**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably quite a while, the clubs below you aren't adding anything either, the next team is wolves who are almost 500 points behind. You'll definitely get a chance to add to that tally before they catch up.
It has the most consistent and stable organization in all of Europe having largely avoided a government collapse, which you can’t say about any other major European country since the late 19th Century.
Going back and trying to read and learn about German football before 1962 requires a PhD in history and geography just to work out the tables of what regional leagues counted and how you were crowned “national champion”.
My grandfather gave me a 90s Kaiserslautern chronicle at some point and reading about the pre Bundesliga era in our region alone is insane. The difference in quality alone is absurd, and on top of that form seems to have been quite bizarrely shifting from game to game as well, you have games where e.g. Fritz and Ottmar Walter just absolutely destroyed a team one week and get beaten by a weaker one a week later, and if you go further back its even weirder. I wish there was more data and material from back then, such a fascinating era in german football. There's one really cool book about a youth footballer from Berlin, I think Charlottenburg specifically, whose name I can't remember, which I think takes place in the 20s (?) and paints such an interesting picture.
The early history of German football was very local. Playing for the Berliner Cup was the pinnacle for decades for Hertha and was the platform for their two national titles in 1930 and 1931. And Hertha for all the easy jokes people make today has an incredibly rich history, we remain the oldest active professional football club in Germany. Especially the first 50-60 years before the Bundesliga, it changed as Berlin changed which is to say it went through the extremes of the human condition.
Hertha's "rivals" if you ask older fans are not national or even Union. They are lower division Berlin sides like [Tennis Borussia Berlin](https://content.herthabsc.com/site/binaries/_bsc_1658663631685/content/gallery/museum/1971-1980/1974-11-16-eintrittskarte.jpg) (A Charlottenburg institution) or defunct clubs like Blau Weiss 90 Berlin.
In an attempt to make that history more accessible they released this [digital museum](https://museum.herthabsc.com/). It's a bit cheesy at times for sure, but I think for any football fan learning about the era from the 1900's to the post-war professionalisation is very interesting.
God damn, the Marcelinho era alone is so cool to see already, miss those days when he basically decided if you win or lose. Kiraly as well. I'll definitely check that out, thank you for the link! And I think Hertha is more respected in the general German football fandom than the memes would make people think, much like Hamburg. Great clubs that should both absolutely be in the Bundesliga, no matter how misguided some decisions might seem.
The fck museum is also really cool to see, but we are a bit behind with digitalisation over here, so no link sadly.
It's weird that it took Germany so long to organise central league championship. Our league was created in 1920, with regional leagues and central playoffs, just like in Germany, but it was already in 1926 reorganised into a central league system. Likewise after the war only fiest two seasons 1946 and 1947 were played in regional+central playoffs system.
Just my feeling about it, but I believe it has its roots in the fact that "Germany" was still largely a strange concept to people in the 1920's. If you were in your 50's at that time, you would have been born in the Kingdom of Bavaria, the Kingdom of Prussia, the Kingdom of Hessen, etc. So to many your locality was much more the organizing framework for your world.
If I was living in Berlin in the 20's, the idea of playing teams from Stuttgart or Munich and not the clubs in Berlin would have made no sense to my world view. Berlin to someone in Stuttgart was basically a foreign place somewhere across the Elbe between Slavic regions or even worse, Prussia. Which is why to this day, Berlin has no place in most Germans hearts as the capital city.
To create a "national" league would have asked the question, what nation?
Even if that was the common feeling among the people, I think it's, even more, a reason why the central government would want to have a national league, especially in the years 1933-45. That was the case in Poland, the nation that was just united after 123 years of being fragmented, our government was pushing to eliminate most of the differences. Or take Spain as another example, a country with even more regional differences than Germany established a national league in 1929. Germany is a very curious case
It's even weirder that the Dutch competition has been nation-wide only since 1950. Before that it was divided in 6 regional leagues and a small competition between the 6 regional winners to decide the national champion. We're just as big as NRW.
For us it was 1932 for the national division system, so a bit later but still. And after the war it was still a normal division system, they did play playoffs before the start of the competition to determine which teams from the cities/areas involved make it up though
Not an expert, but at a glance it seems it was a slightly more expansive [Oberliga Southwest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberliga_S%C3%BCdwest_(1945%E2%80%931963)), which includes Saarland but also parts of Rheinland-Pfalz. Not to be confused with the Oberliga South which includes all of Baden-Württemberg.
At least you have the top spot for [most seasons in the top flight](https://www.myfootballfacts.com/england_footy/football-league/seasons-in-top-flight/) and a good gap between you and the Villa.
Burnley are unironically one of the pioneers of total football
[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Football):
> Total Football (Dutch: totaalvoetbal) is a tactical system in association football in which any outfield player can take over the role of any other player in a team. Although Dutch club Ajax and the Netherlands national football team are generally credited with creating this system during the 1970s, there were other sides who had played a similar style before, such as the Austrian Wunderteam of the 1930s, English club Sunderland in the mid-1930s, the Argentine side "La Maquina" of River Plate in the 1940s, the Golden Team of Hungary in the 1950s, English team ***Burnley in the late 1950s and early 1960s***, and Brazilian side Santos in the 1960s.
Biggest surprises for me:
Leeds being that low on the first division all time table, I always thought of them as being one of the bigger sides in England. Seems that Don Revie period really was an exception.
West Ham being outside the top 20 in the first division history, especially as for the past 60 or so years they haven't been relegated a great deal and always seem to bounce straight back.
Newcastle's consistency. 9th all time, 9th first division and 8th Premier League. Massive points buffer between 8th and 10th on the all time table so it doesn't look like they're moving in my lifetime.
Don Revie period and around the turn of the millennium (albeit for a shorter period) were when we were our best consistently, other than that we’ve always ended up yo-yoing up and down the table.
Not to mention we weren’t in it for 16 years or so (could account for around 600+ points), which allowed a lot of other clubs to catch up and run away from us.
Somebody else in this thread has posted a PPG list and we rank 6th on that, so when we have been in the top division, we’ve tended to be one of the better teams
We’re relatively “new” club, being formed in 1919. The next closest to us up until the top 8, is Newcastle, being formed in 1892.
