Kenneth Tang is set to break the record for most top 1,000 finishes

[Valeron]

That’s fair enough Taça, we’re trying to measure 2 slightly different things. I’m personally not bothered about how I do against the masses, I want to know my acccumulated points against the elite players.

Mose, don’t think so pal. Do you think Ville would swap his record with anyone who has won an FPL title? I seriously doubt it. There is plenty of randomness inside 1 season, that’s obvious. Is Ville a great big failure compared to someone like Simon March? If that’s what you’re saying then it’s ridiculous.

[Tacalabala]

I can't speak for MoSe but I'm sure he isn't saying that. I'll bet any money you have Ville would trade two of his great finishes to actually win FPL.

I'd also say it's probably more realistic for a lot of us to just try to better our performance season by season, but if you are targeting th elite, percentile is still a better measure of who is really world class.

[Valeron]

What is Mose saying then, because it reads like that to me. And it’s total nonsense. The best FPL player in the world, whoever he is, is unlikely to ever win FPL, even if he plays for 50 years. He could play optimally and still be unlikely to ever win it. Now compare that to the real life comparison Mose gave. A team like Everton has a far better chance of winning the real life EPL in the next 5 years than the best FPL player around has of winning FPL in the next 5 years. It’s a nonsense comparison.

[RomynPG]

Really struggling to understand how accumulated points could win out over OR (as a percentile) when measuring long term success

I can see how that could work in the EPL, for example, where maximum possible points are the same each year - but in FF that's not the case.

Maybe it could work if the accumulated totals were themselves measured as a percentage of the max scores each season - but that is really just another version of the OR percentile numbers.

[Tacalabala]

This is going to veer into the age old luck argument, but what I would say is that it depends on what you consider to be a 'win' in an FPL context.

The consensus seems to be that if you're in the top 10k, you're elite. That's under 0.2% of those playing this season. Does anyone challenge is?

I think most would argue this is achievable with just average luck. That being the case, I'd argue finishing in the top 10k probably constitutes 'winning', because you can't account for luck, i.e. hitting double figures with your captain every single GW.

[OldSkoolFPL]

OR position might well be the first thing people look at, but it’s not the best measure of how good someone is over several seasons. Accumulated points is.

Tacalabala - but who is trying to predict next seasons’s points? I’m talking about measuring who the better player of the game is.

Sorry, don't agree, it's the only way to judge how good someone has been.

What next? Decide someone is a better player by calculating the success of their captain picks over the course of a season compared to someone who did better but nailed it less times?

[MoSe]

anyway, the good thing of this topic, which is one of Blaze's favourite subject coming back again and again and again over time
is that when I first tried to contribute to the issue 3 years ago,
by wanting to show that Ville was one of the best players in the game, but, judging by his achievements record only, he did NOT stand out so clearly above the other top managers we knew,
well, to that end, I DID find then a few equally achieving managers in Fiso, like El Tel, or hancock jr, over a 4 or 5 seasons span, and even, hear hear, big mon.
viewtopic.php?p=2696608#p2696608
BUT I had overlooked others with excellent records that this topic brought now to my attention

Of course to match Ville record, unfaltering cosistency at a minimum level was required, although I objected that one bad season peppering 4 seasons at the top did NOT make your genius "less genius". In other words, I tended to reward the peaks and condone some occasional slip, more than others did.

so maybe that's the reason why I overlooked at the time some fisoers record which now I think should not have been passed by,
like for instance pascalevans or tenpinterry

besides, I have also bumped in the Sidegames forum Billy Whiz's Fiso Consistent Players topic,
viewtopic.php?f=82&t=102933&p=3192561#p3192561
to which I had also contributed with the help of thesilkworm collecting historical data for all the forum League players and those whose ID was known at the time.
That was done in the optic of the topic Consistency proposition, so I higlighted top achievements but didn't count them outside Billy Whiz conditions
it could be done now, the fisoers historical data, up to last season, is in the google sheet linked there
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Valeron, it's no use repeating the same discussion over and over again, as you might see if you bother following the links I provided, we're repeating the same things we were saying years ago

what I say is that Ville might prefer his or someone else records depending on the weight he personally gives to peak achievements, or to constant excellence without ever reaching the highest peaks, but that he would do that comparing his and others ACHIEVEMENTS, and that in doing so he would not in the remotest back corner of his mind give an utterly flying (l)uuuuck to the total points comparison between his team and anyone else's

Of course in FPL out of 3 MILLION players or 6, rank #1 is extremely difficult to achieve because of, using your words "plenty of randomness"

Take Champions League instead
Juver rivals often mock them because they always lose finals, and they rebutt "at least they got there"
Taking to the extreme, say Juve had reached all the finals and lost them all, while another team had only played 5 but won them all
Who'd you prefer to be, Juve 60 times the losing finalist, or a teams who won 5 times the highest competition, albeit once in a decade?

