Liverpool FC Forum

[Owzat]

If you don't like stats that aren't in synch with your "happy clappy" existence, might crack your rose tinted specs or may simply cause you to stick your head back in the sand where it probably belongs then I suggest you stop reading right about now.............

If you can handle a more earnest analysis of previous Champions and how it impacts on and compares with our situation, what is needed etc then read on


I've compiled the stats for all the Premiership Champions' seasons since it was reduced back to 20 teams to compare with our own records and a few of our better seasons. It makes for interesting comparison, shows where we drop points and shows an unfortunate statistic.

Unfortunate Statistic - Results vs Champions

Since 1995/96 the teams most beaten by the eventual Premiership Champions are :

TEAMS CHAMPIONS LIKE PLAYING MOST (95/96-07/08)

1. Everton : P26 W21 D5 L0 F61 A21 PTS 68 (Won 80.77%)
2. LIVERPOOL : P26 W17 D4 L3 F44 A25 PTS 55 (Won 65.38%)
3. Tottenham : P26 W16 D7 L3 F41 A23 PTS 55 (Won 61.53%)

Not too good for the city of Liverpool, and it's not as if we can blame our neighbours since we're a bit but not that much better - just three wins in that time between us, albeit all of them by us and two in one season I'm sure most could bring to mind. I checked back and the bitters have beaten the Premiership Champions only once ever, and that was way back in 1992/93. Our own record against the Champions is poor, to be have lost 5/8 of all our Premiership games against them.

While we have been ever present in the Premiership, there are five teams (including us) who've played 26 games against the Champions in that time period and we've the second worst record - worse than Tottenham, NEWCASTLE and Aston Villa. Percentage wise we're probably not so bad, but it's still not good that we lose to the Champions that often. Obviously Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal haven't played the Champions the full 26 games since they were Champions themselves so only played the Champions when they themselves weren't Champions.

The Sides We Should Beat

This is another area we lack in, particularly against promoted sides and those that end up relegated

RECORD vs PROMOTED & RELEGATED SIDES (95/96-07/08)

Champions vs Promoted Sides : P76 W58 D14 L4 PTS 188 (Won 76.32%)
Liverpool vs Promoted Sides : P76 W48 D17 L11 PTS PTS 161 (Won 63.16%)

Champions vs Relegated Sides : P78 W64 D13 L1 PTS 205 (Won 82.05%)
Liverpool vs Relegated Sides : P78 W53 D18 L7 PTS 177 (Won 67.95%)

Perhaps most worryingly against sides coming up and going straight back down again :

Champions : P38 W34 D3 L1 PTS 105 (Won 89.47%)
Liverpool : P38 W24 D10 L4 PTS 82 (Won 63.16%)

It works our as a season's worth of games and we'd only equal our Premiership best even though all the sides we would have played (in theory) would be newly promoted relegation fodder. The Champions collectively put in a record high, 10 points more than Chelsea's 95 points record from 04/05.


And the statistic which I put this together for, the one that may show how this season will pan out. The one that looks at the starts of Champions, where they are after 24 games and how they finish off seasons.

What Champions Are Made Of

POINTS AFTER 24 GAMES

05/06 Chelsea 63 points
04/05 Chelsea 61 points
03/04 Arsenal 58 points
07/08 Man Utd 57 points
00/01 Man Utd 56 points
08/09 Man Utd 56 points
99/00 Man Utd 53 points
08/09 LIVERPOOL 51 points

Our 24 game start would best six starts by Champions since 95/96, but none since 02/03 (47 points). But maybe the key question is how do Champions finish their seasons. Simple answer is ahead of us, but in terms of points...............

CHAMPIONS RUN-INS - LAST 14 GAMES (95/96-07/08)

01/02 Arsenal 40 points
99/00 Man Utd 38 points
95/96 Man Utd 37 points
02/03 Man Utd 36 points
97/98 Arsenal 34 points
04/05 Chelsea 34 points
98/99 Man Utd 32 points
03/04 Arsenal 32 points
06/07 Man Utd 32 points
07/08 Man Utd 30 points
96/97 Man Utd 28 points
05/06 Chelsea 28 points
00/01 Man Utd 24 points


Last season we managed 33 points in our last 14 games, our best since 1995/96 is 37 points in 01/02 and (unsurprisingly) 05/06 when we reached 82 points. We only have 13 games left, if Man Utd pick up 30 points again then we'd need 33 points from 13 games and that would take some doing - especially with a trip to Old Trafford coming up. We could do with them picking up less than 30 points, not likely given their current run. The last five season average is 31.2, so that doesn't offer any great hope either.



