What a fiddle! WSL table decided by the FA.

[Centurions]

I expect the dippers know that there's a good chance that some of the woman's teams will fold due to money problems with the main team , and that they will not get relegated .

That's a very good point that I'd (for one) not considered.

 

[Claytop]

Was confused when I read the thread title and saw my name next to it.

I don’t necessarily think it’s a fiddle!...

 

[Gordyola]

Average points is a nonsense end of. Should have gone back to when the number of games played was level or void the season

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

No doubt there will be a petition circulating soon enough to keep the Lady Dippers in the top flight.

Not a lady among 'em!

 

[bluwes]

Nailed on that at least one team above them will fold because of the Covid crisis. Think they'll stay up as a result

 

[cptaidan88]

It isn't though, you can get relegated on PPG when you've played your nearest rival away but not at home, or played more top teams away but not at home.

Not every team will agree it's fair to them, but it's the fairest method in the circumstances. Continuing is not a possibility.

You have to apply a consistent method across the league.

 

[cleavers]

Dippers in hypocritical double standards shocker ! That won’t be a first!

It won't be a "last" either.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

That's a much better idea behind null & void.

Yeah, I mean it wouldn't have changed the WSL but given the PL won't go for null and void, but want to keep playing it till the Dippers are confirmed champions, it makes a big difference to the rest of the league if you only include ties that have been played twice. The outright league table for head-to-heads where both matches have been played is:

1 Liverpool P: 20 W:18 D: 1 L: 1 GS: 41 GC: 12 GD: +29 Pts: 55
2 Manchester City P: 18 W: 11 D: 2 L: 5 GS: 37 GC: 19 GD: 18 Pts: 35
3 Manchester United P: 20 W: 9 D: 6 L: 5 GS: 31 GC: 17 GD: +14 Pts: 33
4 Arsenal P: 18 W: 8 D: 8 L: 2 GS: 26 GC: 15 GD: +11 Pts: 32
5 Chelsea P: 20 W: 9 D: 5 L: 6 GS: 33 GC: 26 GD: +7 Pts: 32
6 Wolverhampton Wanderers P: 20 W: 7 D: 9 L:4 GS: 27 GC: 20 GD: +7 Pts: 30
7 Sheffield United P: 18 W: 8 D: 6 L:4 GS: 15 GC: 13 GD: +2 Pts: 30
8 Everton P: 20 W: 8 D: 6 L: 6 GS: 27 GC: 26 GD: +1 Pts: 30
9 Leicester City P: 20 W: 8 D: 5 L: 7 GS: 41 GC: 23 GD: +18 Pts: 29
10 Tottenham Hotspur P: 20 W: 8 D: 5 L: 7 GS: 31 GC: 27 GD: +4 Pts: 29
11 Burnley P: 20 W: 8 D: 4 L: 8 GS: 23 GC: 26 GD: -3 Pts: 28
12 Crystal Palace P: 20 W: 6 D: 8 L: 6 GS: 18 GC: 20 GD: -2 Pts: 26
13 Watford P: 20 W: 5 D: 7 L: 8 GS: 19 GC: 21 GD: -2 Pts: 22
14 Brighton & Hove Albion P: 20 W: 4 D: 9 L: 7 GS: 25 GC: 25 GD: 0 Pts: 21
15 Newcastle United P: 20 W: 5 D: 5 L: 10 GS: 13 GC: 30 GD: -17 Pts: 20
16 Southampton P: 20 W: 6 D: 2 L: 12 GS: 22 GC: 40 GD: -18 Pts: 20
17 Bournemouth P: 20 W: 4 D: 6 L: 10 GS: 16 GC: 31 GD: -15 Pts: 18
18 Aston Villa P: 18 W: 5 D: 2 L: 11 GS: 23 GC: 42 GD: -19 Pts: 17
19 West Ham United P: 20 W: 3 D: 5 L: 12 GS: 23 GC: 38 GD: -15 Pts: 14
20 Norwich City P: 20 W: 3 D: 5 L: 12 GS: 15 GC: 35 GD: -20 Pts: 14

But the PPG table would look like:

1 Liverpool 2.75
2 Manchester City 1.94
3 Arsenal 1.78
4 Sheffield United 1.67
5 Manchester United 1.65
6 Chelsea 1.60
7 Wolverhampton Wanderers 1.50
8 Everton 1.50
9 Leicester City 1.45
10 Tottenham Hotspur 1.45
11 Burnley 1.40
12 Crystal Palace 1.30
13 Watford 1.10
14 Brighton & Hove Albion 1.05
15 Newcastle United 1.00
16 Southampton 1.00
17 Aston Villa 0.94
18 Bournemouth 0.90
19 West Ham United 0.70
20 Norwich City 0.70

Big swing in the CL places but it takes away that "we've only played them away", I wonder how the discussions would have been if they used this model...then you just add both games in once the second game has been played, that way if it gets cut off in 2 matchdays time you are excluding the unbalanced games where one side had home advantage. Granted with it putting the Rags in 3rd, bumping Arsenal up and kicking Leicester & Chelsea out of the CL it doesn't look great, but the PPG puts Sheff Utd in the CL and it takes out the "x gets relegated but y finished 2 points ahead and won the home game against them and there was no return fixture" argument, which if you're not going to null and void it is the biggest problem on fairness for me.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Not every team will agree it's fair to them, but it's the fairest method in the circumstances. Continuing is not a possibility.

