Average away support in Prem,QPR top table(or do they?)

[blueboy]

http://footballgroundguide.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=25338

[Norths]

Asking me to sign in...

[blueboy]

apologies,will cut and paste here

Below is the standard table of average away attendances for 2012/13, which is arrived at by is simply totting up all attendances for each club's away games then dividing by 19, the number of games played:


Premier League Average Away Attendances 2012/2013

36.560 - Queens Park Rangers
36.506 - Liverpool
36.470 - Tottenham Hotspur
36.401 - Chelsea
36.334 - Fulham
36.319 - Swansea City
36.202 - Aston Villa
36.138 - Southampton
36.115 - Everton
35.982 - Norwich City
35.956 - Wigan Athletic
35.877 - Sunderland
35.860 - West Bromwich Albion
35.759 - West Ham United
35.628 - Stoke City
35.503 - Reading
35.437 - Arsenal
35.360 - Manchester City
35.310 - Newcastle United
34.733 - Manchester United

Overall average - 35.923


http://www.worldfoot...ue-2012-2013/2/


The problem with this approach is that whilst technically 100% correct, it appears to suggest that champions Manchester United, the club with the biggest ground, attracted on average the lowest gates everywhere they went, whereas the club at the bottom of the Premier League with the smallest capacity, QPR, attracted the highest.

This is patently absurd, but it's obviously because whilst QPR will play in front of 75,500 to OT, Man U can barely scrape past 18,000 at a jam-packed Loftus Road.

How best to overcome this anomaly?

As far as I'm aware there is no recognised way to adjust the table. However, how about if we take the figure for the average home gate for each club and add it to their away total as though it was one extra away game, then divide that new total by twenty?

Let's look at an example at how this might work:

First, find the total attendance for all away games for a given club. For example the table in the link above gives Man U a sum total of 659,921 for attendances at all 19 away games in 2012-13.

Next, find the overall average figure for their 19 home matches in 2012-13, which for Man U was 75,530.

Now add these two figures together:

(659,921 + 75,530) = 735,451

Finally, divide the resulting total of 735,451 by 20 (representing 19 away games plus one home game):

(735,451/20) = 36,772

So by this method Manchester United's average away gate, when adjusted to 'neutralise' the difference between their home average and that of the rest of the PL, was 36,772.

Whilst it's true we end up with what is technically a completely false away average for each club, it may be argued that this method yields a much more realistic idea of what each club's true average away gate should look like. Here's my calculations of the result:

Table of Average Premier League Away Attendances, 2012/13 (Adjusted)

36,918 - Liverpool
36,772 - Man Utd
36,689 - Arsenal
36,653 - Chelsea
36,449 - Tottenham
36,144 - Aston Villa
36,127 - Everton
36,110 - Sunderland
36,065 - Newcastle
35,940 - Man City
35,873 - Southampton
35,837 - Fulham
35,837 - West Ham
35,621 - QPR
35,521 - Swansea City
35,516 - Norwich City
35,335 - West Brom
35,183 - Stoke City
35,126 - Wigan A
34,921 - Reading

Any comments?

Like This
Quote
MultiQuote

[MattyRangers]

What the fark is that?

[BUSHRANGER1982]

Fulham took more away from home, than we did?

No way do I believe that.

[pblockranger]

Too many minutes on your feelers?

[West Acton]

Don't Believe that Fulham taking more then us West Ham and Norwich all who travel in good numbers is not correct

[Del]

It's a flawed logic, so does anyone really care?

[Factamondo]

what a total waste of ink!

[LoftusRoadLad]

[dsqpr]

Interesting post blueboy! I'm not sure what others are finding so hard to understand. Possibly the lack of bawdy content in your post. :evilish:

I agree with your adjustment to the numbers. The original numbers punish the teams with the biggest stadiums because they never play themselves, so adding in an imaginary game against themselves normalizes the numbers nicely. Your revised table makes a lot more sense than the original. Of course these numbers reflect not only travelling support but also local interest in seeing each team.

[blueboy]

Interesting post blueboy! I'm not sure what others are finding so hard to understand. Possibly the lack of bawdy content in your post. :evilish:

I agree with your adjustment to the numbers. The original numbers punish the teams with the biggest stadiums because they never play themselves, so adding in an imaginary game against themselves normalizes the numbers nicely. Your revised table makes a lot more sense than the original. Of course these numbers reflect not only travelling support but also local interest in seeing each team.

thanks,i have to be honest,i just found this on another website and copied it here,but true,if it had been a list of sportswomen with the biggest thrupenny bits,i'd have been ok

[fisnik]

I don't think it was made clear. It's adding up all attendance... Not only the qpr fans (away) but also the home supporters, let's say Liverpool fans. And then dividing that by the number of games. That's my understanding. Seems pointless to me.

[Johnnykc]

thanks,i have to be honest,i just found this on another website and copied it here,but true,if it had been a list of sportswomen with the biggest thrupenny bits,i'd have been ok

Are we talking current OR retired sportswomen?.......I'm bunging Clare Balding onto the list........,