The table doesn't lie

[AlFayedsChequebook]

I have heard this uttered a lot over the last few weeks as we have sat at or near the bottom of the table.

But how true is it? Surely the table does not lie at the end of the season, when everyone has played everyone else twice home and away.

At the moment, we only have a small sample, where some clubs have had much harder fixtures than others (Bolton have played the top 4 in their first 6 games).

So maybe the table does lie, until all the games are played when it becomes 'the truth'

[elgreenio]

I recall it lies until the end of the 10th game

[richie17]

Honestly, 38 games aren't enough.  They play 162 in baseball and that isn't enough.  What 38 games does is give you a fair snapshot of what happened in 38 games.  It's not enough time to prove quality or otherwise.  Too much randomness, which I've given up talking about because people won't have it.  But football's full of randomness and it doesn't really even itself out at all.

[aFFCn_Fan]

It's like in business. The figures in the balance sheet don't lie....well unless you're Enron. But they also don't give the full picture.

[Burt]

All these things need to be taken with the context of where you are in the season, and how tight things are.

For example, the table shows that we are 3 points from 10th spot.

[jarv]

I am with Mr. ALF on this. Bolton have played the top teams. I was expecting 10 points from our first 6, all winnable games.
However, Balckburn, Swansea, Norwich and Bolton are all rubbish. QPR and Sunderland will have trouble scoring. I just don't want to see us back down there hoping there are at least 3 teams worse than Fulham. (After the 3 great seasons we have had).

[BalDrick]

I recall it lies until the end of the 10th game

That is, I believe, the accepted wisdom. However, it's only at one point does it actually matter, and that's after a further 28 games.

I'll start a poll on where we'll finish shall I?

[Lighthouse]

After 19 games we can begin to panic and say the table really doesn't lie. Right now though we have to admit that it is not the table but the way we have played. We can all see the problem. We create plenty until we reach the penalty area. Our play doesn't lie whatever the table says.

[Blingo]

It's like in business. The figures in the balance sheet don't lie....well unless you're Enron. But they also don't give the full picture.

Which set of books are you quoting from. The accountant#s, the tax man's, or yours? lol.

[finnster01]

It's like in business. The figures in the balance sheet don't lie....well unless you're Enron. But they also don't give the full picture.

Which set of books are you quoting from. The accountant#s, the tax man's, or yours? lol.

064.gif

[MJG]

As a snapshot last season here are the positions after 13 games and then where they finished in the table:

13th Game pos  (final position) Change
1: Chelsea         (2) -1
2: Arsenal          (4) -2
3: Man Utd        (1) +2
4: Man City       (4) N/C
5: Bolton          (14) -9
6: Sunderland   (10) -4
7: Spurs           (5)  +2
8: Newcastle    (12) -4
9: Villa            (9) N/C
10: Stoke        (13) -3
11: Liverpool    (6) +5
12: WBA          (11) +1
13: Everton      (7) +6
14: Blackburn   (15) -1
15: Blackpool   (19) -4
16: Fulham      (8) +8
17: Wigan       (16) +1
18: Birmingham (18) N/C
19: Wolves      (17) +2
20 West Ham    (20) N/C

We were the biggest positive movers and Bolton the worst but all in all things did not change that much from what we saw after 13 games.

[BalDrick]

As a snapshot last season here are the positions after 13 games and then where they finished in the table:

13th Game pos  (final position) Change
1: Chelsea         (2) -1
2: Arsenal          (4) -2
3: Man Utd        (1) +2
4: Man City       (4) N/C
5: Bolton          (14) -9
6: Sunderland   (10) -4
7: Spurs           (5)  +2
8: Newcastle    (12) -4
9: Villa            (9) N/C
10: Stoke        (13) -3
11: Liverpool    (6) +5
12: WBA          (11) +1
13: Everton      (7) +6
14: Blackburn   (15) -1
15: Blackpool   (19) -4
16: Fulham      (8) +8
17: Wigan       (16) +1
18: Birmingham (18) N/C
19: Wolves      (17) +2
20 West Ham    (20) N/C

We were the biggest positive movers and Bolton the worst but all in all things did not change that much from what we saw after 13 games.