Or, using actual figures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... statistics
Juve played 9 finals and only won 2
Ajax played 6 finals and won 4
which record would you prefer?

Look at the all time points table

Bayern scored 450 (in 34 seasons, 13.24 per season)
Utd scored 365 (in 27 seasons, 13.52 per season)
Milan scored 314 (in 28 seasons, 11.21 per season)

but
Milan played 11 finals and WON 7
Bayern played 10 finals and won 5
Utd played 5 finals and won 3

are you really telling me that Utd has been historically a stronger team than Milan in UCL because they scored more points (in one less season) ?????
THIS would be the MOST ridiculous proposition I ever heard on earth, leave alone these forums
and even Bayern, they were consitent at a very high lever for a longer time, but Milan has proven to be historicaly superior to Bayern in the competition history, the most SUCCESSFUL club behind RM because they reached one more final and won 2 more, regardless all the points Bayern have scored in the competition
Total points is an interesting stat, but a quirk stat, a niche stat, only collateral to the titles record, Typically, a stat invoked by LOSERS to make up for the achievements they missed, or anyway by less SUCCESSFUL teams who want to find some minor USELESS stat where they can claim they're ahead

PS:
I'm not comparing a win in FPL to a win in EPL
it's utter nonsense (or malice) to READ my argument that way

I'm saying that all who compet care for achievements, not the points they gain to reach them
so I'm comparing "top achievements"

so in FPL top 100 or Top 1k, which was what Balze proposed in this topic, of even top 2k or top 5k if you like,
can be considered a "top achievement" and compared "as a general concept" with League or CL wins, or top four

Discussing with you proves once more very sterile, Valeron, as I always have found in the 3.5 years I've been a forum member here

a final example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_L ... ague_table

who's been stronger in 25 years of premier league, Utd apart?
Arsenal have scored 33 more points than Chelsea (that's less than 2% more)
So by your measure, they've been a stronger team than Chelsea.
I bet that Blues fan will take a thunderous laugh at such gunners claim and rebutt they won 5 titles, vs Gunners 3
They both got 9 times in top 2. Arsenal got double the times in 3rd and 4th, 12 vs 6
So Gunners can claim they've been 21 times top four vs Chelsea "mere 15"
In both cases, such claims would be reason of MOCKERY against Gunners, rather than their pride:
OK you have been "stronger" in scoring points, and got 6 more times in top 4, and what did you get from all that????
What? ONLY 3 titles??? HAHAHA, we got FIVE! you can keep your "stronger" by points badge, it's worth NOTHING compared to our two more titles
you can be "stronger ", we've been MORE SUCCESSFUL
THAT'S all anyone cares when comparing two clubs, two teams, two players over history

that's a universal concept in all competitions imho,
objecting that it's more difficult to win FPL than to win PL it's utter meaningless nonsense, a loser's argument

[Ruth_NZ]

What is Mose saying then, because it reads like that to me. And it’s total nonsense.

He's saying that you play for achievements, that the best player is the one who got the best achievements and that points are just a means to an end. I know this because that's what he actually wrote. Seems a rational enough point to me.

The best FPL player in the world, whoever he is, is unlikely to ever win FPL, even if he plays for 50 years.

In which case the best players are much of a muchness and no-one deserves the title of "best FPL player" because there isn't one (although I have seen some declare themselves as such). Whether that is true or not is open to question, of course, but if someone was the Usain Bolt of FPL it would become apparent soon enough.

He could play optimally and still be unlikely to ever win it.

