This board.

[Woolly Mammoth]

"All ifs and buts, but the bare truth is, Fulham won 3 2, whether you like it or not. "

I'm a big fan of it  049:gif

"I am currently more interested in what I am going to eat today, so much more to think about, and by the way do you know there is a war going on."

You do have 20k posts though  :005:

Yes, and well earned, I have a massive appetite of Biblical Proportions, and the fact is that we win 3 2, collecting maximum points, which not everyone was convinced we would, but we did and there is still discontent in the ranks. I am now off down the pie and mash shop for a snack. I'll be back.

[FFC1987]

Ah ok, I missed that. Makes more sense. I won't be changing my verdict at the end of the year from whether we finish top 2 or not as being underachieving. The exception and objective is top 2.

[The Rational Fan]

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but we're Fulham and not Real Madrid/Man City. We'll win some games, we'll lose some. We don't have a god given right to walk this league, nor should we win every game we play. The table doesn't lie, we are where we should be.

Also, sorry but Real Madrid/Man City is exactly what we are in this division. Going into this season Real Madrid were the second favourites to win La Liga and we were the second favourites to win the Championship. "The table doesn't lie" is one of most outrageous lies in football - a throwaway comment that doesn't stand up to any half-thoughtful scrutiny.

Wait what? Your position in the table literally is what you deserve and doesn't lie though. More context can be added but ultimately, your still inthe same position in the table whether you've scraped yourself there with grit, been unlucky, played teams off the park but haven't taken chances, or just had a mixture of bad referee decisions that cost you points. Its still exactly where you should be for overcoming/not overcoming various obstacles thrown your way.

The OP is reasoning that we should base our expectations on where we are in the table, ie, "the table doesn't lie" about the inherent ability of our team. That implies no team can ever underachieve or overachieve. The same approach would mean, for example, that Leicester only won the PL because they had the best squad, nothing special about it and no special credit is due to their manager or players. Or that we could fall to 24th and it would simply mean we have the 24th worst squad in the league, so no one could criticise Parker. Etc etc.

Of course, "the table doesn't lie" in terms of recording the official wins, draws & losses, but that is not how the express is normally used. If "The table doesn't lie" is used to mean "all truth is contained in the table", then it clever a linguistic trick to imply something untrue. The table doesn't show "poor refereeing decisions such as the Hand of God", it doesn't show "who would have won those games if played again" and many other things.

The "collective ability of a team to play as a team" is best measured by the teams results, but the "inherent ability of the individuals in a team" is most accurately measured by "player valuations" (i.e. what players can be sold for) as transfermarkt estimates. Transfermarkt estimates FFC's squad of players are estimated to be worth £119m, QPR's squad of players are estimated to  be worth £32m and Charlton's squad of players are estimated to be worth £16m.

"The table" could be translated at below.
QPR - £32m of players (minus injuries and -ve luck) plus qpr teamwork gives 23 points.
Fulham - £119m of players (minus injuries and -ve luck) plus fulham teamwork gives 22 points.
Charlton - £16m of players (minus injuries and -ve luck) plus charlton teamwork  gives 21 points.

"The table doesn't lie" is normally used to discount the effects of luck, so clearly teamwork is our biggest problem or am i missing something?

[Dr Quinzel]

The table doesn't lie after 46 games. Dont think that can be argued. For now... it is only telling the story so far.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[RaySmith]

You're speaking of different tables TRF.

The league table is the  bottom line - the number of points gained, and that is what everything is judged on, success and failure, promotion and  relegation.

It doesn't matter if  that  one point that sees  you going down, or up, or that one goal goal difference, are due to bad luck, bad refereeing, or injury- it's the objective measure, the one goes into the record books.

[The Rational Fan]

The table doesn't lie after 46 games. Dont think that can be argued. For now... it is only telling the story so far.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

It can be argued that the table does lie after 46 games, because refereeing decisions result in mistakes in the table.

Here is the Premier League Table of 2018/19 adjusted by ESPN for refereeing mistakes.

https://www.espnluckindex.com/adjusted-tables/

Note, ESPN estimates Fulham lost 5 points due to refereeing mistakes and we should of finished ahead of Cardiff and Brighton.

