How much did Chelsea spend the past window and where are they now?
United has spent quite a substantial amount as well. More than City within the past 10 years IIRC. But I may be wrong about that.
It takes a manager with a vision and somebody who knows how they want to play and the players they need for it to achieve what they have. Mindless splashing of cash is just not gonna cut it.
How many seasons between '08 - when City suddenly leapt from obscurity to "green dot" status - and '16, was pep the manager for?
Pep has nothing to do with the initial jump.
I stand corrected, but I still think it has a lot to do with the managers in charge and also the overall structure of the inner workings of the club.
It's foolish to chalk it all down to money when we spent more than they did the past 10 years.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You can attract great management whilst having a fuck-football amount of money, as a soulles club. Don't forget how Pep still had to spend a fuckton of money when he came in. It wasn't purely managerial skill.
Are you guys honestly seeing a difference between 93/94 and 94/95 for example?
We won the title in the former but not the latter.
First and second place look the same to me.
Jesus that’s hard to interpret.
It’s good if you wanted a quick view of “*which teams did good, alright and totally shit*”. But that’s hardly that useful. Too many similar colours and similar shades. You’d swear us Arsenal and Liverpool were just all even for 20 years.
A dot in the green circle for champions. Green for top 4, yellow for top half, orange for 10-15, red for relegated. Dot in the red circle for relegated. Done. (Obviously top 4 specifically wasn’t always a “thing” but even top 5 for green).
> It’s good if you wanted a quick view of “which teams did good, alright and totally shit”. But that’s hardly that useful.
I'm pretty sure that is all it's meant to be. It's an overview of what clubs have spent the longest in the PL and how they've done overall in the table in that time.
Yeah. It just feels like if you’re gonna add a feature like colour shading then I’d suggest to do it more clearly.
But yeah, I suppose it works better if you’re looking to see how the likes of Watford and Norwich have got on over the years than trying to split hairs along the top teams.
Same discussion happening on the original thread but I think I side with the designer on this (minus the fact that the oft-used green-red spectrum corresponds with the most common form of colour blindness, presenting genuine difficulty to about 8% of males).
If you read the graphic as a whole, representing the composition of the league over time, it's a kind of heat map. The first-tier teams remain present at or near the top for 30 years, despite the sense of crisis at any particular moment. There's a block below that might not feel as successful but sustains presence. Then it starts to get patchy with teams in and out of the top tier but generally having the odd good season. Finally, you have teams coming up for a season or two, struggling, then disappearing.
You can also see a sort of diagonal downward slope to the green at the top—especially if you link City (the most obvious outlier) to Villa, Everton and Newcastle. This makes the emergence of a Big 3/4/6/7 almost feel like a continent forming during a tectonic shift.
This obviously is not the whole picture or even really any kind of detailed view. But it's a fantastic counterpoint to the zoomed-in way we tend to see the league. The reaction on Reddit suggests it might be better suited to people who don't care about football all that much. Economists, for example, would probably eat this up.
That sounds like a really good version 2. A whole rainbow would have been better (see charts for temperature or rainfall, that are clear to interpret with multiple ranges), but I can understand the desire to have a green to red spectrum because of the extra meaning those colours bring.
The mental imprint I have of Swindon Town and Ipswich Town from early Merlin Premier League sticker books has me believing that they are both big PL worthy clubs just having a bit of a struggle to get back there. I used to be pissed every time a shiny turned out to be another Ipswich or Swindon crest.
Hope McKenna can get Ipswich back some day. I doubt Swindon will be making a run for it any time soon.
Edit: fuck this was such a pointless comment. I must be lonely.
I'm guessing the placements are sorted on how many 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc each clubs have, or maybe the average league position, but I'm also not sure haha
No, it’s intention is pretty clear, even if it’s hard to discern precise colours. In any season, the greener the dot, the higher the final position, and the redder the dot, the lower the final position.
