Breaking records/stats thread

The only record that will be remembered is most points.

The top flight record (when all 129 seasons are scaled to 3 points and 38 games) is 100 points by Preston in 1889

So 100 is not just a nice number, or the one that may generate a nickname, it's the real record rather than Chelsea's 95 points because, as we know, football existed before 1992.

If we get 100 points then the records will say that, for a season at least, we were the best EVER.
 
1zvsrjt.jpg
 
Metalartin said:
Yeah and that way they can't use the "it's because the league was so poor this year" excuse if we don't break it.

Any other year the 77 points they are on now would not be scoffed at, in fact the whole of the top four are already 71+ with 3 left to play that doesn't seem bad at all(I may be wrong, I haven't checked back that far)... it's never been stronger top to bottom either, we're just fuckin' class and they can't hack it.
Click to expand...

The second best team in the League lost to WestBrom, Newcastle and Huddersfield. Yet, we are told the strength of the premier league is poor. I would love to see a PL season (if at all there are any) where the lower level teams were better than they are currently.
 
Cobwebcat said:
The only record that will be remembered is most points.

The top flight record (when all 129 seasons are scaled to 3 points and 38 games) is 100 points by Preston in 1889

So 100 is not just a nice number, or the one that may generate a nickname, it's the real record rather than Chelsea's 95 points because, as we know, football existed before 1992.

If we get 100 points then the records will say that, for a season at least, we were the best EVER.
Click to expand...
That puts into context how fucking good this team is, incredible.
 
We are the Champions, rags will probably finish 2nd.
When they came to ours and won we totally dominated in the first half and should have been at least 4 goals up at half time, some players were guilty of missing very good chances.
That was the real Manchester City, a team that no one else can touch now.
Records are tumbling, the trophies are accumulating and some of the football is really unbelievable.
The rags, 2nd in the league may win the occasional battle, however, we have won the war.
 
Cobwebcat said:
The only record that will be remembered is most points.

The top flight record (when all 129 seasons are scaled to 3 points and 38 games) is 100 points by Preston in 1889

So 100 is not just a nice number, or the one that may generate a nickname, it's the real record rather than Chelsea's 95 points because, as we know, football existed before 1992.

If we get 100 points then the records will say that, for a season at least, we were the best EVER.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I dont think its valid to scale all 129 seasons to 3 points for a win. The introduction of 3 points for a win fundamentally changed the way that teams approach games. If it had always been 3 points for a win then, teams playing in the 2 points for a win era, would have played differently and its quite possible that many of them would have achieved higher points totals.
 
Metalartin said:
Someone should do an English top flight table to go with this because we are aiming for much longer standing records which is quite a statement considering they played 42 games... that's how good we are though.
Click to expand...
I'll put one together by Friday.
The greatest Liverpool and Spurs seasons will be behind us by the end of the season. Only Preston 1888-89 will have a better percentage record and they only played 22 games!
 
Last edited:
The best stat would be City's average possession this season. I am sure it will be around 80%. I wonder how that compares to other teams

It's sometimes strange when you watch other games and you realise there are two sides playing!
 
BlueAnorak said:
I'll put one together by Friday.
The greatest Liverpool and Spurs seasons will be behind us by the end of the season. Only Preston 1888-89 will have a better percentage record and they only played 22 games!
Click to expand...
As with anything there are things statisticians can do to ensure the message told is the right one. You could exclude anything pre-1892 by saying "Since the club joined the League as Ardwick in 1892...." Or exclude everything pre-1894 by saying "Since the formation of MCFC in 1894 the Blues have...." If a stat in the late 1890s is better, move forward: "Since the beginning of the twentieth century...." and if all else fails "In seasons with a minimum of 38 games MCFC's......"

These are accounting tricks that MUFC, LFC and some media outlets have been doing for years. They're valid, so why not make the explanation/reasoning fit the stat?
 
cibaman said:
To be honest, I dont think its valid to scale all 129 seasons to 3 points for a win. The introduction of 3 points for a win fundamentally changed the way that teams approach games. If it had always been 3 points for a win then, teams playing in the 2 points for a win era, would have played differently and its quite possible that many of them would have achieved higher points totals.
Click to expand...

While I agree that there are flaws doing it I think it's a valid method. So many other things have changed - the ball, the offside rules, level of fouling allowed etc. - that it's often a nonsense to compare each era anyway, but people do so why not when it works in MCFC's favour. Dixie Dean only scored the volume of goals he did in his record breaking season because the offside law had changed (similarly with Tommy Johnson at City), so it's so difficult to pick greatest players, games, teams etc. but they still do. Personally, I'd produce as many stats on this season as possible and let football decide what is significant and what is not. The idea of 'The Record Breakers' forever meaning MCFC 2017-18 has a great appeal and I think we should blitz this as much as possible. Others would, so why not?

