Agree RC Lens.

The team who won the most or lost the least makes more sense.

I like the cups too but it can't be more precise than a league.

We have to think about the actual title winner here.

When we talk about the EPL, we must base it on the whole season, and Arsenal lost it with a few below par games, bad refereeing (please argue about that somewhere else ), etc at the end of the season.

So, as long as a team wins on points, then they should be champions - they changed the points system to 3 for a win rather than 2 in 1981, but we can't argue about that here.

(By the way - I happened to read that today, by chance, that goal average changed to goal difference in the English league in 1976.)

Also, we can argue about the play-offs from the Championship - is it fair that a team that just misses out on second place should have to play in a knock-out tournament that includes a team several points below them?
But, that is OT too.

The nearest that the top flight in England came to having a problem was in 1971, when Arsenal and Leeds were neck an neck - and there was a possibility of a tie.
Arsenal won their final game 1-0, and won by a clear point, but would have won the title on goal average if they'd drawn 0-0 at Spurs in that last game (all others had finished - it was before the time where they all play the final games at the same time.)
A 0-0 draw would have given Arsenal a goal average of 2.4137, compared with Leeds' 2.4.
1-1 would have given them a GA of 2.3667
Pretty close - so that final game was so important

Incidentally, if Arsenal had not won that last game, but got a 0-0 draw, Leeds would have won on GD in the current system.
Just to save you looking it up, Arsenal finished with 71-29, and Leeds 72-30.

The league will be more precise if it was 2 points for a win instead of 3, in France it has changed in the 80's.

What do you mean Rc - you'd prefer 2 points for a win?

I don't really know if i prefer it or not, i'm still thinking about it.

But it's more fair because for example a team who have won 1 match and lost 2 have 3 points like a team who made 3 draws, and the team who made 3 draws is more regular and they are not bad.

Maybe they should bting in 4 points for a win then?

I think it's good enough as it is...

because everyone will want a playoff then. Champions League spots, Uefa cup spots, relegation teams that got dropped cause of goal difference

It would be a never ending circle of playoffs

The league i play in has 4 points for a win 2 for a score draw, 1 for scoreloss draw and 0 for loss. Dunno how that would play out in a big league but its interesting

No 4 for a win it's too much.

I'd prefer games won or goals scored to decide because it would encourage teams to play more offensively and make games more attractive.

The one big problem with the points for score draws is that teams could possibly collude to get a 1-1 draw and an extra point each, and some goalless draws are only scoreless because of a great save or two.

So, a team that does a lot of attacking against a defensive team would get 4 points if they win 1-0, but only 1 if the opposing goallie makes one more great save - that's a 3 point difference

Part of the reason I mentioned 1970-71 was because that was when Don Revie was manager of Leeds, and his philosophy was "You start a game at 0-0, that's a point each - whatever you do, don't lose that point". Football was often quite boring then (but not always of course).

As it turned out this season, Man Utd would have won on any basis, even if they had just drawn at Wigan and tied on points - best Goal Average, Goal Diffence, Goals Scored and best results against Chelsea in the league (if it had to be decided like La Liga).
But, if they had drawn at Wigan, Chelsea would have won under the old rules where there was 2 points for a win and one for a draw just by getting more points.

Last season (2006-2007) Arsenal would have won the title if games were just based on games involving top 4 teams - this year it was Man U on that too - they won it fair and square under any system (apart from referees - only j/k).

How about you get more points for beating a top team?

Just a thought

twmcat, you been playing online poker with Trevor Brooking?

Jamesy - the best I ever achieved in online poker was when I forgot to play and I reached my best ever position

He's an old git like me though

i completely disagree with any changes to the current system.

would this spread to the relegation slots? should reading have played a play off to see if they should go down? should it affect 4th place? uefa cup places? 10th place? its nonsense and the current system is just fine.

agree with steely why break something that is not broken

It's not broken and doesn't need fixed.

Just speculating on it's authenticity. If you win the title via scoring one more goal than the other team, does it mean you're the best team? Every team has a different style of play and each can be likeable in their own ways, be it fast counter-attacking wing play or tight tactical playing-off-frontman style. One will score more than the other, but it does not mean it's better. You could actually score one more goal but lose one more game than the point-equalled opposition side and still win the title - is that right?