Define optimally. Go on, I dare you. The very concept is dubious in the extreme when applied to something like FPL. Tell me what "the optimal" structure is, what "the optimal" balance of spend between GKs, Ds, Ms and Fs is, what "the optimal" weeks are to play the chips... Bah. Ridiculous. Playing FPL optimally requires adaptability, reactivity, strategy, ability to change tack... because the price/performance landscape is different in every single season and also varies during a season. You appear to be using a word that doesn't have a valid meaning in the FPL context. FPL isn't a repeatable manufacturing process or a fixed chemical reaction.

One of the ways luck affects FPL that seldom gets discussed is that some opportunities are more attractive for one team than another. I thought Mahrez was a bad pick a few weeks ago so didn't get him. That was proven to be a good judgement. But those that did have him had an easyish switch to Sterling last week and I didn't. So the poorer judgement created an opportunity in this case. That kind of thing goes on all season. We will pick players that do well and others that disappoint, or get injured, or suspended and sometimes that can be a blessing in disguise if we find the right solution. Other times it can be a curse without an easy exit and even that somewhat depends on how we structured our squad in the first place. Is it "optimal" to have a 4.0m rotter defender? Is it still optimal if you get a spate of injuries and can't field 11 without a hit? Is that "bad luck" or is that your fault because you took that risk? Using words like optimal in an environment like that is pretty senseless, Valeron.

I see that MoSe already replied but will post this anyway.

The consensus seems to be that if you're in the top 10k, you're elite. That's under 0.2% of those playing this season. Does anyone challenge this?
I think most would argue this is achievable with just average luck. That being the case, I'd argue finishing in the top 10k probably constitutes 'winning', because you can't account for luck, i.e. hitting double figures with your captain every single GW.

I'd disagree with it, sorry. Top 10k is fairly easy if that's what you set out to achieve. It's not an elite finish. If I am lucky in the last two weeks this season my team might just scrape inside the 10k mark but whether it does or not I'll consider this to have been a poor season where I made a lot of mistakes and was probably too reckless or pig-headed.

Elite is something more than that. A collection of top 2k finishes maybe. Fair enough, variance will mean that few will achieve that every single season but an elite manager should be able to do it fairly often. This guy for example.

[OldSkoolFPL]

Personally I think a season should be defined as....

Top 1k is elite
Top 5k is an excellent season
Top 10k is good
Top 20k is the bare minimum
Below 20k is a throwaway season and one you move on from quickly.

We've all had a range of them over time but for the amount of hours everyone puts in, these are the targets to judge yourself on IMO.

By the way, just not buying this top 1%, top 2% way of judging it that you see all over Twitter, that feels like a way to dress something up to be better than it is.

[blahblah]

Imagine being that lucky for so long, and not buying a Lottery Ticket

[Football Hero]

People seem to be obsessed with annual rankings when it is overall points over a period of say 5+ seasons that is most important imo.

I'm not so sure about that either. There is some very remarkable variation of average scores between seasons. For example, the famous Suarez season 2013-14 was a ridiculously high-scoring season, while the following 2014-15 was a very-low scoring season. So the overall points between two very different seasons are not really comparable. And now we have to add BB, TC and FH to the function. Even WC has become stronger because some seasons ago you had to play one WC during January.

I disagree because comparing points over only two seasons like the examples you gave, is not long enough.

There are some gameweeks within a season that are inherently high scoring; do we disregard those gameweeks when working out our season points? Of course we don't, we count them all and that goes for considering over multiple seasons too, and then after say 300+ gameweeks, the person with the most points accumulated over that period is the best player, (assuming the FPL scoring system stays relatively stable over that period, which to be fair, it has done, with only minor tweaks to things).

Over 300+ gameweeks, there will be arbitrary big scoring seasons where captain choices are easy, (e.g. this season where many casuals can keep captaining Salah and there are few injuries among the big players), and low scoring seasons, (where the opposite happens), but the best manager will maximise their returns over all of those periods and come out on top with the most points at the end. However ranking high in the big scoring seasons may be harder due to the easier time the casuals will have. The casuals will lose out big time in the low scoring, less predictable seasons.

[Football Hero]

Personally I think a season should be defined as....

Top 1k is elite
Top 5k is an excellent season
Top 10k is good
Top 20k is the bare minimum
Below 20k is a throwaway season and one you move on from quickly.

We've all had a range of them over time but for the amount of hours everyone puts in, these are the targets to judge yourself on IMO.