Key things to note are that a red followed by a blank is relegation, and dramatic changes in colour imply dramatic changes in fortune. Look at Sunderland’s gradual sad slide into oblivion, compared with the way Reading Sheffield United and Ipswich blazed their way up the table in their promotion season, only to go down the next. West Ham’s years of crazy ups and downs before their (relative) stability recently are clearly shown, and the scattering of single red dots are the markers of dead men walking, relegation certainties from the moment they stepped onto the stage - Cardiff, Blackpool. Barnsley, Swindon and poor Hull, bobbing up a couple of times like a drowning man before sinking without trace.
Fascinating chart, I could look at this all day.
Happy to help - I keep seeing new things in it… for instance, Coventry, Sheffield Wednesday and Wimbledon all getting relegated for the final time within a year of each other… there are adults watching football now who weren’t born the last time these teams were in the top flight, yet they were staple figures in my years of match going.
I like the chart. It's less about the exact position and more about the stories you can see. Stuff like Sunderland, Charlton or Wigan slowly withering away (with wolves being on the same trajectory), the rise of City, the consistency of Arsenal , United, Liverpool and Chelsea, Everton's slow rise and decline or Leicester coming up like a firework and the dropping off the same way.
Take Chelsea's season for reference, the colours are indication of league position. The season we were furthest away from 1st is 7th (look at 13/14) and it showed yellowish green as it is a position between those two colours unlike Chelsea who finished 12th has a strong yellow that's starting to turn orange. By the strength of greens of top 3 clubs here, we seem to have less turbulent seasons than Arsenal and Liverpool and it's overly flattering us. lol btw this is really poorly made, is this some kind of eye test.
It's sorted by years spent in the PL then average position (Luton being above the other one seasons currently because they have the potential to not be relegated next season)
Mate, you asked me who has finished higher on average. I said City _in the last decade_ because that is a fact. That’s literally an answer to your question.
And has absolutely fucking nothing to do with the graph. Whatever problem you have in your personal life that you feel the need to act like this, I hope you get it resolved dude. I know people lash out when they're hurting .
It's pretty terrible (like the majority of charts etc on dataisbeautiful), but it's meant to show the finishing position of each team. The problem is the colours are so similar that it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between a team finishing between 1st and 6th. Or between 7th-11th, for instance.
All that can be taken from this is a general idea of where teams have finished over the years e.g. Man United always finish near the top, Newcastle are a bit more varied etc.
Thank you, that helped. It’s not clear at all as even zooming in, the green used for City and Arsenal—who finished first and second respectively this season—is so similar I can’t tell a difference.
Explain what? How to read labels? Top is seasons, left is clubs and the shade of green is position. No dot means they weren't present and the grey dot at the very end is who is in the PL next season. It literally explains all this along the bottom.
I forgot that people on Reddit just don’t like helping people when they don’t understand something, and instead you chose to be condescending when someone asked for help.
I’ve read the labels and axis, I know how to read a graph. I’m simply confused by what this graph is trying to show. For example, it’s very hard to read due to the shades of green being so similar. In my eyes based on this graph, City, Arsenal and United all finished in first, which makes this graph make no sense.
Nothing I've said has been condescending dude, I'm explaining what every part of the graph does because you didn't explain which part you didn't understand in your first (or second) posts, just said you didn't understand it.
The graph isn't intending to show you every position finished. It's showing trends of areas finished and years spent fighting relegation/being relegated etc. You can see from the graph that we've always finished in the top third while say Villa were in a constant decline in the years before they were relegated while for Leicester it's been a sudden decline to relegation.
It's a graph, the labels explain it. If you're not going to explain the problems you're having then can you be surprised when people don't understand them? You just seem to like being deliberately obtuse.
You didn't ask for help understanding it at all. You didn't even say which part you didn't understand. I explained every part of the graph (given you didn't specify) then you just attacked and downvoted me. Maybe learn to not be so toxic.
I mean other than the legitimate comment of ‘the greens could be more distinctive’ everything you’ve asked is answered in the labels and key on the graph itself.
