World Football Thread XVIII: The Beckham has Landed

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Agathon

Normal people divide the league into top, middle and bottom thirds. That's what "middle" means.

Yes, thirds. Exactly.

There are 20 teams in the Premiership, if you divide that number by 3 (top, middle & bottom) you get 6.66666 etc...

Now, forget my figures cos obviously I'm biased, we'll use yours...

1993-4 = 3rd place.
1994-5 = 6th place.
1995-6 = 2nd place.
1996-7 = 2nd place.
1997-8 = 13th place.
1998-9 = 13th place.
1999-0 = 11th place.
2000-1 = 11th place.
2001-2 = 4th place.
2002-3 = 3rd place.
2003-4 = 5th place.
2004-5 = 14th place.
2005-6 = 7th place.
2006-7 = 13th place.

OK, here's the clever bit, they're called 'averages'...

Basically what you do is add all the placings together (107) and divide this figure by the number of seasons (14) and, hey presto, you get the average...

Er 7.64 BTW...

Or, comfortably mid table...

If we take the last decade then it's more like 9.4...

Why not take the last five years? Then it would be 3 top third finishes and 2 mid table finishes.

8.4

Oh my gosh!

Not... Mid Table...

At least taking all seasons in the PL is complete and fairly recent. You are just picking what suits you because you were so ****ing wrong.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

[bull**** redacted]

I didn't realize you were such an idiot.

According to you, if a team played three seasons in the PL, won the premiership twice and then the next season finished in last place and were relegated, they would be a mid table team, despite never having finished in mid table.

Thanks for being so easy to own.

[MOBIUS]

Yes, but we're not talking only three seasons...

In fact you’re the one who wanted to use what is in effect ancient history when it comes to recent form – I have comprehensively shown in black and white that using your own figures of 14 years on average you are a mid table team – plain and simple…

Your team has been in the bottom half of the table almost as much as it has in the top for chrissakes!

We can use the last three seasons for Newcastle if you want…?

You are mid table and there is nothing you can do to wriggle out of it – in fact claiming you’ve owned me after I’ve provided indisputable figures showing Newcastle are a mid table team just heaps even more egg on your face.

Not to mention the fact that frankly your scenario is absurd because you are asking us to believe that a team like Arsenal, Chelsea or Man U could actually win the Premiership one year and then get relegated the next…

Just give up on this one and quit while you’re behind.

[Agathon]

You were wrong. Accept it.

A mid table team is one that finishes more often in the middle third of the table than it does in the top or bottom third. "Mid table" indicates the frequency a team ends up in the middle of the table, and not an average of it's results. After all we wouldn't say that a team that won the championship two seasons out of four would be less than a championship team because the average of its results would place it lower than first place.

If a team finished in the bottom third half the time and in the top third the other half of the time, we would correctly call it an "inconsistent" side. No-one would call it a mid table team, because it would have never finished in the middle third of the table. Only a ****** would call it a mid table team.

I'm sorry that logic is so hard for you to follow.

Besides, we are the 5th placed team in PL history, both in total points and points per game. That's hardly mediocrity. Far better than a poor side like West Ham, who can't even attract a decent number of fans.

[MOBIUS]

7 top table finishes (mostly middle) compared to 6 mid table finishes (all low) and one bottom table finish (high) is hardly a statistically significant ‘top table’ performance…

Anyway, you cannot really get away with talking about the current performance of a team when you insist of using data over ten years old.

You are a mid table team.

You can be a fairly inconsistent mid table team (last five years (2/2/1)), or you can be a solidly mid table team (last ten years (3/6/1)) but you are still mid table!.

I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but even then you’re still only an upper mid table performer – all the more so in that Newcastle hasn’t even won the title during this time (let alone a cup)…

And none of these figures even take into account your current league position of 11th after more than half of the season… *cough* *cough* Mid Table *cough* *cough*

[Agathon]

How can a team be classed as a mid table team when they more often finish in the top third? The rational thing to say would be that they are a team that wavers between the top third and mid table, which is not the same as saying they are a consistently mid table team.

A consistently mid table team would have, say, 6 mid table finishes, 1 bottom third finish and a top third finish.

Game over, Moby. 3-0 win and a hat trick to Agathon.

[Cort Haus]

The barcodes used to be a top third team. Now they're a mid-table team. (see my contribution to the other thread)

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Agathon
A consistently mid table team would have, say, 6 mid table finishes, 1 bottom third finish and a top third finish.

Like the last ten years for example.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me, it was a struggle but we got there in the end...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Like the last ten years for example.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me, it was a struggle but we got there in the end...

You know, you really are a ****ing idiot.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The barcodes used to be a top third team. Now they're a mid-table team. (see my contribution to the other thread)

Except that since we made it into Europe 3 of the last 5 years, you are wrong by your own account. You can argue whether 7th place counts as mid table or not (rounding up or down), but even the other way that makes us an inconsistent team rather than a mid table team.

Thanks for playing though (unlike our lot bothered to do today).

[*End Is Forever*]

You're not a big club, you haven't won a trophy in over three decades.

[duke o' york]

Well tonight should have been 1-1 to be fair to both sides, but then Mike Riley never is, is he?

[Cort Haus]

What shall we call the next thread?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll let someone else do it... but you only have a limited amount of time (ie, posts) .

[MOBIUS]

I think Duke o York’s comment about a game Newcastle lost 6-0 is a good title…

Originally posted by duke o' york
Well tonight should have been 1-1 to be fair to both sides, but then Mike Riley never is, is he?

It shows how deluded Toon fans are when they think a 6-0 result should only have been 1-1…