By the way, just not buying this top 1%, top 2% way of judging it that you see all over Twitter, that feels like a way to dress something up to be better than it is.

Why do you view it that way when a season is only 38 gameweeks long? Do unpredictable rare events like penalty saves, red cards and own goals even out over a season?

[Football Hero]

So my accumulated points over the last 6 seasons v Tang accumulated points over the last 6 seasons. There is no better measure than that,

that's the best measure, but the best measure OF NOTHING
you play for achievements
the best player is the one who got the best achievements
points are just a means to an end, once they tranlsate into an achievement at the end of one season, they're not worth anything more

more:

if a team got more absolute points than another, but the second got better achievements in the end
this is a measure of how the first team is a GREAT UTTER FAILURE, as with more points they failed to get better achievements
the more points they got without achieving, the bigger failure they are

in real football,
Team A always gets the record for points scored over 10 seasons spans, but they always get 2nd. They NEVER win.
Team B earn less points over time, but they win a title every 4 or 5 years, with a few mediocre seasons inbetween, which drag their total ponts down
well, Team A is the worst team in the world, because they are never able to win, despite all the points they score. All fans in the world mock them because they only can accrue points for nothing, there's always some other team better than them in every season

please don't object that this doesn't happen in reality, I extremised the situation to illustrate the concept

In your real football example, the club that collects the most points over a long period of season's is the best, even if they win no silverware. This is because they will have won more matches over that period and lost less. So let's say that Liverpool had lost out on the title by only a point or two each season, they would almost certainly have more points in the Premier League era than Man Utd, even though it would be 13-0 in PL titles. Liverpool fans would have been celebrating more individual wins in that scenario and their team would have performed to a higher, more consistent standard.

Just because fans attach arbitrary importance to winning trophies, it doesn't mean that objectively they should. It's more a romantic, emotional, symbolic thing that makes fans pleased if their club wins trophies; scientifically/mathematically the club with more points has performed better, even if they never actually 'win' a single season.

[MoSe]

Sorry, I forgot that I'm absurdly obsessed by living on earth, why I should be living on the moon like you wisely do.
Most things you say only exist in your mind and few other loonies, not in the real world.

[Markman]

Can anybody establish a correlation between points and final rank, consistent across seasons?

A little reductive reasoning: In a parallel universe suppose only 2 players play FPL. Over ten seasons Player A wins each of the first 9 seasons with 100 points. Player B scores 99 each season. In the final season Player B scores 111 points to Player A's usual 100 points.

Player A: 9 titles, 1000 points.
Player B: 1 title, 1002 points.

The answer to who is the better manager in this scenario is easy.

Edit: correct incorrect simple maths

[murf]

Can anybody establish a correlation between points and final rank, consistent across seasons?

A little reductive reasoning: In a parallel universe suppose only 2 players play FPL. Over ten seasons Player A wins each of the first 9 seasons with 100 points. Player B scores 99 each season. In the final season Player B scores 111 points to Player A's usual 100 points.

Player A: 9 titles, 1000 points.
Player B: 1 title, 1001 points.

The answer to who is the better manager in this scenario is easy.

Better? No conclusion possible
Most successful? Easy!

[Markman]

Can anybody establish a correlation between points and final rank, consistent across seasons?

A little reductive reasoning: In a parallel universe suppose only 2 players play FPL. Over ten seasons Player A wins each of the first 9 seasons with 100 points. Player B scores 99 each season. In the final season Player B scores 111 points to Player A's usual 100 points.

Player A: 9 titles, 1000 points.
Player B: 1 title, 1001 points.

The answer to who is the better manager in this scenario is easy.

Better? No conclusion possible
Most successful? Easy!

Wait, wait.....is being successful a good thing or......

[Football Hero]

Sorry, I forgot that I'm absurdly obsessed by living on earth, why I should be living on the moon like you wisely do.
Most things you say only exist in your mind and few other loonies, not in the real world.

You're only saying that because it's hypothetical. If it had actually happened, then I don't think you'd be so sure, as there would be tonnes of people regularly mentioning that a particular club had accumulated the most points, even if they'd never been 1st, whenever there was a debate about which club had been best. It's no different to FPL where a lot of people consider Ville or this Kenneth Tang guy best, even though they've never been 1st over a season and they've never won anything, (likely not even 1st in a single gameweek). Where are Ville's Fantasy Football trophies? Oh wait, he doesn't have any...