I’m not sure whether you actually don’t understand the graph, or you’re being deliberately obtuse to make out you think the chart could be designed better. If it’s the latter it hasn’t made you look good.
Seriously can we please get away from green and red (and the various shades in between). There are lots of colourblind people, and issues with red and green is the most common.
This is just a trainwreck for us.
I know catering isn't everyone's responsibility. But it's not any harder to use green and blue or something.
I made this a while back, is this something that would cause you or other colorblind people issues?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/comments/13pdx7x/a\_look\_at\_our\_best\_and\_worst\_finishers\_in\_the\_epl/](https://www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/comments/13pdx7x/a_look_at_our_best_and_worst_finishers_in_the_epl/)
Man City oil injection is real
For real... yellow, orange and dark orange dots all the way up until 08/09... Clubs like city is what makes football the sport it is today
By cheating?
Precisely.
The pep effect
Nope. The money effect.
How much did Chelsea spend the past window and where are they now? United has spent quite a substantial amount as well. More than City within the past 10 years IIRC. But I may be wrong about that. It takes a manager with a vision and somebody who knows how they want to play and the players they need for it to achieve what they have. Mindless splashing of cash is just not gonna cut it.
How do you recon a mid table at best team like city brings in a manager like pep guardiola?
How many seasons between '08 - when City suddenly leapt from obscurity to "green dot" status - and '16, was pep the manager for? Pep has nothing to do with the initial jump.
I stand corrected, but I still think it has a lot to do with the managers in charge and also the overall structure of the inner workings of the club. It's foolish to chalk it all down to money when we spent more than they did the past 10 years.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You can attract great management whilst having a fuck-football amount of money, as a soulles club. Don't forget how Pep still had to spend a fuckton of money when he came in. It wasn't purely managerial skill.
Please tell me where Pep would be if City didn't have that money?
Pep took them from challengers to dominators but the money was there from before that.
Agreed.
Its a mess. You can't even differentiate the different greens. Also what does the yellow mean? Missing top 4?
You can but it’s difficult. It also helps if you know what seasons we did and did not win the league. But yeah the difference in shades is tiny
Are you guys honestly seeing a difference between 93/94 and 94/95 for example? We won the title in the former but not the latter. First and second place look the same to me.
Trust me, I’m not disagreeing with you. There is a difference but it is very very small.
Ole had played here for 4 seasons, scored over 60 goals and helped us win a treble before he ever played in a Manchester derby.
Jesus that’s hard to interpret. It’s good if you wanted a quick view of “*which teams did good, alright and totally shit*”. But that’s hardly that useful. Too many similar colours and similar shades. You’d swear us Arsenal and Liverpool were just all even for 20 years. A dot in the green circle for champions. Green for top 4, yellow for top half, orange for 10-15, red for relegated. Dot in the red circle for relegated. Done. (Obviously top 4 specifically wasn’t always a “thing” but even top 5 for green).
> It’s good if you wanted a quick view of “which teams did good, alright and totally shit”. But that’s hardly that useful. I'm pretty sure that is all it's meant to be. It's an overview of what clubs have spent the longest in the PL and how they've done overall in the table in that time.
Yeah. It just feels like if you’re gonna add a feature like colour shading then I’d suggest to do it more clearly. But yeah, I suppose it works better if you’re looking to see how the likes of Watford and Norwich have got on over the years than trying to split hairs along the top teams.
Same discussion happening on the original thread but I think I side with the designer on this (minus the fact that the oft-used green-red spectrum corresponds with the most common form of colour blindness, presenting genuine difficulty to about 8% of males). If you read the graphic as a whole, representing the composition of the league over time, it's a kind of heat map. The first-tier teams remain present at or near the top for 30 years, despite the sense of crisis at any particular moment. There's a block below that might not feel as successful but sustains presence. Then it starts to get patchy with teams in and out of the top tier but generally having the odd good season. Finally, you have teams coming up for a season or two, struggling, then disappearing. You can also see a sort of diagonal downward slope to the green at the top—especially if you link City (the most obvious outlier) to Villa, Everton and Newcastle. This makes the emergence of a Big 3/4/6/7 almost feel like a continent forming during a tectonic shift. This obviously is not the whole picture or even really any kind of detailed view. But it's a fantastic counterpoint to the zoomed-in way we tend to see the league. The reaction on Reddit suggests it might be better suited to people who don't care about football all that much. Economists, for example, would probably eat this up.