[Sting of the North]

In my opinion the table can definitely lie also if we are talking about how well teams have played. Or are we otherwise saying that it is impossible to get more or less than you deserve in a single given game? You can have 2 stone wall penalties denied, hit the woodwork 6 times and lose to a single offside goal which happened to be the opponents only attempt all game. Would the points reflect the performances then? 

More games should of course likely give a more accurate picture, whereas less games played would give a less accurate picture as with all samples. After 13 games the table is likely lying in so far that all teams are probably not placed where they deserve to be based on the performances put in. After 46 games the table is likely to more accurately reflect the performances of the teams, but there will likely still be teams whose performances is not reflected fairly, for good or bad. We will of course never be able to actually prove it though, because statistics are not advanced enough to tell the complete picture of a very complex game (complex in the sense of there being so many variables in so many situations).

The solution is of course to perform well enough so that even a decent chunk of bad luck will not stop you from reaching your goals. If you can also have lady luck on your side from time to time then everything will be peachy. 

[Woolly Mammoth]

The table doesn't lie after 46 games. Dont think that can be argued. For now... it is only telling the story so far.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

It can be argued that the table does lie after 46 games, because refereeing decisions result in mistakes in the table.

Here is the Premier League Table of 2018/19 adjusted by ESPN for refereeing mistakes.

https://www.espnluckindex.com/adjusted-tables/

Note, ESPN estimates Fulham lost 5 points due to refereeing mistakes and we should of finished ahead of Cardiff and Brighton.

Luck is an explanation for someone else's success.

[FFC1987]

In my opinion the table can definitely lie also if we are talking about how well teams have played. Or are we otherwise saying that it is impossible to get more or less than you deserve in a single given game? You can have 2 stone wall penalties denied, hit the woodwork 6 times and lose to a single offside goal which happened to be the opponents only attempt all game. Would the points reflect the performances then? 

More games should of course likely give a more accurate picture, whereas less games played would give a less accurate picture as with all samples. After 13 games the table is likely lying in so far that all teams are probably not placed where they deserve to be based on the performances put in. After 46 games the table is likely to more accurately reflect the performances of the teams, but there will likely still be teams whose performances is not reflected fairly, for good or bad. We will of course never be able to actually prove it though, because statistics are not advanced enough to tell the complete picture of a very complex game (complex in the sense of there being so many variables in so many situations).

The solution is of course to perform well enough so that even a decent chunk of bad luck will not stop you from reaching your goals. If you can also have lady luck on your side from time to time then everything will be peachy.

It really doesn't. The 'hidden' reasons like ref decisions etc are just obstacles. Feeling hard done by after a match you've played really well in normally as basic things done wrong. Poor finishing. Bad defensive errors. Poor refereeing decisions. Bad tactics. Etc. In a nutshell, you're presented with challenges and you either overcome them and get what you deserve, or don't, and get what you deserve. I think one becomes simply an apologist or superstitious if you feel 'bad luck' is merely whats holding back a team especially over the long run. Regardless of the short term, or the long term, you're still where you are on merit unless we get a tin foil hat on and blame corruption. The table really doesn't lie. It's a snapshot. 

[The Rational Fan]

The table doesn't lie after 46 games. Dont think that can be argued. For now... it is only telling the story so far.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

It can be argued that the table does lie after 46 games, because refereeing decisions result in mistakes in the table.

Here is the Premier League Table of 2018/19 adjusted by ESPN for refereeing mistakes.

https://www.espnluckindex.com/adjusted-tables/

Note, ESPN estimates Fulham lost 5 points due to refereeing mistakes and we should of finished ahead of Cardiff and Brighton.

Luck is an explanation for someone else's success.

Diego Maradona agrees that getting bad refereeing decisions to go your way is not luck, it takes years of practice to be a highly skilled master of the handball that paid off in games against both England and Soviet Union.

[Sting of the North]

In my opinion the table can definitely lie also if we are talking about how well teams have played. Or are we otherwise saying that it is impossible to get more or less than you deserve in a single given game? You can have 2 stone wall penalties denied, hit the woodwork 6 times and lose to a single offside goal which happened to be the opponents only attempt all game. Would the points reflect the performances then? 