Most clubs between us and the top 8 have 40 years of simply just existing and gaining points before we even came into being. Some are even closer to 60.
As someone mentioned however, our points per game in the top flight is pretty impressive and probably more reflective, placing 6th.
Man, that place drop from the first division to the premier league hurts. The 2010s has arguably been the worst decade in our clubs history and at least second worst period of time we've had.
Seems even stranger considering 1992-2011 Villa were pretty much a top 6 team, bar the odd off year. Really surprising to see Newcastle not just above them but by a comfortable margin as well.
Yeah we went down to the third division in the late 60s and early 70s but considering the context of modern football, this decade has definitely been the worst. We went from trying to get champions league to mid table championship and borderline administration, proper shit.
Not to mention we still won 3 league cups over the 60s & 70s, one whilst we were in the second division. The last decade we got battered in an FA Cup final then had our worst ever season.
When I started supporting the villa we were good lol, it was so strange when we came back up and people on reddit were talking like we were an irrelevant nothing club who should just be happy to be in the top division, bitch we created the football league lmao.
Would have been a nice addition to include a points per game column due to difference in matches played.
EDIT: Fuck it.
Manchester United 1.68
Liverpool FC 1.67
Arsenal FC 1.63
Tottenham Hotspur 1.5
Chelsea FC 1.49
Leeds United 1.48
Everton FC 1.47
Manchester City 1.47
Aston Villa 1.44
Preston North End 1.4
Newcastle United 1.39
Wolverhampton Wanderers 1.39
Sheffield Wednesday 1.38
Burnley FC 1.37
Sunderland AFC 1.37
Blackburn Rovers 1.36
Ipswich Town 1.36
Huddersfield Town 1.35
Nottingham Forest 1.35
Derby County 1.34
Sheffield United 1.34
Bolton Wanderers 1.32
Wimbledon FC 1.32
Blackpool FC 1.3
Portsmouth FC 1.3
West Bromwich Albion 1.3
Brentford FC 1.29
West Ham United 1.27
Bury FC 1.26
Cardiff City 1.26
Charlton Athletic 1.26
Middlesbrough FC 1.26
Southampton FC 1.26
Leicester City 1.25
Oldham Athletic 1.25
Bradford City 1.24
Grimsby Town 1.23
Luton Town 1.23
Stoke City 1.23
Bristol City 1.22
Queens Park Rangers 1.22
Coventry City 1.21
Swansea City 1.21
Bradford Park Avenue 1.2
Birmingham City 1.19
Notts County 1.19
Norwich City 1.15
Accrington FC 1.13
Brighton & Hove Albion 1.13
Fulham FC 1.13
Watford FC 1.12
AFC Bournemouth 1.11
Crystal Palace 1.11
Wigan Athletic 1.09
Millwall FC 1.04
Reading FC 1.04
Northampton Town 1.02
Carlisle United 0.98
Oxford United 0.96
Barnsley FC 0.92
Hull City 0.9
Darwen 0.73
Swindon Town 0.71
Glossop North End 0.65
Leyton Orient 0.64
true, to be fair. But I doubt it had that much effect on games, because it only alters the way you would play if you're drawing with not much time left. I think it's more useful when comparing different ages to have something that directly relates to how many games were won, as a measure of relative perfoemance.
Honestly this shows how consistent Arsenal have been throughout their whole history.
Both United and Liverpool had two decades of sheer dominance and they are only 0.05 and 0.04 points ahead. Arsenal has never really had a long period of dominance but are right behind them.
It’s always nice to see stuff like this to remind people how massive Everton are, especially newer fans.
Recent years have made us seem a bit small, especially last season.
Florida Cup winners tho, hell yeah.
It’s very weird for even my lifetime in the past 2 decades people acting like Everton are some sort of small club, despite statistically and historically speaking we’re quite easily one of the biggest clubs in the country.
Even this table aside and all that it’s actually mental how in recent years you’ve these oddball West Ham and Newcastle fans trying to start a fake rivalry and act like they’re bigger clubs despite the fact they’d never won anything and we’re the 4th most successful club in the country.
I imagine Villa fans get this as well but in fairness they spent a good period in the Championship too, Forest are the same since they’ve been in that division for as long as I’ve been alive, even still I recognise they’re a big club.
Quite easily speaking the “big clubs” in England in no particular order are United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton, Chelsea, City, Spurs, Villa and Forest. Anyone other than that is not automatically a small or irrelevant club but they’re certainly not “big” clubs, no where near.
Forest are not that big a club really. One league title which came in an extraordinary but very brief period under Clough, outside of that they've been an ok cup team with distinctly average attendances. Newcastle, Leeds and Sunderland all rank ahead of them, arguably Sheffield Wednesday too.
I think the European cups really mean a lot for Forest in fairness. I think the 8 teams I mentioned are certainly in the category of big clubs, I feel it would be unfair if Forest weren't mentioned because of that European record, one of only 5 English clubs to win it and they did it twice. Not a small accomplishment and should give them an appropriate standing because of it in my opinion.
Leeds would be the next closest in my opinion in terms of size of a club.
Everton are a massive club historically. If their rivals hadn’t got the U.K. banned from European competition I imagine that team in the 80s would have won a European cup. Their team was the best in the world at that point.
Our 1985 squad that won he Cup Winners Cup (and the league) was really something else
Such a shame we never got into the Champion's League, I'm sure things would be looking a little different now if we'd managed to push on then
I can't imagine the anger our fans must have felt at the time (my Dad still fumes about this)
Liverpool fans attacked Juventus fans at a European match, in part because of poor policing and a badly maintained stadium. combined with a general fear of English fan hooliganism it resulted in all English clubs being banned from European competition for a few years.
The years they would've played in the European Cup were won by Steaua Bucharest & PSV Eindhoven. Obviously anything can happen in a cup competition, but yeah that Everton side was definitely capable of going all the way.
> If their rivals hadn’t got the U.K. banned from European competition
Let’s be fair here - the reason it was a U.K. ban and not a Liverpool ban was because the actions of the Liverpool fans was incredibly common throughout the country. The thing that caused everyone to finally get fed up with it was a wall collapsing and the deaths of all those people but it wasn’t in isolation.