I interviewed Malcolm Allison 26 years ago and he said that Joe Mercer had told him to celebrate your successes as if they are your first or your last that way you'll never be disappointed. I'd add that we should boast of what our club has achieved - by the end of the summer there is a strong chance that MUFC, LFC and maybe AFC have won a trophy - they will do all they can to claim these as major triumphs so we need to ensure our triumphs continue to be recognised above all else.
 
Gary James said:
While I agree that there are flaws doing it I think it's a valid method. So many other things have changed - the ball, the offside rules, level of fouling allowed etc. - that it's often a nonsense to compare each era anyway, but people do so why not when it works in MCFC's favour. Dixie Dean only scored the volume of goals he did in his record breaking season because the offside law had changed (similarly with Tommy Johnson at City), so it's so difficult to pick greatest players, games, teams etc. but they still do. Personally, I'd produce as many stats on this season as possible and let football decide what is significant and what is not. The idea of 'The Record Breakers' forever meaning MCFC 2017-18 has a great appeal and I think we should blitz this as much as possible. Others would, so why not?

I interviewed Malcolm Allison 26 years ago and he said that Joe Mercer had told him to celebrate your successes as if they are your first or your last that way you'll never be disappointed. I'd add that we should boast of what our club has achieved - by the end of the summer there is a strong chance that MUFC, LFC and maybe AFC have won a trophy - they will do all they can to claim these as major triumphs so we need to ensure our triumphs continue to be recognised above all else.
Click to expand...

I agree with your general sentiment, but I'm still not sure that the comparisons are valid. If all of Dixie Deans' goals had been televised then it would be possible to analyse them and work out how many would have been disallowed for barging the keeper if the current laws applied. That might mean that his record would no longer stand. But that would be meaningless since obviously if he had played under the current laws he would have adapted his style. It would be pure guesswork as to how many goals he would have scored under today's laws. I think its equally misleading to recast points accumulated under two points for a win on the assumption that three points had always applied. I'm almost sure that none of the previous champions would have matched City's achievement (if we break the 100 point barrier) if 3 points for a win had always applied, but you cant say so with certainty.
 
cibaman said:
I agree with your general sentiment, but I'm still not sure that the comparisons are valid. If all of Dixie Deans' goals had been televised then it would be possible to analyse them and work out how many would have been disallowed for barging the keeper if the current laws applied. That might mean that his record would no longer stand. But that would be meaningless since obviously if he had played under the current laws he would have adapted his style. It would be pure guesswork as to how many goals he would have scored under today's laws. I think its equally misleading to recast points accumulated under two points for a win on the assumption that three points had always applied. I'm almost sure that none of the previous champions would have matched City's achievement (if we break the 100 point barrier) if 3 points for a win had always applied, but you cant say so with certainty.
Click to expand...

My point was that Dean's record does stand despite the changes, use of VAR etc. So if it's acceptable to still accept Dean's record without question then it's also acceptable to compare goals per game ratios etc. from today with seasons/games from that era too. Dean may or may not be better than Aguero/Kane etc. but the stats from that era remain the records today and people do compare, saying Dean was better. No one's negated any of his goals simply because the use of VAR today may have meant that back then some of his dubious goals may have been taken from him. Think of a more recent example - Ryan Giggs goal v City in his first League match. All of us there that day and those who have since seen the highlights know it was actually an own goal by Hendry, however the dubious goals panel wasn't in place then so it stands still as a Giggs goal because that's what his manager said. It's totally wrong but that's now in the record books. So, football records go off whatever rules/decision processes were in force at the time meaning comparisons made today can never be perfect but they are acceptable. Aguero's goals per game ratio can (and is - think of when Aguero broke Brook's record there were comparisons all over the place) be compared with Dean etc even though the sport has changed significantly since then. Similarly, percentage wins/draws etc. can be compared with any season in the past. Unless we had time machines we'll never prove anything was better/worse but people have been comparing stuff like this for years and so it makes sense that City do the same when it's City's turn.
 
City have won 13 PL games by a margin of three or more goals this season. Only two sides in top-flight history have won more in a single campaign; West Brom (16 in 1919-20) and Arsenal (14 in 1930-31).
 
If the 100 is still a possibility when we go to Southampton will there be fancy dress Centurions or would that be a little presumptuous?
 
At Southampton, we have to score 4 to equal and 5 to surpass the Premier league record for away goals currently held by Liverpool (58) in the 2013-14 season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top