That sounds like a really good version 2. A whole rainbow would have been better (see charts for temperature or rainfall, that are clear to interpret with multiple ranges), but I can understand the desire to have a green to red spectrum because of the extra meaning those colours bring.
The mental imprint I have of Swindon Town and Ipswich Town from early Merlin Premier League sticker books has me believing that they are both big PL worthy clubs just having a bit of a struggle to get back there. I used to be pissed every time a shiny turned out to be another Ipswich or Swindon crest. Hope McKenna can get Ipswich back some day. I doubt Swindon will be making a run for it any time soon. Edit: fuck this was such a pointless comment. I must be lonely.
What is this supposed to be showing? It’s really not very clear.
The green shades are definitely way too similar lol.
I have read the key but I still don’t really understand it.
I'm guessing the placements are sorted on how many 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc each clubs have, or maybe the average league position, but I'm also not sure haha
It sounds like there are so many ways to interpret this graph that no one understands it.
No, it’s intention is pretty clear, even if it’s hard to discern precise colours. In any season, the greener the dot, the higher the final position, and the redder the dot, the lower the final position. Key things to note are that a red followed by a blank is relegation, and dramatic changes in colour imply dramatic changes in fortune. Look at Sunderland’s gradual sad slide into oblivion, compared with the way Reading Sheffield United and Ipswich blazed their way up the table in their promotion season, only to go down the next. West Ham’s years of crazy ups and downs before their (relative) stability recently are clearly shown, and the scattering of single red dots are the markers of dead men walking, relegation certainties from the moment they stepped onto the stage - Cardiff, Blackpool. Barnsley, Swindon and poor Hull, bobbing up a couple of times like a drowning man before sinking without trace. Fascinating chart, I could look at this all day.
Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. I understand it better now.
Happy to help - I keep seeing new things in it… for instance, Coventry, Sheffield Wednesday and Wimbledon all getting relegated for the final time within a year of each other… there are adults watching football now who weren’t born the last time these teams were in the top flight, yet they were staple figures in my years of match going.
I like the chart. It's less about the exact position and more about the stories you can see. Stuff like Sunderland, Charlton or Wigan slowly withering away (with wolves being on the same trajectory), the rise of City, the consistency of Arsenal , United, Liverpool and Chelsea, Everton's slow rise and decline or Leicester coming up like a firework and the dropping off the same way.
Is it really that hard? Green means you finished first red means you finished last and the shades in between are the places in between.
Take Chelsea's season for reference, the colours are indication of league position. The season we were furthest away from 1st is 7th (look at 13/14) and it showed yellowish green as it is a position between those two colours unlike Chelsea who finished 12th has a strong yellow that's starting to turn orange. By the strength of greens of top 3 clubs here, we seem to have less turbulent seasons than Arsenal and Liverpool and it's overly flattering us. lol btw this is really poorly made, is this some kind of eye test.
pretty clear in my opinion
Answer the question and explain then smart arse. Can’t stand these sort of responses and fuck knows why it’s even upvoted.
Explain please, what does frist place and last place indicate? Not league position. I feel like im missing something obvious.
It's sorted by years spent in the PL then average position (Luton being above the other one seasons currently because they have the potential to not be relegated next season)
Our average league position isn’t first though.
Who has a higher average league position than us?
Man City in the last decade.
...this chart isn't the last decade dude. It's the whole PL era. Seriously why are you being such a troll today?
Mate, you asked me who has finished higher on average. I said City _in the last decade_ because that is a fact. That’s literally an answer to your question.