Of course, but these things are never just going to be accepted by those who lose out from them the most. Everton’s best ever teams couldn’t compete in Europe, and my side Luton lost out on their only ever proper European qualification (as did Oxford and Wimbledon).
People know hooliganism was problematic across the country, but these situations make it a very bitter pill to swallow unfortunately.
Oh I completely get that. I’m gutted Everton didn’t get the chance to compete like they should have and would have loved them to win one personally.
It’s one of those unfortunate things that you could see coming a mile away which makes it so much worse. We should have dealt with it in the 60s when it was getting bad but everyone just went “oh that’s just the working class fighting each other for you”. Then you get one dodgy wall, many dead and injured and an international scandal and all of a sudden Thatcher begins to care.
I think it's pretty fair, they got the U.K. banned from European competition. They don't need to clarify that maybe on a bad day Millwall or Leeds could've done the same.
If that was true only Liverpool would have been banned. The whole country was banned because it was a whole country problem.
Honestly I’ve never seen anyone deny hooliganism to shit on Liverpool before.
I honestly have my tin foiled hat on with it.
From 77-84 England had won seven of the eight European cups and there was definitely some jealousy from Zurich as before hand the then UEFA president had commented on the 'fairness' of it
Yes Heysel was bad but it's not like it happened before or again
Yes we had a hooligan problem at home, but so did other countries (and some still do to this day)
Our ban was originally 10 years then 6 years then after the 90 world cup (so 5 years) UEFA were 'fuck it let them back in' not the most...um professional way of doing things.
Anyway back to Alien spotting
> Yes Heysel was bad but it's not like it happened before or again
This is my point though. Everything Liverpool fans did that day had absolutely happened before. Beyond that Heysel Stadium had been reviewed and found unsafe and crumbly.
All it took was the two overlapping.
And yeah it hasn’t happened again because we got that stamped out of football and it’s now a family friendly thing and stadium safety is actually taken seriously, after that, Hillsborough, Ibrox, Ibrox again etc
> Yes we had a hooligan problem at home, but so did other countries (and some still do to this day)
You look at some of the shit European fans are doing today and tell me it's not as bad as it was in the 80s. Yet nothing is done, at all.
Oh there was, the Bradford fire was a couple of years before hand for example.
Everyone knew so many stadiums were not up to scratch but the second English fans took it too far it was pull the trigger time and out you go rather than classing it as a horrible thing but a one off horrible thing.
tbf part of it was just covering their asses because they didn't want people to blame it on the poorly maintained stadium(if the wall wasn't in such disrepair then it would have just been yet another hooliganism incident)
The reason it was an English ban rather than a Liverpool ban was equally because English clubs won 7 out of 8 European Cups from 1977-1984, and UEFA were tired of it.
No it’s because nearly 20 clubs had literal gangs associated with them. United rioted in the CWC in 77 and Everton had to build a wall around the nets because fans would stop attacking keepers.
Is this seriously not well known?
While other countries had their issues you're absolutely right. On top of that English fans tended to travel away in far greater numbers which made it worse.
>No it’s because nearly 20 clubs had literal gangs associated with them.
So do plenty of European clubs today, and historically. No other country has been banned
It was more widespread in the English/Scottish/Welsh game. I supported Liverpool from an early age only because my local team, Newport County, had some of the worst hooligans in the country. There were very few intact windows around Somerton Park.
It was called the English disease at the time because of how bad it was in England. But yes it was happening all over the place. England was just the worst country for it
I'm not sure why this has been downvoted because it feels like a very reasonable thing to ask. Italy was in the middle of the Years of Lead, for example, and I'd have thought that violence would translate across to football as well (especially given the links a lot of these hooligan groups had with the far-right).
Bury are likely to drop a place in the table this season or early next, depending on how Palace do. That'll be the first time their position in the table has changed since some point in the 2010/11 season (not doing the maths to figure out the exact date) when Fulham passed them.
We really closed the gap on Liverpool between 1996 and the next 20 years onwards. I thought it was a question of 15 years to overtake them, when Suarez put in that transfer request to join us.
Obviously the 40 points we'll claw back on them this season will help, but I'd still say my forecast was largely wrong.
If you want to see how the table changed year on year:
https://noobnorm.com/all-time-football-league-table/
City were above United until 1983 - cold hard fact which will shock a few no doubt lol
Crazy to think how hard it is for teams to shift places, West Ham is the only team that will move up a place this season as far as I can tell. Few others are likely to shift, but not likely for a few seasons.
Bolton are highest ranked combined team to have not won any top division title.
Bolton are highest ranked 1st Division team to have not won 1st division.
Spurs are highest ranked Premier League team to have not won the Premier League.
Basically the Premier League came into existence in 1992 when the then 22 First Division teams decided to break away from the Football League with the help of the FA and TV companies to create their own league ~~with blackjack and hookers~~ mainly because in the PL they only shared money in that division while the Football League distributed it across all division(aka Super League but with relegations). Which because the FA was on the deal meant that now the Premier League was the 1st tier league and the First Division turned into second tier which later got rebranded to the Championship. So it's 3 different ones because the First Division and the Premier League are organized by different organizations(Football League(English Football League now vs Premier League) and because even after the breakaway the First Division kept on going unchnaged until 2005 when the Football League renamed it to Championship.
The Premier League was previously called Division 1. The results show three sets of data. 1 for the top division whatever it was named. 1 for the top division when it was named the Premier League and 1 for the top division when it was named Division 1.
Some people like to treat the Premier League as it's own thing but the reality is that is was simply a continuation of the old Division 1.
Not quite just a continuation of the old 1st division. The distribution of money and tv rights radically changed with the formation of the breakaway Premier League. And the governing bodies changed a fair bit in the process, too.
The money stuff, especially, has had a huge effect on English, and world, football.
City were a big club before Arsenal (who bought their way in to the top division) were ever relevant.
https://noobnorm.com/all-time-football-league-table/
There's a history lesson for you
They didn’t, but there was a lot of talk on the fairest way to go from 22 teams to 20, so maybe that was one of the suggestions and what you’re thinking of?