I seem to recall there being two myths floating around about second halves of seasons - that we have a stronger/better second half and that we finish better than other teams.

Well only once since 95/96 have we scored more points in the second half of the season than the eventual champions - our excellent finish to 05/06. As for us having stronger/better second halves of the season than first :-

1992/93-2007/08

Liverpool - more points 1st half of season : 7
Liverpool - more points 2nd half of season : 6
Liverpool - equal points in both halves : 3

Liverpool : 1st half of season average : 33.88 points
Liverpool : 2nd half of season average : 33.31 points

Liverpool picked up 38 points first half of the season in 96/97 and only 30 second half, that's why the average points tips towards the first half. It certainly dispels the "excellent run-in" myth, although in the past three seasons we have picked up an average of 38 points in the second half of the season compared to 32 in the previous 13 seasons - not saying much though is it, considering what went before was pretty poor fare, and our first half average is up from 33 in the previous 13 seasons to 38.5 in the last four including this. Those reckoning that means something should take into account that what went before was at times truly rubbish and a 5-6 point swing over 19 games is neither that awesome and merely reflects how bad we were before as much as it reflects how good we are now.

[Bam]

I'm not a stat lover, but thats really interesting Owzat, thanks for putting the time in. BTB maybe I like these stats as I'm a "doom n Gloomer"

Its definately squeaky Bu.m time from here on in.

[112-1077774096]

owzat   

good work

[kazza]

Good post Owzat, it is not about happy clappy or doom n' gloomer it is information and you take what you want out of it.

[bigmick]

That my friend is an absolutely fantastic post (I am obviously talking about Owzat here). Last time I said that though Owz' I had someone unrelated to my point having a pop at me though, so can I just say in praising up your post I'm not having a go at anybody else.

The stats on how poorly we have done against leser teams are daming. I would strongly suggest that under Rafa's tenure that is down the twin problems of too much rotation against smaller clubs, and spending too much time worrying about them and trying to tactically counteract their strongpoints.

[Sabre]

Good post Owzat, it is not about happy clappy or doom n' gloomer it is information and you take what you want out of it.

Good point. Owzat's introduction is aimed to those of us who don't like his numbers and disagree with them.


In the first place I think Statistics are a branch of Mathmatics I love, names like Poisson and Bayes have allowed interesting applications in medicine, and clustering.

What you do Owzat  are not stats, as stats are science, but a collection of data (numbers) arranged in a way that say something negative about the team 100 out of 100 times. Which provokes the Excellent posts and the bow downs you like to read from the people who like what you imply. Which is nice.

But now, when you grow up and learn that when you make any study or research about something you will receive criticism, I'll bother to read your numbers again.

What I did here here is a criticism of the use of numbers you made. Quite frankly I find quite childish your introduction if that's what it caused it. Next time, try to reply my arguements, and if you're uncapable (which I think is what wound you up), move on gracefully and don't ask stupid things in your introduction.

[Effes]

As for us having stronger/better second halves of the season than first :-

1992/93-2007/08

Liverpool - more points 1st half of season : 7
Liverpool - more points 2nd half of season : 6
Liverpool - equal points in both halves : 3

Liverpool : 1st half of season average : 33.88 points
Liverpool : 2nd half of season average : 33.31 points

Firstly, great opening post Owz.

I was surprised at this stat - then realised they are taken from 1992-2008.

I think the notion of getting more points in the 2nd half of the season is one attributed solely to Rafa's reign.

God knows where you get your info - but Im quite sure the stats taken just from Rafa's reign
will show a stronger 2nd half of the season.

[Effes]

What you do Owzat  are not stats, as stats are science, but a collection of data (numbers) arranged in a way that say something negative about the team 100 out of 100 times. Which provokes the Excellent posts and the bow downs you like to read from the people who like what you imply. Which is nice.

But now, when you grow up and learn that when you make any study or research about something you will receive criticism, I'll bother to read your numbers again.

What I did here here is a criticism of the use of numbers you made. Quite frankly I find quite childish your introduction if that's what it caused it. Next time, try to reply my arguements, and if you're uncapable (which I think is what wound you up), move on gracefully and don't ask stupid things in your introduction.

Uncalled for.

I dont care whether someone posts stats to say something positive or negative. At the end of the day, you can always reply with your criticisms of the stats.

But to get personal with someone who just posts stats is, in my opinion, quite frankly childish.

