Title deciders

Avram Grant was saying before Sunday's games that he wouldn't like the Premiership to be decided on goal difference (although it didn't come to that of course) but he favoured a play-off.

He didn't make it plain where he expected the play-off to be played, or if he wanted it over 2 legs or whatever (not where I read it anyway).

In the history of English football, when teams have been level on points, the title has been decided on goal average (goals scored divided by goals conceded), but this was changed to goal difference sometime in the 1970s (I believe), although this has never yet been used, but it would have been for the first time if Chelsea had won on Sunday.
(Note - when Arsenal won in 1989, it was won on goals scored, as both of the top two teams had the same goal difference).

La Liga base the winners on games between the top two, if they tie on points - so Real Madrid won a year ago despite Barça having a far better goal difference as they had managed a win and a draw against Barça earlier in the season.
So, with a few games left, Barça knew they'd have to get more points than Madrid.

What are your thoughts?

I was happy with that goal difference because we won the title with that in 1998, Lens and Metz were ex-aequo. But now i'm not happy with that because we can be relegated because of that goal difference.

So, do you think it's good overall?

I don't think there will ever be a clear cut way to determine it if they are level on points unless there is a 2 legged playoff between the two clubs. However, to throw in a curve ball here. What if there was 3 teams with the same amount of points. It could have happened this year, if Chelsea had won the final game, and if Arsenal weren't stripped of 4 points from the refs. All three could have been tied with 87, but then who gets to play in the two legged playoff? One team would be out of luck, but how would they determine that part of it? And for that team that is out of luck would be in uproar.

I think the GD is the best way to do it, and if they are tied on GD, then whoever scored the most goals.

So you prefer to keep the status quo Dylan, and I agree

It would have been possible that three teams were on the same points in the relegation battle if Bolton had lost at Chelsea - so you'd have been right about the problems there

I think to play another match to decide the winner is more beautiful and have a better end but for me it's more unfair because the goal difference talks about all the season, a match is match, you can win today and lose it tomorrow. That's why i'm still for the penalties series. I saw that in the 50's or 60's when the match ended on a draw, there was a replay and it's amazing how the score can change. 0-0 today can be 4-0 tomorrow.

It's funny but i think that another match or a replay is more a questions of luck.

Goal difference is fair, its a mark of how well the team plays and the way they approach the game. Id prefer an attacking team to win rather than a defensive one.

I'm happy with GD - and I'm not really happy with play-offs in lower divisions.

I remember Rugby league having a table where the top 8 had a play-off competition to decide who won.
A league is a league - let's keep it like that, however we decide between the ones at the top.

I wouldn't like to go back to goal average though - it' was too complicated to work out at the end of the season.

I'm not a fan of playoffs either. Living in America all the major sports here: American football, baseball, basketball and hockey, all utilize the playoff system a.k.a. knockout rounds. The problem I see with it is that the best team throughout the season doesn't always win. (they are usually best of 7 games, first team to win 4 games against the other moves on to the next round) The problem here though, is that a team could get on form at the end and just win even though they were sub-par though the season. So not every game counts, just as long as you have a good enough record to grab a spot in the playoffs. I love the way football is setup with the points and one league table. Every game counts if you want to win the championship.



This goal average seems to be good. A bit too complicated for people that aren't good at math and can't do division apparently. We do have calculators now.

It should be based on charm & appearance. In this case, Middlesbrough win with bonus points.

It's hard to say what's fair and what's not. Goal difference doesn't tell who is the best. Perhaps counting who has won the most games firstly, then who's lost the least and then goal difference?

Most people can't use them properly, and many can't even understand GD:

EG:
Top teams have one game left - top have a GD of 1 and 3 points ahead, second have a GD of 0.
Many people think second team must win by a couple of goals - they don't understand that the top team's GD drops if they lose and second gains if they win

I have no idea what they think about goal average.

Guess they didn't do too well in Algebra class when it came to the equations chapter.

It must be the division and the decimal points that screw people up in the goal average.

You'll find when you're over here how stupid many people are

And - Jamesy - yes, you're on the right track

You'd be shocked at how dumb Americans are.

I'm for the play-offs even if what papa5murf says it's true, playoffs are based on current form and that could affect the matches. But I think that it'd add an extra excitement to the supporters and give the two teams the possibility to win it on the pitch.

Not a playoff fan. Too much like American sports. It's slipperly slope to having the top 4 play off ever year for no good reason.

As it almost never comes to it, goal difference is fine.

Here are a couple of examples in American sports.

2008 NBA playoffs:
As there are two conferences in the league the playoffs are separated by two brackets. The West is undoubtedly the strongest in the league. While the East is a very sub-par conference. (8 teams from each conference make it to the playoffs.) There are two teams from the Eastern conference that don't even have a 500% record, they still made the playoffs with a losing record. Is it fair for a team that has been poor all season long, not even able to grab a winning record to make it to the playoffs with a chance to win the championship? Philadelphia's record was 40-42, while Atlanta's record was an abysmal 37-45.

Now here is where it becomes unfair (I doubt this would be an issue in football due to the single table format, but it's something to think about). There were two teams in the Western conference that didn't make the playoffs that had better records than the two teams (mentioned above) that made it into the Eastern conference playoffs. Is this fair? I think not, the West is a stronger conference and these two teams played better teams throughout the year and still managed a better record; however, they get left out of the playoffs.

I think the only viable alternative to goal difference is looking at head to head first, then goal difference.

If its going to be playoffs have them scheduled from the start like most sports here in Aussie do (top 8 go into playoffs for winning league) would make the whole league more exciting IMO.

But... if you are going to decide winner on points, not playoffs then it is a terrible idea to bring them in for ties, head to head, or goal difference only IMO.

For playoff I meant when two clubs have the same amount of points at the end of the regular season, then they've to play one (or two) more match/es against each other. I'm not a fan of predetermined playoffs among the first 4 or 6 of the league aswell

I just wanted to say that a League with points, it's precision because it's based on 38 matchs. Lyon won the title every year because they are the most regular team, this year Lens have won 3-0 against Lyon, so we must be champion.

Do you think that we made a good season ? no it's one of the worst, i just wanted to say that a match is not enough precise and representative of a season.