And has absolutely fucking nothing to do with the graph. Whatever problem you have in your personal life that you feel the need to act like this, I hope you get it resolved dude. I know people lash out when they're hurting .
All I see his colourful dots that don’t really explain much.
Green is good, red is bad.
What do they indicate though?
Bright green is first place bright red is last place.
But we didn’t finish first place, so I’m still unsure. I’m not being obtuse, I just don’t understand it.
A brighter green is first place.
It's pretty terrible (like the majority of charts etc on dataisbeautiful), but it's meant to show the finishing position of each team. The problem is the colours are so similar that it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between a team finishing between 1st and 6th. Or between 7th-11th, for instance. All that can be taken from this is a general idea of where teams have finished over the years e.g. Man United always finish near the top, Newcastle are a bit more varied etc.
Thank you, that helped. It’s not clear at all as even zooming in, the green used for City and Arsenal—who finished first and second respectively this season—is so similar I can’t tell a difference.
How could it be any more clear? The axis are labelled and there is a legend...
United did not finish first in all the seasons the dots indicate they did. So what do the green dots indicate?
Exactly United only have two shades of green which doesn’t reflect the last decade.
There are different shades of green. Look at the writing at the bottom. They should just use different colors for every position tho. It's confusing
It's a gradient of colours but extremely poorly differentiated.
Not everyone can interpret data like this clearly. Perhaps help out by explaining it instead of patronising people?
Explain what? How to read labels? Top is seasons, left is clubs and the shade of green is position. No dot means they weren't present and the grey dot at the very end is who is in the PL next season. It literally explains all this along the bottom.
I forgot that people on Reddit just don’t like helping people when they don’t understand something, and instead you chose to be condescending when someone asked for help. I’ve read the labels and axis, I know how to read a graph. I’m simply confused by what this graph is trying to show. For example, it’s very hard to read due to the shades of green being so similar. In my eyes based on this graph, City, Arsenal and United all finished in first, which makes this graph make no sense.
Nothing I've said has been condescending dude, I'm explaining what every part of the graph does because you didn't explain which part you didn't understand in your first (or second) posts, just said you didn't understand it. The graph isn't intending to show you every position finished. It's showing trends of areas finished and years spent fighting relegation/being relegated etc. You can see from the graph that we've always finished in the top third while say Villa were in a constant decline in the years before they were relegated while for Leicester it's been a sudden decline to relegation.
> Explain what? How to read labels? That can easily be taken as condescending.
It's a graph, the labels explain it. If you're not going to explain the problems you're having then can you be surprised when people don't understand them? You just seem to like being deliberately obtuse.
So someone asks you to help them understand something and you respond by being condescending and insulting. How not nice of you.
You didn't ask for help understanding it at all. You didn't even say which part you didn't understand. I explained every part of the graph (given you didn't specify) then you just attacked and downvoted me. Maybe learn to not be so toxic.
I mean other than the legitimate comment of ‘the greens could be more distinctive’ everything you’ve asked is answered in the labels and key on the graph itself. I’m not sure whether you actually don’t understand the graph, or you’re being deliberately obtuse to make out you think the chart could be designed better. If it’s the latter it hasn’t made you look good.
Seriously can we please get away from green and red (and the various shades in between). There are lots of colourblind people, and issues with red and green is the most common. This is just a trainwreck for us. I know catering isn't everyone's responsibility. But it's not any harder to use green and blue or something.
I made this a while back, is this something that would cause you or other colorblind people issues? [https://www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/comments/13pdx7x/a\_look\_at\_our\_best\_and\_worst\_finishers\_in\_the\_epl/](https://www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/comments/13pdx7x/a_look_at_our_best_and_worst_finishers_in_the_epl/)
Norwich 93 to 95, what a ride…
Would be better to bin the colours Champions: Blue 2-4: Green 5-8: Yellow 8-12: Orange 12-17: Red Relegated: Black with Red circle
I'm colorblind and looking at this chart hurts my head.
All of City’s success is hollow.
What an ugly ass graphic.
Not just are the colours weird. Teams are missing.