More games should of course likely give a more accurate picture, whereas less games played would give a less accurate picture as with all samples. After 13 games the table is likely lying in so far that all teams are probably not placed where they deserve to be based on the performances put in. After 46 games the table is likely to more accurately reflect the performances of the teams, but there will likely still be teams whose performances is not reflected fairly, for good or bad. We will of course never be able to actually prove it though, because statistics are not advanced enough to tell the complete picture of a very complex game (complex in the sense of there being so many variables in so many situations).

The solution is of course to perform well enough so that even a decent chunk of bad luck will not stop you from reaching your goals. If you can also have lady luck on your side from time to time then everything will be peachy.

It really doesn't. The 'hidden' reasons like ref decisions etc are just obstacles. Feeling hard done by after a match you've played really well in normally as basic things done wrong. Poor finishing. Bad defensive errors. Poor refereeing decisions. Bad tactics. Etc. In a nutshell, you're presented with challenges and you either overcome them and get what you deserve, or don't, and get what you deserve. I think one becomes simply an apologist or superstitious if you feel 'bad luck' is merely whats holding back a team especially over the long run. Regardless of the short term, or the long term, you're still where you are on merit unless we get a tin foil hat on and blame corruption. The table really doesn't lie. It's a snapshot.

The table accurately presents how many points (and goals etc) a team has accrued at that point, nothing else. Just because that is the way it has been decided that the success of football matches are determined doesn't mean that it is flawless (but probably better than any alternatives). Unless you believe that not one single instance in any football match can be in any way down to luck or bad luck, then there is always the possibility that luck (or maybe better to call it chance) factor into the position in the table. The table never show performance, but outcome.

Over time, as I also stated, performance and place in the table should be fairly close to each other. None of this has anything to do with tin foil hats, nor does it have to have something to do with corruption (but it could).   

[FFC1987]

In my opinion the table can definitely lie also if we are talking about how well teams have played. Or are we otherwise saying that it is impossible to get more or less than you deserve in a single given game? You can have 2 stone wall penalties denied, hit the woodwork 6 times and lose to a single offside goal which happened to be the opponents only attempt all game. Would the points reflect the performances then? 

More games should of course likely give a more accurate picture, whereas less games played would give a less accurate picture as with all samples. After 13 games the table is likely lying in so far that all teams are probably not placed where they deserve to be based on the performances put in. After 46 games the table is likely to more accurately reflect the performances of the teams, but there will likely still be teams whose performances is not reflected fairly, for good or bad. We will of course never be able to actually prove it though, because statistics are not advanced enough to tell the complete picture of a very complex game (complex in the sense of there being so many variables in so many situations).

The solution is of course to perform well enough so that even a decent chunk of bad luck will not stop you from reaching your goals. If you can also have lady luck on your side from time to time then everything will be peachy.

It really doesn't. The 'hidden' reasons like ref decisions etc are just obstacles. Feeling hard done by after a match you've played really well in normally as basic things done wrong. Poor finishing. Bad defensive errors. Poor refereeing decisions. Bad tactics. Etc. In a nutshell, you're presented with challenges and you either overcome them and get what you deserve, or don't, and get what you deserve. I think one becomes simply an apologist or superstitious if you feel 'bad luck' is merely whats holding back a team especially over the long run. Regardless of the short term, or the long term, you're still where you are on merit unless we get a tin foil hat on and blame corruption. The table really doesn't lie. It's a snapshot.

The table accurately presents how many points (and goals etc) a team has accrued at that point, nothing else. Just because that is the way it has been decided that the success of football matches are determined doesn't mean that it is flawless (but probably better than any alternatives). Unless you believe that not one single instance in any football match can be in any way down to luck or bad luck, then there is always the possibility that luck (or maybe better to call it chance) factor into the position in the table. The table never show performance, but outcome.

Over time, as I also stated, performance and place in the table should be fairly close to each other. None of this has anything to do with tin foil hats, nor does it have to have something to do with corruption (but it could).