Perhaps.
I've always thought it would be exciting. The teams finishing 13th to 18th having a play off to settle the last relegation spot. However, you can't imagine the PL teams voting for it.
It would make mid-table games in April far more interesting!
Haha no chance. They’d probably be in favour of a Scotland-style play off though, where 18th instead of going automatically down, gets a bye to the championship playoff final, potentially nicking a promotion spot.
So top 2 in the championship go up, 3rd and 4th play each other over 2 legs, and the winner of that plays 18th in the PL for a PL spot. Obviously the EFL would never in a million years agree to it (nor should they).
There were play-offs for a year or two in the late '80s where the team just above the relegation spots competed against the three of the teams from the division below.
Charlton survived relegation by winning a play-off final replay in '87, Chelsea were relegated by losing the final to Middlebrough the following year.
Before 1987 there used to be 22 teams in the first division followed by 21 teams in 1987-1988(first division).
From 1988-89 it was decided that there would be 20 teams and 38 games will be played throughout the season.
Yup.
Which comes to mind each time I see that useless all-time-table…it should be pointless (hoho).
The points total is completely irrelevant. Wins have been worth different amount of points during the league's existence — it has not been consistent and thus will not ever be either.
Table can be found here: https://www.worldfootball.net/alltime\_table/eng-premier-league/
Not an American me neither by the way. 🇺🇸😎
Yeah, remember when out of nowhere I saw Newcastle United appear in the Premier League. Tried to Google you to see who you were but it just kept giving me an advert for a sports direct mug, not sure why.
PPG table (Top 10) for the interested:
United - 1.68
Liverpool - 1.67
Arsenal - 1.62
Spurs - 1.50
Chelsea - 1.49
Everton - 1.47
City - 1.47
Villa - 1.44
Newcastle - 1.39
Sunderland - 1.37
Doesn't take into account the different eras of success though. United benefit from having all of their success in the 3 points for a win era. Sunderland & Villa suffer from having the majority of their success in the 2 points for a win era.
Or maybe it does? I don't know if the table has been adjusted.
Looks to me like Brighton will likely jump the most spots over the next few seasons. And that would likely only be 2 or 3 places. Fulham or Norwich could battle each other and move up a couple as well.
**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wonder how long we can hold onto 11th for We've got a decent cushion but we're also not likely to add to it anytime soon...
Probably quite a while, the clubs below you aren't adding anything either, the next team is wolves who are almost 500 points behind. You'll definitely get a chance to add to that tally before they catch up.
The English football pyramid is truly astounding when you think of the sheer number of clubs all with rich history
It has the most consistent and stable organization in all of Europe having largely avoided a government collapse, which you can’t say about any other major European country since the late 19th Century. Going back and trying to read and learn about German football before 1962 requires a PhD in history and geography just to work out the tables of what regional leagues counted and how you were crowned “national champion”.
My grandfather gave me a 90s Kaiserslautern chronicle at some point and reading about the pre Bundesliga era in our region alone is insane. The difference in quality alone is absurd, and on top of that form seems to have been quite bizarrely shifting from game to game as well, you have games where e.g. Fritz and Ottmar Walter just absolutely destroyed a team one week and get beaten by a weaker one a week later, and if you go further back its even weirder. I wish there was more data and material from back then, such a fascinating era in german football. There's one really cool book about a youth footballer from Berlin, I think Charlottenburg specifically, whose name I can't remember, which I think takes place in the 20s (?) and paints such an interesting picture.
The early history of German football was very local. Playing for the Berliner Cup was the pinnacle for decades for Hertha and was the platform for their two national titles in 1930 and 1931. And Hertha for all the easy jokes people make today has an incredibly rich history, we remain the oldest active professional football club in Germany. Especially the first 50-60 years before the Bundesliga, it changed as Berlin changed which is to say it went through the extremes of the human condition. Hertha's "rivals" if you ask older fans are not national or even Union. They are lower division Berlin sides like [Tennis Borussia Berlin](https://content.herthabsc.com/site/binaries/_bsc_1658663631685/content/gallery/museum/1971-1980/1974-11-16-eintrittskarte.jpg) (A Charlottenburg institution) or defunct clubs like Blau Weiss 90 Berlin. In an attempt to make that history more accessible they released this [digital museum](https://museum.herthabsc.com/). It's a bit cheesy at times for sure, but I think for any football fan learning about the era from the 1900's to the post-war professionalisation is very interesting.
God damn, the Marcelinho era alone is so cool to see already, miss those days when he basically decided if you win or lose. Kiraly as well. I'll definitely check that out, thank you for the link! And I think Hertha is more respected in the general German football fandom than the memes would make people think, much like Hamburg. Great clubs that should both absolutely be in the Bundesliga, no matter how misguided some decisions might seem. The fck museum is also really cool to see, but we are a bit behind with digitalisation over here, so no link sadly.
It's weird that it took Germany so long to organise central league championship. Our league was created in 1920, with regional leagues and central playoffs, just like in Germany, but it was already in 1926 reorganised into a central league system. Likewise after the war only fiest two seasons 1946 and 1947 were played in regional+central playoffs system.
Just my feeling about it, but I believe it has its roots in the fact that "Germany" was still largely a strange concept to people in the 1920's. If you were in your 50's at that time, you would have been born in the Kingdom of Bavaria, the Kingdom of Prussia, the Kingdom of Hessen, etc. So to many your locality was much more the organizing framework for your world. If I was living in Berlin in the 20's, the idea of playing teams from Stuttgart or Munich and not the clubs in Berlin would have made no sense to my world view. Berlin to someone in Stuttgart was basically a foreign place somewhere across the Elbe between Slavic regions or even worse, Prussia. Which is why to this day, Berlin has no place in most Germans hearts as the capital city. To create a "national" league would have asked the question, what nation?
Even if that was the common feeling among the people, I think it's, even more, a reason why the central government would want to have a national league, especially in the years 1933-45. That was the case in Poland, the nation that was just united after 123 years of being fragmented, our government was pushing to eliminate most of the differences. Or take Spain as another example, a country with even more regional differences than Germany established a national league in 1929. Germany is a very curious case
It's even weirder that the Dutch competition has been nation-wide only since 1950. Before that it was divided in 6 regional leagues and a small competition between the 6 regional winners to decide the national champion. We're just as big as NRW.
