| One for the old farts on 18:56 - Mar 28 with 1901 views | powinswitch |
Had that season been 3 points for a win and goall difference, we would have been champions I believe. I also believe it’s the only season that would see a different champion to the one that won under the two points for a win and goal average system. But I may be wrong, and have to go out so can’t look into it further |  | |  |
| One for the old farts on 19:03 - Mar 28 with 1860 views | SmithersJones |
So we would have won the league with 77 points from 42 games? That’s ridiculously low in comparison to today. | | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:05 - Mar 28 with 1845 views | NthQldITFC |
Presumably it must have been done on head-to-head results? Or 'just give it Scousers'? |  |
| |
| One for the old farts on 19:07 - Mar 28 with 1825 views | bluelagos |
| One for the old farts on 19:05 - Mar 28 by NthQldITFC |
Presumably it must have been done on head-to-head results? Or 'just give it Scousers'? |
My scouse mate said it was goal average which I don't understand...might have to look up the wiki page and report back |  |
| |
| One for the old farts on 19:10 - Mar 28 with 1776 views | MattinLondon |
| One for the old farts on 19:03 - Mar 28 by SmithersJones |
So we would have won the league with 77 points from 42 games? That’s ridiculously low in comparison to today. |
Think back then, there wasn’t as much difference in terms of quality from top-to-bottom. Probably more akin to what the Championship is like now. |  | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:10 - Mar 28 with 1775 views | PhilTWTD |
Was done on goal average in those days. |  | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:10 - Mar 28 with 1776 views | SmithersJones |
| One for the old farts on 19:07 - Mar 28 by bluelagos |
My scouse mate said it was goal average which I don't understand...might have to look up the wiki page and report back |
Yes, it was goal average. Goals scored divided by goals conceded. So a 2-1 win was better than a 5-3 win. Funnily enough there was concern that teams were more interested in defending than attacking. | | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:11 - Mar 28 with 1771 views | Pinewoodblue |
Not sure if I meet your requirements to respond but it used to be goal average not goal difference.
Goal average is the number of goals scored divided by the number of goals conceded. It was replaced by goal difference, which was thought to encourage more attacking play, encouraging teams to score more goals (or points) as opposed to defending against conceding.
Far too complicated for the modern fan. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| One for the old farts on 19:12 - Mar 28 with 1743 views | oldburian |
| One for the old farts on 19:07 - Mar 28 by bluelagos |
My scouse mate said it was goal average which I don't understand...might have to look up the wiki page and report back |
Divide the goals scored by the goals conceded.
Aresenal won the League in 1953 over Preston by an extremely small difference resulting in Tom Finley never winning the Cup or the League. | | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:15 - Mar 28 with 1705 views | Bluespeed225 |
| One for the old farts on 19:10 - Mar 28 by SmithersJones |
Yes, it was goal average. Goals scored divided by goals conceded. So a 2-1 win was better than a 5-3 win. Funnily enough there was concern that teams were more interested in defending than attacking. |
Did we not stay up by this in 71? Shammers taking the drop? | | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:22 - Mar 28 with 1646 views | SmithersJones |
| One for the old farts on 19:15 - Mar 28 by Bluespeed225 |
Did we not stay up by this in 71? Shammers taking the drop? |
Hadn’t come across this before so relying on Wikipedia. It looks like we did finish above West Ham on goal average but we would have finished above them had it been goal difference and, anyway, those were the days of 2 up 2 down so neither of us were relegated. | | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:35 - Mar 28 with 1541 views | Oldsmoker |
Always interesting to see where todays top 6 were then.
Chelsea relegated. 
No Manure  |  |
| |
| One for the old farts on 19:39 - Mar 28 with 1514 views | SmithersJones |
| One for the old farts on 19:35 - Mar 28 by Oldsmoker |
Always interesting to see where todays top 6 were then.
Chelsea relegated.
No Manure |
This was my first season following football so, in my mind, Luton and Carlisle are top division clubs to this day and Man Utd are second division | | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:45 - Mar 28 with 1464 views | benrhyddingblue |
| One for the old farts on 19:03 - Mar 28 by SmithersJones |
So we would have won the league with 77 points from 42 games? That’s ridiculously low in comparison to today. |
A far more competitive league back then, IMO. | | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:50 - Mar 28 with 1423 views | BloomBlue |
It was more annoying we lost to Carlisle and Sheff U did the double against us (if I remember correctly) |  | | |
| One for the old farts on 19:51 - Mar 28 with 1410 views | Lord_Lucan |
| One for the old farts on 18:56 - Mar 28 by powinswitch |
Had that season been 3 points for a win and goall difference, we would have been champions I believe. I also believe it’s the only season that would see a different champion to the one that won under the two points for a win and goal average system. But I may be wrong, and have to go out so can’t look into it further |
Unless it’s happened in the last 5 years then yes, it’s the only time the champions would have been different with three points for a win. |  |
| |
| One for the old farts on 19:59 - Mar 28 with 1368 views | Miaow |
This was the penultimate season that goal average (or “goal ratio”) was used.
We came so close to achieving the Double in 1974/75. |  |
| |
| One for the old farts on 20:02 - Mar 28 with 1354 views | woodbridge_blue |
| One for the old farts on 19:50 - Mar 28 by BloomBlue |
It was more annoying we lost to Carlisle and Sheff U did the double against us (if I remember correctly) |
Losing at home to Luton on Boxing Day didn't help either.
People always remember the 1980/81 season, rightly so, as our finest campaign, but had goal difference rather than goal average in place, and had we not had a cheating Welsh referee in the FA Cup semi-final, we would have been only the third club in the 20th century to do the double, as we would surely have beaten Fulham at Wembley.
That 1974/75 side was so underrated, brilliant to watch. | | | |
| One for the old farts on 20:10 - Mar 28 with 1321 views | NthQldITFC |
| One for the old farts on 19:59 - Mar 28 by Miaow |
This was the penultimate season that goal average (or “goal ratio”) was used.
We came so close to achieving the Double in 1974/75. |
I was thinking that 'goal ratio' would have been a better description. I'd heard of 'goal average' before and had assumed it was just another name for 'goal difference' but it doesn't make sense to me as a description of anything. I am now enlightened. 'Goal ratio' makes much more sense but. | |
| |
| One for the old farts on 20:51 - Mar 28 with 1177 views | Swansea_Blue |
Under today's rules:
Team P G_Diff 3pts_Win
3 Ipswich T 42 22 74
1 Derby Co 42 18 74
2Â Liverpool FC 42 21 71
6 Sheffield U 42 7 67
5 Stoke C 42 16 66
4 Everton 42 14 66
7 Middlebrough 42 14 66
8 Manchester C 42 0 64
10 Burnley 42 1 62
9 Leeds U 42 8 61
11 Q.P.R 42 0 58
15 Newcastle U 42 -13 54
21 Chelsea 42 -30 54
12 Wolverhampton W 42 3 53
13 West Ham U 42 -1 52
17 Birmingham C 42 -8 51
14 Coventry C 42 -11 51
16 Arsenal 42 -2 50
18 Leicester C 42 -14 48
19 Tottenham H 42 -11 47
20 Luton T 42 -18 44
22 Carlisle U 42 -16 29 |  |
| |
| One for the old farts on 23:12 - Mar 28 with 977 views | Herbivore |
| One for the old farts on 18:56 - Mar 28 by powinswitch |
Had that season been 3 points for a win and goall difference, we would have been champions I believe. I also believe it’s the only season that would see a different champion to the one that won under the two points for a win and goal average system. But I may be wrong, and have to go out so can’t look into it further |
If we were Norwich that would be on our honours board. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