But it doesn't lie. You sign up to the game knowing how to win. You sign up to the league, knowing the structure of how to win and you collect your points in each match you play and its presented on a table. Football can be a cruel game as the old saying goes, but unless you believe in luck over reality/skill, the table can not lie. Its just an apologists game to pretend otherwise. Sure you can add context 'the right back scored a 40 yard top bins volley, he hasn't scored a goal in 150 games....just our luck' but ultimately, theres 89+ minutes to do something about that. As I said, its usually always down to poor finishing, poor defending determining a game result, not luck, refs, etc.

The bottom line is, the table doesn't lie. Its a reflection of all the games played and your ability to beat other teams. We're 7th, 2 points off automatic in a pack all going for it. I think that's about fair enough considering how inconsistent we've been.

[Sting of the North]

Yes, everybody knows the rules, and that you win by scoring more goals than the opponent. No one as far as I can see has argued otherwise. Further, nothing I have written in this discussion has anything whatsoever to do with apologizing or pretending. 

However, as I said the table shows points. It doesn't show performances. Nor does it show squad quality.  So, if the discussion is about how many points we have, then the table is the way to go. If the discussion is about our performances, then the table is still a good addition to the discussion, but more context is needed. It doesn't mean that the table and the performances cannot correspond, and in the long run they are very likely to do just that.

But, unless we are talking solely about points, then "the table doesn't lie" is just one of those sayings that adds little to the discussion. But if we were only talking about points we would never need to have any discussions on here in the first place I guess, because the table is easy enough to read and not very fun to discuss after the fact.

[FFC1987]

Yes, everybody knows the rules, and that you win by scoring more goals than the opponent. No one as far as I can see has argued otherwise. Further, nothing I have written in this discussion has anything whatsoever to do with apologizing or pretending. 

However, as I said the table shows points. It doesn't show performances. Nor does it show squad quality.  So, if the discussion is about how many points we have, then the table is the way to go. If the discussion is about our performances, then the table is still a good addition to the discussion, but more context is needed. It doesn't mean that the table and the performances cannot correspond, and in the long run they are very likely to do just that.

But, unless we are talking solely about points, then "the table doesn't lie" is just one of those sayings that adds little to the discussion. But if we were only talking about points we would never need to have any discussions on here in the first place I guess, because the table is easy enough to read and not very fun to discuss after the fact.

Not really. The table itself is literally about points hence why it doesn't 'lie'. Talking about performances, individuals is great but I just don't accept the points system 'lies' seeing how straight forward in concept it is.

[toshes mate]

Semantics apart, the table is what league football is all about, and every version of a league table accounts for all that has gone on before according to implicit rules about how the table is to be constructed and maintained.  Twenty two plus fallible people combine in a series of events instanty judged by a number of other fallible people for every game to be played in the league.  At any point in a game events and judgements conspire to influence the final result until time is called. The table is the final product to which a smallish minority will embrace very rapidly whilst a largish majority will argue this, that and the other to prove how unfair the table rules they understood from the beginning are.  The table cannot lie because it is written according to rules but perhaps it can fail to give us the whole truth.  But then what could give us that whole truth and satisfy everybody equally? 

[Statto]

Feeling hard done by after a match you've played really well in normally as basic things done wrong. Poor finishing. Bad defensive errors. Poor refereeing decisions. Bad tactics. Etc.

Not sure poor refereeing decisions are something you've "done wrong". Those decisions are largely beyond your control. If a ref's poor decisions cause you to lose a game you would otherwise have won, the league table is misleading because it doesn't reflect that.

Similarly, what if the opposition's best player gets suspended or injured just before you play them? That's surely likely to improve your chances of winning, and yet, you've done nothing to deserve that advantage.

FWIW I'm inclined to agree with SotN that a broad range of factors, such as hitting the woodwork 6 times, affect whether you deserve to win or lose, but I sympathise with your counter-argument that hitting the woodwork, for example, could in fact be treated as your own poor finishing.

However, I think it irrefutable that certain factors, such as poor refereeing decisions and the availability of key players, are pure luck, and totally beyond your control. 

I should reiterate that all this debate about where a team "deserves" to be is different to the point I originally made. The OP was a gripe about our expectations on "This board", and my point was that the current table doesn't determine how well fans can reasonably expect their team to be doing based on the inherent ability of their players.

