Point Proven (once again)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/table/default.stm

(See: http://floatlikeabutterflysting.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/getting-point-38-not-40.html)

Like I said (2 years ago)...

(31 would have been enough this season)

http://floatlikeabutterflysting.blogspot.com/2008/05/getting-point-38-not-40.html

I'd love it if they go down, love it

I wanted to write a post about the Geordies, and why it would be fantastic to see them get relegated on Sunday. However, my hatred for them is such that everything I composed seemed to contain a plethora of swear words - and my dad reads this. Instead, I'm posting a link to this article from The Times which appeared earlier in the season. The first three paragraphs sum it up rather nicely - except their attendances in the early 1990s were nearer 10,000. Plus they win f*ck all (sorry dad)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/newcastle/article4761813.ece

Getting the point – 38 not 40

I’m sick of hearing pundits talk about 40 points as being the ‘safety mark’ necessary for teams to avoid relegation from the Premier League. Over the past few years, as the teams at the top have become stronger and stronger, we have repeatedly seen that less than 40 has been sufficient. In fact, in eight out of the last ten seasons, 38 points has meant survival – and in five of those, only 34 or 35 points have been required. Last season, Sheffield United were relegated on 38 points – but only on account of their -23 goal difference; Wigan also had 38 points, but survived. In other words, in nine out of the last ten years, a team could theoretically have failed to score a single goal all season, and still survived. 38 0-0 draws would have been sufficient – which I think says a lot about the detrimental effect the creation of the Premiership has had on the overall strength of the division.