Not that I'm remotely concerned we'll be relegated, but interesting to see 2 of the 3 who went were in the bottom 3 already. Can't really remember but don't think WHU got out of the bottom 3 all season did they, except possibly between Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon once or twice.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

As a snapshot last season here are the positions after 13 games and then where they finished in the table:

13th Game pos  (final position) Change
1: Chelsea         (2) -1
2: Arsenal          (4) -2
3: Man Utd        (1) +2
4: Man City       (4) N/C
5: Bolton          (14) -9
6: Sunderland   (10) -4
7: Spurs           (5)  +2
8: Newcastle    (12) -4
9: Villa            (9) N/C
10: Stoke        (13) -3
11: Liverpool    (6) +5
12: WBA          (11) +1
13: Everton      (7) +6
14: Blackburn   (15) -1
15: Blackpool   (19) -4
16: Fulham      (8) +8
17: Wigan       (16) +1
18: Birmingham (18) N/C
19: Wolves      (17) +2
20 West Ham    (20) N/C

We were the biggest positive movers and Bolton the worst but all in all things did not change that much from what we saw after 13 games.

Not that I'm remotely concerned we'll be relegated, but interesting to see 2 of the 3 who went were in the bottom 3 already. Can't really remember but don't think WHU got out of the bottom 3 all season did they, except possibly between Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon once or twice.

Didn't they get out of the bottom three when they beat us on boxing day?

[Logicalman]

You're right, the table doesn't lie, never does, figures are figures, can't dispute them (unless your name is Arsene), but then again, unless someone has found a way to convert CERNs discovery of things that goes faster than light into some kind of time travel into the future, nobody can predict anything like who will be relegated with any certainty whatsoever. 

God forbid, the refs actually continue enforcing this long-overdue policy of actually booking dirty players, then we might see chickens coming home to roost and the likes of the Pulis and McCarthy boot boys actually get a few well-deserved bans, and the corresponding loss of points.

There's only four things that are certain in this lifetime, Death, taxes, someone on here being able to predict this seasons  results with any accuracy, and my getting it on with Tina Fey!!!!

[Rambling_Syd_Rumpo]

I have heard this uttered a lot over the last few weeks as we have sat at or near the bottom of the table.

But how true is it? Surely the table does not lie at the end of the season, when everyone has played everyone else twice home and away.

At the moment, we only have a small sample, where some clubs have had much harder fixtures than others (Bolton have played the top 4 in their first 6 games).

So maybe the table does lie, until all the games are played when it becomes 'the truth'

in my eyes the table doesn't even count until mid November,that's when things start settling down and you a a clear picture of things 092.gif

[RidgeRider]

Honestly, 38 games aren't enough.  They play 162 in baseball and that isn't enough.  What 38 games does is give you a fair snapshot of what happened in 38 games.  It's not enough time to prove quality or otherwise.  Too much randomness, which I've given up talking about because people won't have it.  But football's full of randomness and it doesn't really even itself out at all.

I agree on the randomness. Own goals, amazing one-off strikes and scoring against the run of play often doesn't tell the real story of quality but does help some teams, win or draw matches.

Seems to me we've been here before with both Hodgson and Hughes and now with Jol and we have always come out of it....new system, new season, new players (older players), new ideas, new manager, new statue, new third kit............notice I didn't mention Sanchez.

[nevzter]

Honestly, 38 games aren't enough.  They play 162 in baseball and that isn't enough.  What 38 games does is give you a fair snapshot of what happened in 38 games.  It's not enough time to prove quality or otherwise.  Too much randomness, which I've given up talking about because people won't have it.  But football's full of randomness and it doesn't really even itself out at all.

I agree on the randomness. Own goals, amazing one-off strikes and scoring against the run of play often doesn't tell the real story of quality but does help some teams, win or draw matches.

Seems to me we've been here before with both Hodgson and Hughes and now with Jol and we have always come out of it....new system, new season, new players (older players), new ideas, new manager, new statue, new third kit............notice I didn't mention Sanchez.

...but it's a shame that you didn't mention Shefki Kuqi either.