[hancockjr]

There are 2 reasons to use OR:

1) say there are 5 seasons where a decent total is 2000 in 4 of them and 2,500 in the 5th. If a player underperforms by 5% in one season his average OR will be the same whichever season. His total point will be worse though if he underperforms in the “easy” year. The latter is therefore a poor measure.

2) OR takes into account not all points are equal. Moving from position 2,000 to top 50 is far more impressive than from top 15,000 to 13,050. OR reflects this

This is all before the fact that changes (TC, 2nd wildcard, bench boost) make some years higher scoring, so players that do well in those years benefit from this (unfair) lottery.

[blahblah]

It's not even the close season....

[MoSe]

@ murf and Markman

Yes, the point is some Taliban states :"points total is the best measure, period".
Points total is a good, secondary, raw, coarse, simplistic albeit straightforward method.
We could discuss its merit, usefulness and shortcomings, if we weren't always discussing with Talebans on the subject.

We use extreme cases and examples to show how in many situations more points don't necessarily represent the best team.
In this sense, excellent and simple example, Markman.
Then, you have to agree about what "best" means.
If the best team is the less successful one, then frankly I don't care about being the "best".
No club in the world would care.

[MoSe]

Sorry, I forgot that I'm absurdly obsessed by living on earth, why I should be living on the moon like you wisely do.
Most things you say only exist in your mind and few other loonies, not in the real world.

You're only saying that because it's hypothetical. If it had actually happened, then I don't think you'd be so sure, as there would be tonnes of people regularly mentioning that a particular club had accumulated the most points, even if they'd never been 1st, whenever there was a debate about which club had been best. It's no different to FPL where a lot of people consider Ville or this Kenneth Tang guy best, even though they've never been 1st over a season and they've never won anything, (likely not even 1st in a single gameweek). Where are Ville's Fantasy Football trophies? Oh wait, he doesn't have any...

I fail to get what sense are you trying yo make.
Yes, there would be tonnes, in your mind.
But in fact, in the real world, there is none.
Which club accumulated most points is a mere curiosity and none claims to be the best just because of that, in the real world.

And if you still think the debate is about who got 1st in FPL in a season, then you understood nothing of what's been written in this topic.
Valeron already tried that trick, to no avail.

You're only going around in circles, you're not forwarding the discussion.

[Football Hero]

There are 2 reasons to use OR:

1) say there are 5 seasons where a decent total is 2000 in 4 of them and 2,500 in the 5th. If a player underperforms by 5% in one season his average OR will be the same whichever season. His total point will be worse though if he underperforms in the “easy” year. The latter is therefore a poor measure.

2) OR takes into account not all points are equal. Moving from position 2,000 to top 50 is far more impressive than from top 15,000 to 13,050. OR reflects this

This is all before the fact that changes (TC, 2nd wildcard, bench boost) make some years higher scoring, so players that do well in those years benefit from this (unfair) lottery.

1.) But if one player was ranked 200,000 going into the last gameweek and suffered 10 points of performance drop off by making a bad decision to sell Salah, (12 points) for Capoue, (2 points), then he might fall to 230,000, killing his ranking by a lot, whereas a player who was 2,000 might only drop to 2,300 by making the identical bad decision, so ranking is not equal in that sense, it does not measure successes and mistakes the same as it depends on where players are individually ranked at a point in time, whereas looking at pure points over a 10 year spell, means that both players are punished equally by losing 10 points off that 10 year total.

2.) All points are equal though, if the scoring system remains the same.

[Football Hero]

Sorry, I forgot that I'm absurdly obsessed by living on earth, why I should be living on the moon like you wisely do.
Most things you say only exist in your mind and few other loonies, not in the real world.

You're only saying that because it's hypothetical. If it had actually happened, then I don't think you'd be so sure, as there would be tonnes of people regularly mentioning that a particular club had accumulated the most points, even if they'd never been 1st, whenever there was a debate about which club had been best. It's no different to FPL where a lot of people consider Ville or this Kenneth Tang guy best, even though they've never been 1st over a season and they've never won anything, (likely not even 1st in a single gameweek). Where are Ville's Fantasy Football trophies? Oh wait, he doesn't have any...