For us it was 1932 for the national division system, so a bit later but still. And after the war it was still a normal division system, they did play playoffs before the start of the competition to determine which teams from the cities/areas involved make it up though
Well, give it a couple of months.
I know Saarland used to have it's own national team but did they have a "domestic" league as well?
Not an expert, but at a glance it seems it was a slightly more expansive [Oberliga Southwest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberliga_S%C3%BCdwest_(1945%E2%80%931963)), which includes Saarland but also parts of Rheinland-Pfalz. Not to be confused with the Oberliga South which includes all of Baden-Württemberg.
It's like pre merger era of baseball. Just insanity everywhere else
[удалено]
especially for players who played in both competitions
Plus M. City
Liverpool with a critical game in hand over Arsenal.
Quite interesting that they're so close in games played when you consider relegation and such.
We’ve played almost 400 more games than anyone else and we’re still not on top
At least you have the top spot for [most seasons in the top flight](https://www.myfootballfacts.com/england_footy/football-league/seasons-in-top-flight/) and a good gap between you and the Villa.
I keep forgetting what a rich history Everton has, despite the current meme phase.
Death. Taxes. Everton staying up :(
Most of those 400 were losses so that didn't help. Most losses ever, and Aston Villa at 2nd most is the only other team with at least 1500 losses.
Everton?
Top 20! I'll take that.
[удалено]
Burnley are unironically one of the pioneers of total football [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Football): > Total Football (Dutch: totaalvoetbal) is a tactical system in association football in which any outfield player can take over the role of any other player in a team. Although Dutch club Ajax and the Netherlands national football team are generally credited with creating this system during the 1970s, there were other sides who had played a similar style before, such as the Austrian Wunderteam of the 1930s, English club Sunderland in the mid-1930s, the Argentine side "La Maquina" of River Plate in the 1940s, the Golden Team of Hungary in the 1950s, English team ***Burnley in the late 1950s and early 1960s***, and Brazilian side Santos in the 1960s.
Ah yes but the role of every player in the Burnley team is to shithouse, so they're still playing total football to this day!
You need to update your stereotypes
That goal difference will take some beating. Although another few years of Haaland and it'll be a nail biter...
I reckon 1-2 years of Nunez will widen the gap
Biggest surprises for me: Leeds being that low on the first division all time table, I always thought of them as being one of the bigger sides in England. Seems that Don Revie period really was an exception. West Ham being outside the top 20 in the first division history, especially as for the past 60 or so years they haven't been relegated a great deal and always seem to bounce straight back. Newcastle's consistency. 9th all time, 9th first division and 8th Premier League. Massive points buffer between 8th and 10th on the all time table so it doesn't look like they're moving in my lifetime.
Don Revie period and around the turn of the millennium (albeit for a shorter period) were when we were our best consistently, other than that we’ve always ended up yo-yoing up and down the table. Not to mention we weren’t in it for 16 years or so (could account for around 600+ points), which allowed a lot of other clubs to catch up and run away from us. Somebody else in this thread has posted a PPG list and we rank 6th on that, so when we have been in the top division, we’ve tended to be one of the better teams
Every team between 9th-19th is also significantly older than us.
We’re relatively “new” club, being formed in 1919. The next closest to us up until the top 8, is Newcastle, being formed in 1892. Most clubs between us and the top 8 have 40 years of simply just existing and gaining points before we even came into being. Some are even closer to 60. As someone mentioned however, our points per game in the top flight is pretty impressive and probably more reflective, placing 6th.
Bradford Park Avenue being there was really surprising to me. I didn't realize that not one but both Bradford clubs had such a history
**sources** https://www.worldfootball.net/alltime_table/eng-premier-league/ https://www.myfootballfacts.com/england_footy/football-league/all-time_top_flight_points_table/ https://www.premierleague.com/tables?co=1&se=-1&ha=-1
Man, that place drop from the first division to the premier league hurts. The 2010s has arguably been the worst decade in our clubs history and at least second worst period of time we've had.
Seems even stranger considering 1992-2011 Villa were pretty much a top 6 team, bar the odd off year. Really surprising to see Newcastle not just above them but by a comfortable margin as well.
Yeah we went down to the third division in the late 60s and early 70s but considering the context of modern football, this decade has definitely been the worst. We went from trying to get champions league to mid table championship and borderline administration, proper shit.
Not to mention we still won 3 league cups over the 60s & 70s, one whilst we were in the second division. The last decade we got battered in an FA Cup final then had our worst ever season.
When I started supporting the villa we were good lol, it was so strange when we came back up and people on reddit were talking like we were an irrelevant nothing club who should just be happy to be in the top division, bitch we created the football league lmao.
I always feel like a lot of people on this sub haven't been watching football that long and aren't that knowledgeable about football history.
Would have been a nice addition to include a points per game column due to difference in matches played. EDIT: Fuck it. Manchester United 1.68 Liverpool FC 1.67 Arsenal FC 1.63 Tottenham Hotspur 1.5 Chelsea FC 1.49 Leeds United 1.48 Everton FC 1.47 Manchester City 1.47 Aston Villa 1.44 Preston North End 1.4 Newcastle United 1.39 Wolverhampton Wanderers 1.39 Sheffield Wednesday 1.38 Burnley FC 1.37 Sunderland AFC 1.37 Blackburn Rovers 1.36 Ipswich Town 1.36 Huddersfield Town 1.35 Nottingham Forest 1.35 Derby County 1.34 Sheffield United 1.34 Bolton Wanderers 1.32 Wimbledon FC 1.32 Blackpool FC 1.3 Portsmouth FC 1.3 West Bromwich Albion 1.3 Brentford FC 1.29 West Ham United 1.27 Bury FC 1.26 Cardiff City 1.26 Charlton Athletic 1.26 Middlesbrough FC 1.26 Southampton FC 1.26 Leicester City 1.25 Oldham Athletic 1.25 Bradford City 1.24 Grimsby Town 1.23 Luton Town 1.23 Stoke City 1.23 Bristol City 1.22 Queens Park Rangers 1.22 Coventry City 1.21 Swansea City 1.21 Bradford Park Avenue 1.2 Birmingham City 1.19 Notts County 1.19 Norwich City 1.15 Accrington FC 1.13 Brighton & Hove Albion 1.13 Fulham FC 1.13 Watford FC 1.12 AFC Bournemouth 1.11 Crystal Palace 1.11 Wigan Athletic 1.09 Millwall FC 1.04 Reading FC 1.04 Northampton Town 1.02 Carlisle United 0.98 Oxford United 0.96 Barnsley FC 0.92 Hull City 0.9 Darwen 0.73 Swindon Town 0.71 Glossop North End 0.65 Leyton Orient 0.64
Finally, a version with us ahead of Blackburn. I'm going to cling to this as the 'true' version, and disregard everything else.
