Achievement Index from 1946

[Darren]

Well, my well endowed lady had a breast reduction, the goat had a better offer and the shops were all out of marmite, so what could I do other than do another achievement index - this time from 1946.

Same principles as before and including all clubs who have had a spell in the top division since 1946 and the table is as follows:

What this shows without question is that United are the biggest post war under achievers. We have a -31 score and our nearest rivals are Sunderland on -21. We are the 21st best supported team post war and are joint 28th on the number of years in the top division, which isn't that disproportionate; but what really does for us is the lack of any trophy or runners up spot in that period. Every other club who have had more than 4 years in the top division since 1946 (apart from Huddersfield with their 11 seasons) have been winners or runners up at least once in that period. Also every other club in the top 42 best supported teams has been winners or runners up at least once apart from Bristol City (34th) and Huddersfield (37th).


1. Man Utd 49,003 63 2 58 1 -1 0 -1
2. Liverpool 40,855 56 5 57 2 -3 0 -3
3. Arsenal 37,782 64 1 39 3 +2 0 +2
4. Tottenham 36,660 59 4 23 4 0 0 0
5. Everton 36,095 61 3 16 7 +2 -2 0
6. Newcastle 35,649 51 8 10 11 -2 -5 -7
7. Man City 32,071 50 9 10 11 -2 -4 -6
8. Chelsea 31,931 55 6 23 4 +2 +4 +6
9. A. Villa 30,572 54 7 13 8 +2 +1 +3
10. Leeds 30,408 37 12 19 6 -2 +4 +2
11. Sunderland 29,659 34 16 3 27 -5 -16 -21
12. Wolves 25,375 36 13 11 10 -1 +2 +1
13. West Ham 25,176 46 10 8 14 +3 -1 +2
14. Sheff Wed 24,511 32 19 5 16 -5 -2 -7
15. Birmingham 22,481 30 22 5 16 -7 -1 -8
16. Nottm F 22,318 35 14 13 8 +2 +8 +10
17. Middlesbro' 21,994 31 21 5 16 -5 +1 -4
18. WBA 21,796 39 11 6 15 +7 +3 +10
19. Leicester 21,720 33 18 9 13 +1 +6 +7
20. Derby 21,157 29 23 2 31 -3 -11 -14
21. Sheff Utd 20.530 23 28 0 45 -7 -24 -31
22. Southampton 19,084 35 14 4 20 +8 +2 +10
23. Coventry 18,938 34 16 1 34 +7 -11 -4
24. Norwich 18,727 21 31 4 20 -7 +4 -3
25. Stoke 18,532 29 23 2 31 +2 -6 -4
26. Bolton 18,069 32 19 4 20 +7 +6 +13
27. Ipswich 18,063 26 26 5 16 +1 +11 +17
28. Portsmouth 17,403 21 31 3 27 -3 +1 -2
29. Blackburn 17,395 26 26 4 20 +3 +9 +12
30. Palace 16,632 13 36 1 34 -6 -4 -10
31. Charlton 16,213 23 28 1 34 +3 -3 0
32. Burnley 15,956 28 25 4 20 +7 +12 +19
33. Preston 14,439 13 36 3 27 -3 +6 +3
34. Bristol C. 14,274 4 42 0 45 -8 -11 -19
35. Cardiff 14,059 7 40 1 34 -5 +1 -4
36. QPR 13,910 20 33 4 20 +3 +16 +19
37. Huddersfield 12,795 11 38 0 45 -1 -8 -9
38. Blackpool 12,194 22 30 4 20 +8 +18 +26
39. Brighton 11, 895 4 42 1 34 -3 +5 +2
40. Watford 11,765 8 39 2 31 +1 +9 +10
41. Luton 11,297 16 34 3 27 +7 +14 +21
42. Millwall 11,128 2 47 1 34 -5 +8 +3
43. Notts Co 10,354 4 42 0 45 +1 -2 -1
44. Barnsley 10,175 1 53 0 45 -9 -1 -10
45. Hull 9,899 2 47 0 45 -2 0 -2
46. Reading 9,703 2 47 0 45 -1 +1 0
47. Brentford 8,942 1 53 0 45 -6 +2 -4
48. Oldham 8,862 3 45 1 34 +3 +14 +17
49. Bradford 8,608 2 47 0 45 +2 +4 +6
50. Grimsby 8,191 2 47 0 45 +3 +5 +8
51. Swindon 7,750 1 53 1 34 -2 +17 +15
52. Wimbledon 7,694 14 35 1 34 +17 +18 +35
53. Swansea 7,691 2 47 0 45 +6 +8 +14
54. Oxford 7,102 3 45 1 34 +9 +20 +29
55. Wigan 6,548 5 41 1 34 +14 +21 +35
56. Carlisle 5,427 1 53 0 45 +3 +11 +14
57. Northampton 5,249 1 53 0 45 +4 +12 +16
58. Leyton O. 4,958 1 53 0 45 +5 +13 +18

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Ah but you're not including the only period in our history when we won trophies

Just proves what some of us have been saying, trophies aside, we are roughly where we should be, and have been for as you now say, 50 odd years.