I fail to get what sense are you trying yo make.
Yes, there would be tonnes, in your mind.
But in fact, in the real world, there is none.
Which club accumulated most points is a mere curiosity and none claims to be the best just because of that, in the real world.

And if you still think the debate is about who got 1st in FPL in a season, then you understood nothing of what's been written in this topic.
Valeron already tried that trick, to no avail.

You're only going around in circles, you're not forwarding the discussion.

Yes, because this hasn't happened in the real world yet. Were it to, then I'm sure it would be regularly pointed out, (as it would be very widely known I'm sure), and at least from a mathematical, emotionless point of view, a case could be made for the related team to have performed the best over that period.

A more realistic example would be the performance of Spurs and how everyone thinks they are performing a lot better over the last 4 or 5 years, even though they haven't won a trophy in this period, and periods where they are viewed to have performed poorer in their recent history they did pick up a League Cup, (in 1999 and 2008). Whether the fans and pundits realise it or not, they are only basing this belief of the current Spurs side performing better, because of their higher PPG in league matches over the last few seasons. So I'm sorry, but it is relevant. They have given their fans more to cheer about in the last few years due to their higher win ratio and higher PPG and as a result I'm sure their fans are enjoying this current period more than say 1997 to 2002 where they won one cup but performed relatively poorly in the league.

[Ruth_NZ]

Whether the fans and pundits realise it or not, they are only basing this belief of the current Spurs side performing better, because of their higher PPG in league matches over the last few seasons.

Thanks for setting me straight. I was labouring under the misapprehension that my view of Spurs having improved (somewhat) was based on watching Kane, Alli, Eriksen, Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Dembele and the rest. Now I can stand corrected that it was actually a number that I was not aware of or interested in that was making the difference.

Incidentally, Spurs are a perfect example of what MoSe is talking about. They are not winners, they have never been winners and Pochettino is too soft to make them winners. Consequently they are not an elite PL team. Lots of potential, lots of nice football but too soft a centre.

A little reductive reasoning: In a parallel universe suppose only 2 players play FPL. Over ten seasons Player A wins each of the first 9 seasons with 100 points. Player B scores 99 each season. In the final season Player B scores 111 points to Player A's usual 100 points.

Player A: 9 titles, 1000 points.
Player B: 1 title, 1001 points.

The answer to who is the better manager in this scenario is easy.

Better? No conclusion possible
Most successful? Easy!

No, better is easy too. They are competing against each other; Player A has found a way to beat his opponent 9 times out of 10 and is therefore the better manager by a clear margin.

[Football Hero]

Spurs 2013 - 2018:

Trophies: 0
League PPG: 1.93

Spurs 1997 - 2002:

Trophies: 1
League PPG: 1.28

Now I'm sure that everyone will agree that during the 2013 - 2018 period, Spurs have performed (a lot) better. This means that they are actually placing a higher emphasis on PPG than arbitrary trophies, (as mathematically they should). Therefore if in this case league PPG trumps trophies, then that means logically it always has to be the case when judging other situations and other clubs.

Now Man Utd have won 13 league titles since 1992, and admittedly without checking they will have the highest PPG in the league from 1992 - 2018. Let's say it's 2.1 PPG. Now if hypothetically Liverpool say, over this period actually managed 2.2 PPG but at the same time didn't actually win any league title, (essentially always coming a close 2nd or 3rd), then as per the Spurs example above where PPG trumps trophies, then the same rationale could be used to say that Liverpool have performed better than Man Utd over that period.

[Tacalabala]

You're comparing apples with oranges again. The trophy won was the League Cup, which doesn't hold as much value as the league.

In the competition that matters more, Spurs have been better in recent years than before. In those terms, Spurs have been a success. However, if you then compare what they've achieved against Man City, there's no doubt City have been better.

Conversely, United have been seen since Fergie left as disappointing, yet they have won an FA Cup and Europa League in that time, more than Spurs. Why is that? Because United have underperformed against their own past performance in the league, while Spurs have outperformed.

This is why I'm pleased with what I've achieved this season. I'm not a great player, and I'm never likely to be, but I can say that I've outperformed my own performances in recent seasons.