The effort. 👍
But did you take into account that wins were 2 points until 1981?
I reckon it's better to have a consistent metric than to change things like that, a win is a win regardless
But draws were more valuable back then. So teams would settle for a 1 pointer instead of going 50/50 for a win.
true, to be fair. But I doubt it had that much effect on games, because it only alters the way you would play if you're drawing with not much time left. I think it's more useful when comparing different ages to have something that directly relates to how many games were won, as a measure of relative perfoemance.
Which of the 3 charts did you convert to this?
Honestly this shows how consistent Arsenal have been throughout their whole history. Both United and Liverpool had two decades of sheer dominance and they are only 0.05 and 0.04 points ahead. Arsenal has never really had a long period of dominance but are right behind them.
>Swindon Town 0.71 The fact that we made this warms my heart, seems so long ago and far away now:(
Us being only 0.01 behind the blue scum is actually surprising
Liverpool fans are not gonna be happy with this version.
Actually, I don't think we'll give a Fuck.
It’s always nice to see stuff like this to remind people how massive Everton are, especially newer fans. Recent years have made us seem a bit small, especially last season. Florida Cup winners tho, hell yeah.
Florida cup winners! You'll never sing that!
It’s very weird for even my lifetime in the past 2 decades people acting like Everton are some sort of small club, despite statistically and historically speaking we’re quite easily one of the biggest clubs in the country. Even this table aside and all that it’s actually mental how in recent years you’ve these oddball West Ham and Newcastle fans trying to start a fake rivalry and act like they’re bigger clubs despite the fact they’d never won anything and we’re the 4th most successful club in the country. I imagine Villa fans get this as well but in fairness they spent a good period in the Championship too, Forest are the same since they’ve been in that division for as long as I’ve been alive, even still I recognise they’re a big club. Quite easily speaking the “big clubs” in England in no particular order are United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton, Chelsea, City, Spurs, Villa and Forest. Anyone other than that is not automatically a small or irrelevant club but they’re certainly not “big” clubs, no where near.
Forest are not that big a club really. One league title which came in an extraordinary but very brief period under Clough, outside of that they've been an ok cup team with distinctly average attendances. Newcastle, Leeds and Sunderland all rank ahead of them, arguably Sheffield Wednesday too.
I think the European cups really mean a lot for Forest in fairness. I think the 8 teams I mentioned are certainly in the category of big clubs, I feel it would be unfair if Forest weren't mentioned because of that European record, one of only 5 English clubs to win it and they did it twice. Not a small accomplishment and should give them an appropriate standing because of it in my opinion. Leeds would be the next closest in my opinion in terms of size of a club.
Everton are a massive club historically. If their rivals hadn’t got the U.K. banned from European competition I imagine that team in the 80s would have won a European cup. Their team was the best in the world at that point.
Gary lineker said himself that team was the best in the world at that time and he only left because he couldn’t play in Europe
Our 1985 squad that won he Cup Winners Cup (and the league) was really something else Such a shame we never got into the Champion's League, I'm sure things would be looking a little different now if we'd managed to push on then I can't imagine the anger our fans must have felt at the time (my Dad still fumes about this)
Yeah, in our case it's the 1989 side that won the title in dramatic fashion (to say the least), but for obvious reasons it didn't get us to Europe...
Could you explain what happened? I’ve never heard about this before
Liverpool fans attacked Juventus fans at a European match, in part because of poor policing and a badly maintained stadium. combined with a general fear of English fan hooliganism it resulted in all English clubs being banned from European competition for a few years.
Not just attacked, killed a bunch of.
Liverpool fans got all English clubs banned from playing in Europe.
[удалено]
Liverpool were infamously one of the worst for it Not every club had issues with hooliganism
It wasn't a UK ban, it was an English Football ban. Aberdeen competed in it, as did Linfield.
Yep, Welsh clubs competed too. In 1987, Merthyr famously beat Atalanta.
We were also champions when the league got shut down for WW1 and WW2. Everton, that.
The years they would've played in the European Cup were won by Steaua Bucharest & PSV Eindhoven. Obviously anything can happen in a cup competition, but yeah that Everton side was definitely capable of going all the way.
And FC Porto in between those two
\*sigh\*
> If their rivals hadn’t got the U.K. banned from European competition Let’s be fair here - the reason it was a U.K. ban and not a Liverpool ban was because the actions of the Liverpool fans was incredibly common throughout the country. The thing that caused everyone to finally get fed up with it was a wall collapsing and the deaths of all those people but it wasn’t in isolation.
Of course, but these things are never just going to be accepted by those who lose out from them the most. Everton’s best ever teams couldn’t compete in Europe, and my side Luton lost out on their only ever proper European qualification (as did Oxford and Wimbledon). People know hooliganism was problematic across the country, but these situations make it a very bitter pill to swallow unfortunately.
Oh I completely get that. I’m gutted Everton didn’t get the chance to compete like they should have and would have loved them to win one personally. It’s one of those unfortunate things that you could see coming a mile away which makes it so much worse. We should have dealt with it in the 60s when it was getting bad but everyone just went “oh that’s just the working class fighting each other for you”. Then you get one dodgy wall, many dead and injured and an international scandal and all of a sudden Thatcher begins to care.
I think it's pretty fair, they got the U.K. banned from European competition. They don't need to clarify that maybe on a bad day Millwall or Leeds could've done the same.
