Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
ITS OF ALL TIME!!!
"look we're above chelsea"
and in the spirit of that
LOOK WE'RE ABOVE CHELSEA
Official proof: Tottenham not much better than Leyton Orient.
Also Bury at 21? Grimsby at 23? Didn't expect that...
Therefore a team that's consistently finished high in Division Four would be higher than a team that's consistently finished low in Division One. I reckon.
That was rather stupid of me...
How the fuck would be in the all-time Premier League?
Guess it's 'cos we've spend a lot of time as one of the better teams in the third division...
Because Man City have earned more points than Spurs.
doesn't really mean much though as our 1st ever year in the top flight was only 3 years ago. Still, it's nice to be above Spurs, West Ham and Swindon
so few games though?
not too shabby!
I hope you are happy managers post-Kenny pre-Rafa.
Surely disadvantageous to successful premiership-era clubs isn't it?
If a team got 2 points for a win pre 1981 and 3 post 1981, then it should be reflected in that table.
i'm sure most of the top team have played Man U more than the middle teams for example.
Just factually incorrect. If teams haven't got 2 points for a win since 1981, why have they been given 2 points for winning since then.
I'm not trying to start a pointless argument btw, I'd just be interested to see how the '3 points for a win' rule would affect the table.
"Although three points have been awarded for a win since the 1981/82 season, here the old 2-1-0 system has been used throughout, because in an all-time table it would be unfair to consider a win during the 3-1-0 system worth more points than a win during the 2-1-0 system."
But still, it seems daft to leave it at 2 points for a win.
we're about 50 goals in front of Aston Villa
oh well, paul lambert is the man to take us into the 70s
I like that table :D
Much higher then I thought we would be, hell we are one place above Leeds!