[Football Hero]

Whether the fans and pundits realise it or not, they are only basing this belief of the current Spurs side performing better, because of their higher PPG in league matches over the last few seasons.

Thanks for setting me straight. I was labouring under the misapprehension that my view of Spurs having improved (somewhat) was based on watching Kane, Alli, Eriksen, Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Dembele and the rest. Now I can stand corrected that it was actually a number that I was not aware of or interested in that was making the difference.

Incidentally, Spurs are a perfect example of what MoSe is talking about. They are not winners, they have never been winners and Pochettino is too soft to make them winners. Consequently they are not an elite PL team. Lots of potential, lots of nice football but too soft a centre.

If Kane and co. performed on the eye exactly as they are currently, but this did not actually translate to a higher PPG than what past Spurs sides had achieved, then you wouldn't be thinking they were actually performing that well. Like it or not, the hidden PPG in the background is correlated to how you are judging their improved performance, again, whether you realise it or not. It might be a cold, emotionless way of putting it, but the two are linked and go hand-in-hand.

With regards to Spurs being 'winners' or not, that's just a matter of opinion really as certainly during periods in their past, they have been winners, including in 1999 and 2008. This thread is about coming up with a cold, hard calculation that works for all situations to determine between two randomly selected FPL managers, which of the two has performed better. Now of these two managers one could be a 'winner' who won FPL one season and has done ok since and then comparing him to another manager who has done consistently well but never won anything. What should the metric be to determine who has performed better in a mathematical sense? What calculation can be applied to all situations to objectively determine this? Certainly at least that is what I am feeling that the aim of the thread has become.

[Football Hero]

You're comparing apples with oranges again. The trophy won was the League Cup, which doesn't hold as much value as the league.

In the competition that matters more, Spurs have been better in recent years than before. In those terms, Spurs have been a success. However, if you then compare what they've achieved against Man City, there's no doubt City have been better.

Conversely, United have been seen since Fergie left as disappointing, yet they have won an FA Cup and Europa League in that time, more than Spurs. Why is that? Because United have underperformed against their own past performance in the league, while Spurs have outperformed.

This is why I'm pleased with what I've achieved this season. I'm not a great player, and I'm never likely to be, but I can say that I've outperformed my own performances in recent seasons.

Yeah, that's right, and so the best thing is a higher PPG in the league over a period of time, compared to a lower PPG in the league but winning it once. Liverpool have performed better in the Premier League than Leicester for instance, even though it is 1-0 to Leicester in terms of league titles. The winning season was an outlier and the averages are a better way of determining performance, which Liverpool have Leicester beat on.

[Ruth_NZ]

If Kane and co. performed on the eye exactly as they are currently, but this did not actually translate to a higher PPG than what past Spurs sides had achieved, then you wouldn't be thinking they were actually performing that well. Like it or not, the hidden PPG in the background is correlated to how you are judging their improved performance, again, whether you realise it or not. It might be a cold, emotionless way of putting it, but the two are linked and go hand-in-hand.

Not true. People say that Liverpool have improved dramatically under Klopp but only 4 seasons ago they achieved 84 points under Rodgers and finished 2nd. Last season they had 78 points and they won't do better than that this season either, in fact they may actually do worse.

With regards to Spurs being 'winners' or not, that's just a matter of opinion really as certainly during periods in their past, they have been winners, including in 1999 and 2008.

I was talking about recent history and the current group of players, not the distant past. And in any case, an occasional LC win doesn't make a team 'winners' in the sense that is meant. It's about the mentality required, something which (for all his faults) Mourinho is able to teach a team whereas Pochettino as yet isn't, because he isn't a winner himself. He gives his team excuses for failure - it's a project, we are growing - whereas Mourinho never does.

This thread is about coming up with a cold, hard calculation that works for all situations to determine between two randomly selected FPL managers, which of the two has performed better. What should the metric be to determine who has performed better in a mathematical sense? What calculation can be applied to all situations to objectively determine this? Certainly at least that is what I am feeling that the aim of the thread has become.

Maybe so but if so I will pull out because that doesn't interest me in the slightest. As said earlier, if a Usain Bolt appears in FPL we will all know it. I don't think anyone has cracked it yet so I'm far more interested in how to improve than with deciding who is marginally better between competent manager A and competent manager B.