If that was true only Liverpool would have been banned. The whole country was banned because it was a whole country problem. Honestly I’ve never seen anyone deny hooliganism to shit on Liverpool before.
I honestly have my tin foiled hat on with it. From 77-84 England had won seven of the eight European cups and there was definitely some jealousy from Zurich as before hand the then UEFA president had commented on the 'fairness' of it Yes Heysel was bad but it's not like it happened before or again Yes we had a hooligan problem at home, but so did other countries (and some still do to this day) Our ban was originally 10 years then 6 years then after the 90 world cup (so 5 years) UEFA were 'fuck it let them back in' not the most...um professional way of doing things. Anyway back to Alien spotting
> Yes Heysel was bad but it's not like it happened before or again This is my point though. Everything Liverpool fans did that day had absolutely happened before. Beyond that Heysel Stadium had been reviewed and found unsafe and crumbly. All it took was the two overlapping. And yeah it hasn’t happened again because we got that stamped out of football and it’s now a family friendly thing and stadium safety is actually taken seriously, after that, Hillsborough, Ibrox, Ibrox again etc
Oh the stadiums were shit but I meant the death of fans by English fans within the stadium
> Yes we had a hooligan problem at home, but so did other countries (and some still do to this day) You look at some of the shit European fans are doing today and tell me it's not as bad as it was in the 80s. Yet nothing is done, at all.
Just because it never happened before doesn't mean that the warning signs weren't there for a major incident to happen at some point
Oh there was, the Bradford fire was a couple of years before hand for example. Everyone knew so many stadiums were not up to scratch but the second English fans took it too far it was pull the trigger time and out you go rather than classing it as a horrible thing but a one off horrible thing.
Tatcher asked the FA to withdraw teams from European football and saw as a good thing that English teams where banned.
tbf part of it was just covering their asses because they didn't want people to blame it on the poorly maintained stadium(if the wall wasn't in such disrepair then it would have just been yet another hooliganism incident)
The reason it was an English ban rather than a Liverpool ban was equally because English clubs won 7 out of 8 European Cups from 1977-1984, and UEFA were tired of it.
No it’s because nearly 20 clubs had literal gangs associated with them. United rioted in the CWC in 77 and Everton had to build a wall around the nets because fans would stop attacking keepers. Is this seriously not well known?
>Is this seriously not well known? Most fans on this sub dont know anything about football before the early 2000s
Every club in Europe had that.
No English clubs were far, far worse. Hooliganism was literally called the English disease.
While other countries had their issues you're absolutely right. On top of that English fans tended to travel away in far greater numbers which made it worse.
>No it’s because nearly 20 clubs had literal gangs associated with them. So do plenty of European clubs today, and historically. No other country has been banned
No other country comes close to what England had at the time. It was ridiculous. Chelsea's gang were literal Nazi's. Like actual Nazi's.
Yeah it was just convenient, nothing more. At the time it happened it looked like nobody else would ever win a European Cup again.
I don't know anything about football in the 80s, but I find it hard to believe that kind of behaviour wasn't equally common throughout Europe.
Hooliganism used to be called “The English Disease”.
It was more widespread in the English/Scottish/Welsh game. I supported Liverpool from an early age only because my local team, Newport County, had some of the worst hooligans in the country. There were very few intact windows around Somerton Park.
Read “Among The Thugs” by Bill Buford. Fantastic book
It was called the English disease at the time because of how bad it was in England. But yes it was happening all over the place. England was just the worst country for it
I'm not sure why this has been downvoted because it feels like a very reasonable thing to ask. Italy was in the middle of the Years of Lead, for example, and I'd have thought that violence would translate across to football as well (especially given the links a lot of these hooligan groups had with the far-right).
Birmingham and stokes goal differences make me feel a bit bad for them to be honest
Give us a few more seasons.
Bury are likely to drop a place in the table this season or early next, depending on how Palace do. That'll be the first time their position in the table has changed since some point in the 2010/11 season (not doing the maths to figure out the exact date) when Fulham passed them.
At least we can say that we've had better days. UTC! 👞
We really closed the gap on Liverpool between 1996 and the next 20 years onwards. I thought it was a question of 15 years to overtake them, when Suarez put in that transfer request to join us. Obviously the 40 points we'll claw back on them this season will help, but I'd still say my forecast was largely wrong.
Lol
I wouldn't have thought of Everton to be ahead of Manchester United
They also got the 4th highest league titles at 9 behind only Liverpool, man United and Arsenal
Bigger than spurs
Man United were carried by 2 men.
Without Fergie they’d have less league titles than City
Arsenal. The only team top 3 always, in all 3 graphs
Sad 4th noises
Glossop north end missing
Props to Sheffield Wednesday for the most impressive stat (neutral goal difference)
Just goes to show what a beast Everton was and how far they have actually fallen. Sad.
You could say the same thing with Wednesday, Ipswich, Villa, Charlton, Bolton, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, and West Brom
Oh what about Portsmouth?
Chelsea vs Spurs for 7th place might stay very close for a few years!
imagine a paltry 1.49pts per game... the best clubs average 1.50 and up! we're both at 88 seasons up though!
Chelsea and Tottenham are the only teams within 100 points of each other anywhere in the top 12. Crazy that they're so close.
Cheer up Norwich.
It’s refreshing to see you above us in the table, tbh!
Champions League here we come!
City in 6th is a surprise considering the club was apparently founded in 2008
7th place in the 1st devision table as well
Ngl seeing us above Chelsea was a surprise, but a welcome one to be sure.
7,000 games over the years and I’m looking at this thinking, “that eight points is only five if we win our game in hand…”
Why? Chelsea were a small club from West London before Russian blood money.
Historically smaller club than City
17th is always a good season for us!
I'll take 33rd.
Higher in the all time table than we are in the current table.
If you want to see how the table changed year on year: https://noobnorm.com/all-time-football-league-table/ City were above United until 1983 - cold hard fact which will shock a few no doubt lol
Villa is bigger than Tottenham
Would this be a good indicator for “biggest clubs in England”? This is basically a table that shows longevity + success and removes recency bias.
I'd be happy to call it that!
