If the Premiership awarded only two points for a win, would any of its Champions have been different?
If, on its in inception, the (football) Premiership had chosen to award only two points for a win (as had been the case in England prior to 1981), would any of the Premiership Champions have been different to actual eventuality? Would any different teams had been relegated?
Answers:
Excellent question! I did my own research and yes, there would be some changes, although it only involved the title once, in 1995, and affected 5 relegations.
They are:
1)1982 - Stoke would be relegated, instead of Leeds.
2)1985 - Coventry would go down, instead of Norwich.
3)1993 - Oldham, and not Palace, would go down.
4)1994 - Southampton would go down, instead of Sheff Utd.
5)1995 - No title for Jack Walker, Man Utd would pip Blackburn on goal difference.
6)1997 - Despite a 3 point penalty, Boro would stay up, and send 13th place Blackburn down.
Does anybody else even care?
i am more than sure champions would all be the same but the relegated teams would be different. ipswich springs to mind with 14 draws they would have survived
I think it would make a huge difference and the leagues in Europe specially in Scotland and France would get very exciting. Imagine just a one point seperating draw & winning.
This question is based on the assumption that the actual results of the games would still have been the same. I think that is a dodgy assumption, because part of the reason for rewarding wins as highly as we now do is to motivate clubs more to go for wins rather than draws.
The differential allocation of points you suggest would also make a difference to league tables mid-season, and thus differently motivate clubs at that point as they found themselves either higher or lower than they would have been under the other system.
Because a different allocation of points clearly can and does affect behaviour on the field, it is not possible to answer your question by simply re-calculating past results as if it made no difference to behaviour at all!
If all the results from all the games stayed the same, yes, there probably would be changes to champions/relegated positioning.
But if they had been played with only two points for a win, there would be some effect on how some of the teams played. One of the reasons the rules were changed was due to an over abundance of games ending in draws.
This question is based on the assumption that the actual results of the games would still have been the same. I think that is a dodgy assumption, because part of the reason for rewarding wins as highly as we now do is to motivate clubs more to go for wins rather than draws.
The differential allocation of points you suggest would also make a difference to league tables mid-season, and thus differently motivate clubs at that point as they found themselves either higher or lower than they would have been under the other system.
Because a different allocation of points clearly can and does affect behaviour on the field, it is not possible to answer your question by simply re-calculating past results as if it made no difference to behaviour at all!
If all the results from all the games stayed the same, yes, there probably would be changes to champions/relegated positioning.
But if they had been played with only two points for a win, there would be some effect on how some of the teams played. One of the reasons the rules were changed was due to an over abundance of games ending in draws.
I think it would make a huge difference and the leagues in Europe specially in Scotland and France would get very exciting. Imagine just a one point seperating draw & winning.
It probably would have altered a few things but at the start of the season all teams are equal on zero points and it's up to them to go for the win which is why the three points were introduced in the first place.
i know to one 1995 when blackburn won the league if it was the old two point system man utd would of won it by one point.
why is rangers not going to win the league again this year?
You know since Zidane headbutted Matarazzi i am falling in love with him.?
when will the boro win again?
who is Ghana's football Choach?
Why was Portsmouth on the top of English Premier League now?
do you think engalnd are a good football team?
is there any carp fishing on the river segura spain around rojales?
Eating snails while watching Terminator2 reduces the off-side or seasons the wrath of Zeus in Brazil?
Anyone know how ro watch football on the PC for free?
Answers:
Excellent question! I did my own research and yes, there would be some changes, although it only involved the title once, in 1995, and affected 5 relegations.
They are:
1)1982 - Stoke would be relegated, instead of Leeds.
2)1985 - Coventry would go down, instead of Norwich.
3)1993 - Oldham, and not Palace, would go down.
4)1994 - Southampton would go down, instead of Sheff Utd.
5)1995 - No title for Jack Walker, Man Utd would pip Blackburn on goal difference.
6)1997 - Despite a 3 point penalty, Boro would stay up, and send 13th place Blackburn down.
Does anybody else even care?
i am more than sure champions would all be the same but the relegated teams would be different. ipswich springs to mind with 14 draws they would have survived
I think it would make a huge difference and the leagues in Europe specially in Scotland and France would get very exciting. Imagine just a one point seperating draw & winning.
This question is based on the assumption that the actual results of the games would still have been the same. I think that is a dodgy assumption, because part of the reason for rewarding wins as highly as we now do is to motivate clubs more to go for wins rather than draws.
The differential allocation of points you suggest would also make a difference to league tables mid-season, and thus differently motivate clubs at that point as they found themselves either higher or lower than they would have been under the other system.
Because a different allocation of points clearly can and does affect behaviour on the field, it is not possible to answer your question by simply re-calculating past results as if it made no difference to behaviour at all!
If all the results from all the games stayed the same, yes, there probably would be changes to champions/relegated positioning.
But if they had been played with only two points for a win, there would be some effect on how some of the teams played. One of the reasons the rules were changed was due to an over abundance of games ending in draws.
This question is based on the assumption that the actual results of the games would still have been the same. I think that is a dodgy assumption, because part of the reason for rewarding wins as highly as we now do is to motivate clubs more to go for wins rather than draws.
The differential allocation of points you suggest would also make a difference to league tables mid-season, and thus differently motivate clubs at that point as they found themselves either higher or lower than they would have been under the other system.
Because a different allocation of points clearly can and does affect behaviour on the field, it is not possible to answer your question by simply re-calculating past results as if it made no difference to behaviour at all!
If all the results from all the games stayed the same, yes, there probably would be changes to champions/relegated positioning.
But if they had been played with only two points for a win, there would be some effect on how some of the teams played. One of the reasons the rules were changed was due to an over abundance of games ending in draws.
I think it would make a huge difference and the leagues in Europe specially in Scotland and France would get very exciting. Imagine just a one point seperating draw & winning.
It probably would have altered a few things but at the start of the season all teams are equal on zero points and it's up to them to go for the win which is why the three points were introduced in the first place.
i know to one 1995 when blackburn won the league if it was the old two point system man utd would of won it by one point.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.