[Woolly Mammoth]

The table doesn't lie after 46 games. Dont think that can be argued. For now... it is only telling the story so far.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I can confirm that The League Table does not lie, as it has been given an official Lie Detector test, and past with flying colours, not even a hint of any lies, not even a tiny dot, the Championship League Table is clean.

[Woolly Mammoth]

The table doesn't lie after 46 games. Dont think that can be argued. For now... it is only telling the story so far.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

It can be argued that the table does lie after 46 games, because refereeing decisions result in mistakes in the table.

Here is the Premier League Table of 2018/19 adjusted by ESPN for refereeing mistakes.

https://www.espnluckindex.com/adjusted-tables/

Note, ESPN estimates Fulham lost 5 points due to refereeing mistakes and we should of finished ahead of Cardiff and Brighton.

Luck is an explanation for someone else's success.

Diego Maradona agrees that getting bad refereeing decisions to go your way is not luck, it takes years of practice to be a highly skilled master of the handball that paid off in games against both England and Soviet Union.

He wears that as a badge of honour which shows what a sawn off corrupt little runt he is. He should be ashamed of himself, but sniffing the white stuff has made him think he is a legend in his own mind.
If he had any decency and was a gentleman, he would have taken a bottle of whisky and a loaded revolver and found an empty room.
He will get his comeuppance in this life or the next. 

[FFC1987]

Feeling hard done by after a match you've played really well in normally as basic things done wrong... Poor refereeing decisions.

Not sure poor refereeing decisions are something you've "done wrong". Those decisions are beyond your control and you're at their mercy. If a ref's poor decisions cause you to lose a game you would otherwise have won, the league table is misleading because it doesn't reflect that.

Similarly, what if the opposition's best player gets suspended or injured just before you play them? That's surely likely to improve your chances of winning, and yet, you've done nothing to deserve that advantage.

FWIW I'm inclined to agree with SotN that a broad range of factors, such as hitting the woodwork 6 times, affect whether you deserve to win or lose, but I sympathise with your counter-argument that hitting the woodwork, for example, could in fact be treated as your own poor finishing.

However, I think it irrefutable that certain factors, such as poor refereeing decisions and the availability of key players, are pure luck, and totally beyond your control. 

I should reiterate that all this debate about where a team "deserves" to be is different to the point I originally made. The OP's full quote was, "The table doesn't lie, we are where we should be", and my point was that the current table doesn't determine how well fans can reasonably say their team should be doing based on the inherent ability of their players.

Much like the poor finishing aspect, even if a referee makes a bad call, you still have ample time to correct it. Or had ample time if its at end of game. I appreciate it may seem pedantic, I just really do think your future is in your own hands. Players being injured, could be considered poor squad management for instance, why is he injured? Poor resting after international, poorly thought out training etc etc. At the end of the day, we have a squad, we rotate players and everyone coming in should be able to perform if the desire to be a first teamer is there.

I think SoTN would probably agree that 'luck' is evened out over the course of the season hence why I personally believe we'll finish better than 10th if we looked at the snapshot last week. But we still deserved to be 10th at that point. All teams are presented with these challenges over the long run so its about how teams deal with them.

[Statto]

Much like the poor finishing aspect, even if a referee makes a bad call, you still have ample time to correct it. Or had ample time if its at end of game.

This reasoning assumes that the better team in a match should not only win the game, but be better for the full 90 minutes. In reality, it's a game of fine margins, where teams of similar quality will be evenly matched for most of the game, perhaps restricting each other to just one or two chances. It's will only be in those moments that the superiority of one team will manifest itself. If a poor refereering decision robs you in that moment, and the opposition aren't similarly robbed in their own key moment(s), you've been robbed in the overall match/result.

Players being injured, could be considered poor squad management for instance, why is he injured? Poor resting after international, poorly thought out training etc etc. At the end of the day, we have a squad, we rotate players and everyone coming in should be able to perform if the desire to be a first teamer is there.

What if it's a third team's player? For example, both FFC and WBA have to play QPR in the run-in this year. Imagine FFC and WBA are neck-and-neck for 2nd in April, equal on points and matching each other's results each week. We play QPR first, and lose 1-0 thanks to a fantastic performance from their key player. He then picks up a suspension and can't play when WBA play QPR a few weeks later, giving WBA an advantage that we didn't have.