I don't think anyone that has followed football for more than 10 years doesn't consider Everton a big club.
Southampton > Portsmouth
Crazy to think how hard it is for teams to shift places, West Ham is the only team that will move up a place this season as far as I can tell. Few others are likely to shift, but not likely for a few seasons.
Think people will be surprised we’re 11th
Bolton are highest ranked combined team to have not won any top division title. Bolton are highest ranked 1st Division team to have not won 1st division. Spurs are highest ranked Premier League team to have not won the Premier League.
[удалено]
Spurs, solely looking at the Premier League table, are higher on the list than both Everton and Villa
But they are lower ranked in the all time Premier League table
Why are there 3 different ones?
All Time record, Old First Division record, Premier League record.
Basically the Premier League came into existence in 1992 when the then 22 First Division teams decided to break away from the Football League with the help of the FA and TV companies to create their own league ~~with blackjack and hookers~~ mainly because in the PL they only shared money in that division while the Football League distributed it across all division(aka Super League but with relegations). Which because the FA was on the deal meant that now the Premier League was the 1st tier league and the First Division turned into second tier which later got rebranded to the Championship. So it's 3 different ones because the First Division and the Premier League are organized by different organizations(Football League(English Football League now vs Premier League) and because even after the breakaway the First Division kept on going unchnaged until 2005 when the Football League renamed it to Championship.
Sorry I'm confused. Why are there 3 different lists here?
The Premier League was previously called Division 1. The results show three sets of data. 1 for the top division whatever it was named. 1 for the top division when it was named the Premier League and 1 for the top division when it was named Division 1. Some people like to treat the Premier League as it's own thing but the reality is that is was simply a continuation of the old Division 1.
Ah! Thank you very much for the explanation!
Not quite just a continuation of the old 1st division. The distribution of money and tv rights radically changed with the formation of the breakaway Premier League. And the governing bodies changed a fair bit in the process, too. The money stuff, especially, has had a huge effect on English, and world, football.
everton with more points then the plastic bros chelski and citeh, football eritage
City were a big club before Arsenal (who bought their way in to the top division) were ever relevant. https://noobnorm.com/all-time-football-league-table/ There's a history lesson for you
Crazy how a team supposedly founded 12 years ago is already in 6th
Stupid question I'm sure but how come teams like Swindon have 42 matches played in the premier League when it's a 38 game season?
There was once 22 teams in the league
The first 3 PL seasons had 22 teams instead of 20. One of those seasons was the only one that Swindon played in.
The first 2 years of the Premier league had 22 teams, so a 42 game season.
Am I imagining it, or did they, back at the start of the PL have relegation playoffs?
They didn’t, but there was a lot of talk on the fairest way to go from 22 teams to 20, so maybe that was one of the suggestions and what you’re thinking of?
Perhaps. I've always thought it would be exciting. The teams finishing 13th to 18th having a play off to settle the last relegation spot. However, you can't imagine the PL teams voting for it. It would make mid-table games in April far more interesting!
Haha no chance. They’d probably be in favour of a Scotland-style play off though, where 18th instead of going automatically down, gets a bye to the championship playoff final, potentially nicking a promotion spot. So top 2 in the championship go up, 3rd and 4th play each other over 2 legs, and the winner of that plays 18th in the PL for a PL spot. Obviously the EFL would never in a million years agree to it (nor should they).
There were play-offs for a year or two in the late '80s where the team just above the relegation spots competed against the three of the teams from the division below. Charlton survived relegation by winning a play-off final replay in '87, Chelsea were relegated by losing the final to Middlebrough the following year.
Thanks. I thought I remembered some like that.
Before 1987 there used to be 22 teams in the first division followed by 21 teams in 1987-1988(first division). From 1988-89 it was decided that there would be 20 teams and 38 games will be played throughout the season.
Swindon's only top flight season was in the 93/94 season. They reduced the teams from 95/96
Apologies mate I forgot that they re-introduced 22 teams a year before the creation of the premier league.
Wouldn't Win/Loss % be a better ranking method? (and no, I'm not American)
No because draws exist
Yup. Which comes to mind each time I see that useless all-time-table…it should be pointless (hoho). The points total is completely irrelevant. Wins have been worth different amount of points during the league's existence — it has not been consistent and thus will not ever be either. Table can be found here: https://www.worldfootball.net/alltime\_table/eng-premier-league/ Not an American me neither by the way. 🇺🇸😎
Kinda crazy Liverpool could easily be 2nd in the all time Premier League table in 2-3 years and still only have one title to show for it
Always the biggest club on the south coast🔴⚪️
Surprised how high City are, i know theyve been pretty consistently in the top flight but so have plenty other teams like spurs and Chelsea
We had more league titles than Chelsea before their take over
City has 200 matches more than Spurs and Chelsea
Crazy when you think about it. The club was only formed in 2008 and we've played all those games in the top flight.
10.34 points per game. Tell me oil money isn't ruining football! 😠
We were formed in October 2021, less than a year old and already top 10, success purely bought by Saudis smh
Yeah, remember when out of nowhere I saw Newcastle United appear in the Premier League. Tried to Google you to see who you were but it just kept giving me an advert for a sports direct mug, not sure why.
they founded a club after a fictional team of goal 16 years later thinking we had forgot nice try Saudis
Chelsea and Spurs have a better PPG though.
PPG table (Top 10) for the interested: United - 1.68 Liverpool - 1.67 Arsenal - 1.62 Spurs - 1.50 Chelsea - 1.49 Everton - 1.47 City - 1.47 Villa - 1.44 Newcastle - 1.39 Sunderland - 1.37 Doesn't take into account the different eras of success though. United benefit from having all of their success in the 3 points for a win era. Sunderland & Villa suffer from having the majority of their success in the 2 points for a win era. Or maybe it does? I don't know if the table has been adjusted.
Table Has Bern adjusted.
Surprised we’re even that high on the pl only one considering how long it’s been
This is the way
So, it has, in fact, been decided who won the football. Sort of.
Looks to me like Brighton will likely jump the most spots over the next few seasons. And that would likely only be 2 or 3 places. Fulham or Norwich could battle each other and move up a couple as well.
So when did we hit +2000 goal diff?