 

[Guesty]

Ah but you're not including the only period in our history when we won trophies

Just proves what some of us have been saying, trophies aside, we are roughly where we should be, and have been for as you now say, 50 odd years.

That covers all four divisions though! That is pretty bloody "rough"!

 

[Darren]

Ah but you're not including the only period in our history when we won trophies

Just proves what some of us have been saying, trophies aside, we are roughly where we should be, and have been for as you now say, 50 odd years.

Actually, even on years in the top division, we have the 3rd worse under achievement record - only Barnsley and Bristol City beat us and Birmingham and Norwich equal us.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Actually, even on years in the top division, we have the 3rd worse under achievement record - only Barnsley and Bristol City beat us and Birmingham and Norwich equal us.

Only because your index is heavily weighted towards trophies and runners-up spots. As you say, we have been the 21st best supported team and averaged 28th position. Let's say we had somehow managed to win the League Cup in 03, do you think fans would look at our history that differently ?

 

[Darren]

Only because your index is heavily weighted towards trophies and runners-up spots. As you say, we have been the 21st best supported team and averaged 28th position. Let's say we had somehow managed to win the League Cup in 03, do you think fans would look at our history that differently ?

No, it isn't. The first part of the index is not average position but ranks the number of years in the top divison. We are 28th on that scale. Even if we leave out the trophy part of the index, on that basis we are still amongst the 5 biggest under achievers (out of 58), given our level of support, in terms of the number of years spent in the top division.

And even if we had won the League Cup in 03, our score would still be -20 overall making us the second biggest underacheivers.

I do agree that, obviously, my index is very rough and ready and could be made more sophisticated (extra points for league position, ranking trophies etc), but I can only spend so much time away from the goat...

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

No, it isn't. The first part of the index is not average position but ranks the number of years in the top divison. We are 28th on that scale. Even if we leave out the trophy part of the index, on that basis we are still amongst the 5 biggest under achievers (out of 58), given our level of support, in terms of the number of years spent in the top division.

Fair enough, we could argue all day

To me, you have shown that we are the 21st best supported team and have more or less averaged that position in the overall league table over that period without winning a trophy as most other have. Vast under-achievement, I don't think so, that's all.

 

[Darren]

Fair enough, we could argue all day

To me, you have shown that we are the 21st best supported team and have more or less averaged that position in the overall league table over that period without winning a trophy as most other have. Vast under-achievement, I don't think so, that's all.

Underachievement is always relative. If you look at the 4 clubs either side of us in the attendance table - Derby (6 more years in the top division and 2 league championships), Leicester (10 more years in the top division, 3 league cups and 3 FA cup runners up), Southampton (12 more years in the top division and FA Cup and a second place in the league) and Coventry (11 more years in the top division and an FA Cup) its hard to say that United haven't underacheived in relation to comparable clubs.

United are also the only club in the top 29 never to have played in Europe and have only had 8 top 10 finishes in the last 63 years.

Whichever way you spin it, given the clubs respources, it would certainly not be unreasonable to have expected us to have a comparable record to Leicester or Southampton over the last 64 years.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Underachievement is always relative. If you look at the 4 clubs either side of us in the attendance table - Derby (6 more years in the top division and 2 league championships), Leicester (10 more years in the top division, 3 league cups and 3 FA cup runners up), Southampton (12 more years in the top division and FA Cup and a second place in the league) and Coventry (11 more years in the top division and an FA Cup) its hard to say that United haven't underacheived in relation to comparable clubs.

United are also the only club in the top 29 never to have played in Europe and have only had 8 top 10 finishes in the last 63 years.

Whichever way you spin it, given the clubs respources, it would certainly not be unreasonable to have expected us to have a comparable record to Leicester or Southampton over the last 64 years.

Would be interesting to see the first 50 years

 

[TCsLoveChild]

Thanks Darren, I was only feeling depressed before now I'm suicidal :-(

 

[lenners]

Fair enough, we could argue all day

To me, you have shown that we are the 21st best supported team and have more or less averaged that position in the overall league table over that period without winning a trophy as most other have. Vast under-achievement, I don't think so, that's all.

Give over lad. Anyway you cut this cake, it tastes the same.
I'd hazard a guess you could take the last five years and we'd be the highest supported, least-achieving club - maybe bar Leeds but probably not even them.
Though five out of 33 years and counting in the top flight caps it all.
Apart from the no major cup final appearance for 70 odd years.
And never playing in Europe.