FanNation

KansasToonami said 01/20, 07:10 PM
Good choice, Bigalke... Sunderland has both the lowest and second lowest point totals for an EPL season over the 15 complete seasons of the EPL ('92-'93 to '06-'07).

But I think I can make an effective argument for Crystal Palace. The evidence:

1. Relegated *FOUR* times from the EPL: 92-93, 94-95, 97-98, 04-05. Sunderland has been relegated three times (and *may* be relegated a fourth time this year, but that's not certain), as have Nottingham Forest and Leicester City (what IS it about the East Midlands? LOL)

2. ALL FOUR of these relegations came after "one-and-done" seasons, meaning Crystal Palace was not able to stay above the drop in ANY of the four years it spent in the EPL. The final league position of the "Eagles" in those four years: 20th of 22, 19th of 22, 20th of 20, 18th of 20.

Sunderland, by contrast, *did* manage to stay in the EPL for four consecutive years, 99-00 to 02-03, and as you noted, finished 7th in two of those years. Not only that, the "Black Cats" had the EPL's top goalscorer, Kevin Phillips, in 99-00 (with 30 goals).

3. Managers: Steve Coppell on 4 (!) separate occasions: 93, 96, 98, 00; Alan Smith (not THAT one!) twice: 95, 0; and a DOZEN others!

KansasToonami said 01/20, 11:03 PM
Yes, I agree the stadium is ancient... by Premiership standards... and also that Sunderland may have shelled out more money, including on their new stadium, and maybe even that Sunderland fans have higher expectations of their club than Crystal Palace fans... and so may have more despair when they fail,

BUT... ;-)

Sunderland wouldn't have had the funds to spend in the first place if they weren't *somewhat* more successful--or should I say less pathetic?--than Crystal Palace. Even with the dashed expectations, at least they DID have a shiny new stadium to fail in. Crystal Palace has had to play in the Premiership each time with the same *charming historic* (some would say crappy) stadium, which being so historic, doesn't have the money-generating potential (corporate boxes, etc.) that a newer stadium would have.

In addition to that, Crystal Palace had to SHARE its stadium with Wimbledon (the football club, not the tennis tournament) for over a decade, from 1991 (before the Premiership) to 2003, when Wimbledon was relocated by the owner to Milton Keynes and renamed "MK Dons". Not even Sunderland had to share its ground with a rival club when both were in the Premiership (3 times)!

KansasToonami said 01/21, 01:11 AM
Nice last sentence, Bigalke...as a "Toon" fan, I smiled. ;-)

First, I need to clarify the point totals you state for Crystal Palace. In two of those seasons (92-93 and 94-95) there were 22 teams in the EPL, and thus each team played 42 games instead of 38. Granted, those points totals were over the 1.0 threshold that some consider the dividing line between merely bad and truly awful. But they shouldn't be considered in the same class as point totals from 95-96 forward.

Yes, Crystal Palace's *worst* EPL season wasn't as bad as Sunderland's worst. 32 > 15(2) as it translates into "Mathematish".

YET:

Crystal Palace's *best two* EPL seasons resulted in ratios of 1.17 and 1.07 points per game, while Sunderland's yielded 1.53 and 1.50 points/game. I understand what you're saying about the expectations being higher for Sunderland, and these "best" seasons confirm that.

In terms of absolute quality, not expectation levels, looking at the total numbers:
Crystal Palace (4 seasons): 159/160 = 0.994 ppg;
Sunderland (6 seasons): 229/228 = 1.004 ppg.

Crystal Palace edges it--by a feather.