultimately the variables, the difference in matches, opposition, injuries, form and team dynamics make it something of little to no value.

The key was the survival rate for 3rd being promoted (71%, which was higher than 1st and 2nd with automatic promotion), which also offers something to the argument that the playoffs are a bit cruel on a team that has clearly performed better over the season.

Going back to pre-playoff days would also be a bit of an odd thing to analyse, the world of football even going back to just the 90s was quite different, let alone back before the advent of the Premier League. The analysis used was back to as far back as the current system has been in place. Whilst it would be possible to compare such survival rates back then, I'm not sure what benefit it would really have as it would be like analysing a completely different country. It would be better suited comparing foreign leagues now in a more modern context (particularly money wise) and seeing what difference those different promotion methods have.

On those numbers for promoted teams by position though:

1st: 17 - 40.2 - 59%

2nd: 17 - 40.9 - 65%

3rd: 7 - 39.0 - 71%

All 7 of those examples of 3rd being promoted made it through the playoffs, and with 71% survival they did remarkably well, even better than 2nd and 1st placed teams in that regard, and only just worse by points. Keep in mind that our 07-08 season is in those 3rd statistic there. Without that season it would read:

1st: 17 - 40.2 - 59%

2nd: 17 - 40.9 - 65%

3rd: 6 - 43.7 - 83%

So a lot can be said of teams that are promoted from 3rd through the playoffs. Of course, there is some level of logic for a playoff system though, and that think those numbers bare it out. Whilst cup football isn't as popular as it once was, at least on the national scale, it certainly is a beast of its own. The way I always saw it was that league and cup football test two entirely different things for the most part, with the league being a test of consistency and endurance, and cups for a test of being able to rise to the occasion. There are in fact many countries that decide their `champions' by a post season playoff (particularly in the Americas, including South and Central), and at least in Australia, I've heard people argue for such a system because "Champions should be capable of rising to the occasion". Of course in Australia they don't have FA Cup style competitions in any sport to my knowledge (although the Football Federation of Australia recently announced a new FFA cup starting this year), so I guess those systems fill that void. I do know though that having Grand Final in the A-league (Australia's Association Football League) does divide opinion directly down these lines though, those who think that it's needed to be "true Champions" and those that think that the league stage should decide that on it's own.

Anyhow, back to the Championship, that test of "Champions Qualities" or "performance under pressure" in the playoffs seems to get a much better result out of teams who finish 3rd and actually push on and win it (and they tend to be most likely to win it), leading to even better performances in the Premier League than the teams who were automatically promoted. What's also interesting is that 2nd tends to perform better than 1st as well, which suggests that those last few matches to secure promotion might also be another test of those "Champions Qualities", as teams that fail to rise to the occasion in those late season battles would end up falling into the playoff spots, and ultimately going straight out (this may tie in with the 4th placed teams generally failing repeatedly in the playoffs). What's more is that whilst teams in 5th and 6th tend to perform much worse than 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the Premier League, those fighting qualities seem to come out somewhat in their average points totals, which are pretty much identical to 1st, 2nd and 3rd, it's simply that less teams tend to survive.

I don't know if any of that was the intention when the playoffs were brought in, or even if it is the reason for the better performances for 3rd placed teams that have been promoted, but it is another side of the argument, and the numbers do at least to an extent bare it out.

 

Thanks for your reply, Albert.

 

I take your point about football being a different beast today; it could be argued that every season is a slightly different beast to the preceding seasons making every year to a certain extent a "one-off". My comment about juxtoposing 17 years of playoffs vs. pre-playoffs was a "just for the fun of it" thing. I wouldn't have expected any meaningful conclusions to be reached.

 

I really appreciate the work you do in producing the stats and always find it an interesting read. Keep up the good work!