Define what a mid table team is

[MOBIUS]

This thread obviously applies to all sports using league tables.

Surely in any sport you heard the term “This is a mid table team”, or a “Relegation Battler” (i.e. usually finishes in the lower third of the table) or a “Consistently good team” (i.e. usually finishes in the upper third of the table), or whatever the description of a team in relation to where it is usually found in relation to league tables…

What I am interested in is: what are the accepted parameters in defining how these terms are applied?

For example, what is a ‘consistently good team’? How far back do you have to go to define its consistency?

If a team consistently finished in the upper third of a league, surely that qualifies? But how far back are we allowed to look for this consistency? Say it was always finishing in the top third of the league more than a decade ago, but in the last ten years had only been finishing mid table – would it then still be considered a consistently good team?

Or would it be called a ‘mid table team’? How about a decade, is that too long when judging the consistency of a team with relation to its usual placings in a league, or should we only take the last 5 years?

Just curious.

[Cort Haus]

It has to go by fairly recent form IMO, especially using the word 'team', which implies a group of players, rather than 'club' which would refer to a longer history.

I voted 5 years.

[Cort Haus]

Of course in some parts of the world they use the dreaded word 'franchise'. And don't get me started on the abuse of the word 'squad'.

[Maquiladora]

I voted up to 5.

[Asher]

The set of midfielders in foosball?

[Joe Kick Ass]

5 years at most IMO, recognising CH's point.

And now I'll define Newcastle fans: f*cking morons.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Of course in some parts of the world they use the dreaded word 'franchise'.

That dreaded word best describes clubs in some areas of the world where the club system Europe enjoys with UEFA at the top doesn't apply.

We're not all filthy urchins scrabbling through the rubble with a soccer team for every 5,000 people.

We play hockey. Some of our deluded cousins prefer baseball.

It's all we can manage to have 20 or so teams some of which may be worthy of being called professional.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Joe Kick Ass
5 years at most IMO, recognising CH's point.

And now I'll define Newcastle fans: f*cking morons.

Sorry sunshine, but you can't choose where you were born, brought up, or who your parents support.

Or are you a scum fan "commuting" by any chance?

[Agathon]

Of course voting on it makes all the difference, especially given the vested interests in this thread.

Of course it's just a game of "cherry pick the stats". Mobius has changed his mind as to what's to count already, because he already got owned 3 times, which shows how seriously he takes this.

The last 5 years

2002-3 = 3rd place.
2003-4 = 5th place.
2004-5 = 14th place.
2005-6 = 7th place.
2006-7 = 13th place

At most we're inconsistent between the top third and the middle third (and that's if you round down). At best, we finish more often in the top third.

Thanks for playing though.

[MOBIUS]

Hah, you're funny...

"Everyone else is wrong but me and my DL"

Nobody else thinks the way you do because you are flat out wrong and yet you refuse to see it. The last 5 years average a solid 8.4 (including an appearance in the bottom third of the table!), which is well inside mid table performance.

Newcastle haven't won the league in 80 years and haven't even won a trophy in almost 40 - how on Earth you can call that a top table performance is hilarious...