[Sabre]

*shrug* that was an answer to his introduction in red letters, which, correct me if I'm wrong, do not talk about the team, but some posters around here, which he labels as happy clappy, and he invites to bury their heads in the sand.

Which I guess Effes you find ok, but you see, I don't. Anyway, that's your opinion and I respect it. In my opinion there was no need for that introduction.

[heimdall]

Good post Owzat, it is not about happy clappy or doom n' gloomer it is information and you take what you want out of it.

Good point. Owzat's introduction is aimed to those of us who don't like his numbers and disagree with them.


In the first place I think Statistics are a branch of Mathmatics I love, names like Poisson and Bayes have allowed interesting applications in medicine, and clustering.

What you do Owzat  are not stats, as stats are science, but a collection of data (numbers) arranged in a way that say something negative about the team 100 out of 100 times. Which provokes the Excellent posts and the bow downs you like to read from the people who like what you imply. Which is nice.

But now, when you grow up and learn that when you make any study or research about something you will receive criticism, I'll bother to read your numbers again.

What I did here here is a criticism of the use of numbers you made. Quite frankly I find quite childish your introduction if that's what it caused it. Next time, try to reply my arguements, and if you're uncapable (which I think is what wound you up), move on gracefully and don't ask stupid things in your introduction.

You are out of order on this one Sabre, Owzat's contribution to this forum far excedes yours in terms of useful information. If you are such a fan of stats then try posting some too proove the glory of Rafa, otherwise I would kindly ask you to shut the feck up about this.

[Sabre]

I don't see any rule that says I must shut up Heimdall, so, I won't.

Anyhow, if you think I'm out of order two, three, ten, or fifteen of you, do report my abusive post. My only sin is that I don't rate his contribution as you do. I respect deeply that you rate his contribution more than mine, Heimdall. 

Anyhow, please, protest all you wish, prefferably not too much publicly because it will derail the excellent thread, but I had to tell my opinion about Owzat's numbers. Now I must leave home so I sincerely hope you all enjoy the weekend. Let's hope we can discuss a good game of the team tomorrow night.

[taff]

Im with Sabre on this one.  Good stats from Owzat but for some weird reason people get sensitive when Sabre doesnt like it but are happy to back anything that puts the club in a bad light.

If you say anything thats against the domm and gloom then you get jumped upon and from people who complain about this happening to them.

Absolutely disgraceful in my opinion. Cue the responses from fans who hate Benitez     Annoying isnt it when people reply and attempt to ridicule and pre empt peoples answers.

We are on  a Liverpool forum with people openly criticising the manager who is heald dear to a lot of fans and they then wonder why others have a go at them.  No amount of stats can diminsih my love for the club or Benitez and if you cant understand that then I genuinely feel sorry for all of you as fans and human beings

[Effes]

Taff - I'd have no problems with Sabre picking holes in the stats without saying he was childish.

The ones who criticise Rafa I think are in the minority, there ars also some who just have doubts.

[Scottbot]

It's a good thread starter and while I often skim past Owzat's stat starters when they involve players (I prefer to make my own judgments based on what I see), I found these stats interesting. I think they really hammer home what we already know, that it is going to take a very impressive run-in to go on and win the title this season, as it does for EVERY previous Premiership champion. No limping into 1st place, no point playing for the draw, no relying on the mancs slipping up. No doubt we will need to win 10 or 11 of our last 13 games (including the game at trafford). It's gonna be tough but it doesn't half make a nice change to be able to talk about us being in a title race, at least it does for me.

[tubby]

What you do Owzat  are not stats, as stats are science, but a collection of data (numbers) arranged in a way that say something negative about the team 100 out of 100 times. Which provokes the Excellent posts and the bow downs you like to read from the people who like what you imply. Which is nice.

But now, when you grow up and learn that when you make any study or research about something you will receive criticism, I'll bother to read your numbers again.

What I did here here is a criticism of the use of numbers you made. Quite frankly I find quite childish your introduction if that's what it caused it. Next time, try to reply my arguements, and if you're uncapable (which I think is what wound you up), move on gracefully and don't ask stupid things in your introduction.

Uncalled for.

I dont care whether someone posts stats to say something positive or negative. At the end of the day, you can always reply with your criticisms of the stats.

But to get personal with someone who just posts stats is, in my opinion, quite frankly childish.

I think Sabre has a point. It's like the Bible and the 'whatever code'. With a big enough collection of imformation you can massage it to show you whatever you like and portray it in any way.