You have to apply a consistent method across the league.

I don't think it's fair for a team to get relegated in a league where they've only played an away game against a team who stays up instead of them, those fixtures need to be taken out of the calculation for it to be fair imo.

 

[cptaidan88]

I don't think it's fair for a team to get relegated in a league where they've only played an away game against a team who stays up instead of them, those fixtures need to be taken out of the calculation for it to be fair imo.

How is that more fair? There will be teams in the bottom six who have played City and Liverpool home and away and teams that haven't played either of them twice. Norwich have beaten us but only played us once, but that would be rewarded the same as Villa who we have beaten twice???

There is no completely fair way to resolve this pretty unique situation, PPG is the simplest, but more importantly the most fair. That is why it is being adopted in so many leagues.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

How is that more fair? There will be teams in the bottom six who have played City and Liverpool home and away and teams that haven't played either of them twice. Norwich have beaten us but only played us once, but that would be rewarded the same as Villa who we have beaten twice???

There is no completely fair way to resolve this pretty unique situation, PPG is the simplest, but more importantly the most fair. That is why it is being adopted in so many leagues.

It's fair because they've had home advantage and haven't played the reciprocating fixture. Points per game where you can go down by .2 yet still have to play your nearest rival at home isn't fair, take the home advantages out of the equation and then calculate PPG and it's much fairer. Norwich still have to play Brighton & West Ham, Watford have to play Norwich at home and West Ham host Watford. It's not fair for the reverse fixtures to be included thus biasing the PPG on the fact some teams have got to play at home and other sides get relegated without the equilibrium of the reverse fixture.

If Chelsea had won the PPG trophy but the 3-3 draw at our place hadn't happened, then the PPG calculation definitely wouldn't have been fair as we wouldn't have been able to play the home game against them. To compensate the away game we lost should be scrubbed from the books in that case and then we win the league because their home advantage is scrapped. As it happens in the WSL those games were played, but the principle is fairer.

 

[cptaidan88]

It's fair because they've had home advantage and haven't played the reciprocating fixture. Points per game where you can go down by .2 yet still have to play your nearest rival at home isn't fair, take the home advantages out of the equation and then calculate PPG and it's much fairer. Norwich still have to play Brighton & West Ham, Watford have to play Norwich at home and West Ham host Watford. It's not fair for the reverse fixtures to be included thus biasing the PPG on the fact some teams have got to play at home and other sides get relegated without the equilibrium of the reverse fixture.

If Chelsea had won the PPG trophy but the 3-3 draw at our place hadn't happened, then the PPG calculation definitely wouldn't have been fair as we wouldn't have been able to play the home game against them. To compensate the away game we lost should be scrubbed from the books in that case and then we win the league because their home advantage is scrapped. As it happens in the WSL those games were played, but the principle is fairer.

You're suggestion for curtailing the season would result in City only counting results against 9 teams in a 20 team league. Its utterly ridiculous.

If there was a better way for leagues to be resolved in this unprecedented situation, leagues would be using it. But they're not.

 

[nmc]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...funded-and-in-disarray?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Good article naming and shaming the Dippers.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

You're suggestion for curtailing the season would result in City only counting results against 9 teams in a 20 team league. Its utterly ridiculous.

If there was a better way for leagues to be resolved in this unprecedented situation, leagues would be using it. But they're not.

It's fair. More fair than arbitrarily relegating teams who have crucial home games against their rivals unplayed, potentially financially ruining clubs just because they weren't lucky enough to have their relegation rivals at home before March. Just cruel.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

To be honest, all mechanisms of deciding a premature league finish are unfair as they weren't in place before the start of the competition.

The same that has been pointed out in the men's game about neutral venues and additional subs etc.

Bizarre to me that they can be made up mid-competition and applied on the hoof..........

 

[i8rags]

I wonder why Liverpool eventually agreed to this?

I like your jib

 

[Newquayblue]

No doubt there will be a petition circulating soon enough to keep the Lady Dippers in the top flight.

I bet the candles are already out.
btw were we 2-0 up in that 3-3 draw?

 

[berryblue]

Chelsea having been NAMED winners doesn't mean they have WON the title!

 

[Centurions]

Chelsea having been NAMED winners doesn't mean they have WON the title!

Yeah, it pretty much does you know.