2013 CSL CLUB Rankings

[cruie]

A League Table for Clubs (not just individual teams).

This forum doesn't support tables, so I link the report here as a PDF (sorry): 2013 CSL Club Table

You can look at last year's table (though last year's positions are included in this year's table!) and read how this is compiled, and why, on last year's topic: 2012 Club Table Discussion


Comments and thoughts? I am still studying it and will make some more comments in a little while ...

... But I will start the ball rolling by saying:

1. Massive comgratulations to 'Trevor. Fantastic performance from your players and management team(s)
2. Does the table highlight the massive "gap" between Div1 and Div2?? I think you can certainly read it that way?

[crusader_]

I don't think these rankings tell the full story, though I'm sure you'll say they are not meant to.

Windsor are ranked at number 2 but they have only one team and they failed to win division 2 or finish in the promotion positions. Immanuel won the title and had a strong B team too. Mt Barker got promoted, are in the final of the cup, won division 5 and had a solid season in divsion 3. Immanuel and Mt Barker are probably more happy than Windsor.

Rostrevor were very consistent across the the board, with all 5 teams in the top 3 of their division, which is very impressive. But the only title they won was for their division 4 team. Would they be happier with their season than Pembroke?

Maybe trophies won should get bonus points? Maybe results in higher divisions should have a greater value?

[cruie]

I don't think these rankings tell the full story, though I'm sure you'll say they are not meant to.

Windsor are ranked at number 2 but they have only one team and they failed to win division 2 or finish in the promotion positions. Immanuel won the title and had a strong B team too. Mt Barker got promoted, are in the final of the cup, won division 5 and had a solid season in divsion 3. Immanuel and Mt Barker are probably more happy than Windsor.

Rostrevor were very consistent across the the board, with all 5 teams in the top 3 of their division, which is very impressive. But the only title they won was for their division 4 team. Would they be happier with their season than Pembroke?

Maybe trophies won should get bonus points? Maybe results in higher divisions should have a greater value?

They're not meant to

If you want to know which team won D1A (or D4), look at the Tables pages on the website.

It is what it is. It is the total number of points earned by all teams from a club. It's then ranked on average points per game. So, every time a Rostrevor team played a game, on average they won 2 points. That's fantastic, especially to have that average over 5 teams. I'm sure they are gutted that their record hasn't won them more titles. But if the Clubs Table was compiled using only titles, it would be a very small table (it's pretty small as it is).

As for one team clubs; I can't decide whether it is easier to have multiple chances to improve your average points, or fewer? I guess if your club has 1 fantastic team, but 4 rubbish teams, then you would argue a one team club had an advantage. But I'm sure a rubbish one team club would argue their small squad is a big disadvantage and having 90-odd players to choose from must be a good thing.

It is what it is




(Despite what I put above) one point I would make is the trend towards the larger clubs being more successful compared to the smaller. Either that does mean that statistically the table is biased towards large clubs OR it means that - especially for new entrants - in order to be successful you need a large squad of players to select from.

In terms of expanding the csl, maybe that's something the executive should think about? (Or just put it down to stats? )

[Zorro's best mate]

99.4% of statistics are made up.......
As always, you have to read deeper than just the stats provided to get a multi dimensional picture...
For me, Pembroke are the most successful having taken out all those titles... Thier ranking would be affected by their Div 5 team but go forbid any team chopped a team to improve their stats!!!
Maybe if cash were involved, that would happen but it was good to see Pembroke have a 5th team and also good to see they were mortal as a club!
The big v small club stat doesn't hold too much water either.... It helps focus the talent but it also provides minimal depth. Successful teams have stable line ups but have the ability to fill in with quaslity when the need arises.
I would like to see the disciplinary data mixed in as that would show an interesting trend I reckon....

[cruie]

99.4% of statistics are made up.......
As always, you have to read deeper than just the stats provided to get a multi dimensional picture...
For me, Pembroke are the most successful having taken out all those titles... Thier ranking would be affected by their Div 5 team but go forbid any team chopped a team to improve their stats!!!
Maybe if cash were involved, that would happen but it was good to see Pembroke have a 5th team and also good to see they were mortal as a club!

Yes, no argument from me. The table isn't meant to show the performance of individual teams, but if that is what you want to know/see, then you do have to look deeper.

The big v small club stat doesn't hold too much water either.... It helps focus the talent but it also provides minimal depth. Successful teams have stable line ups but have the ability to fill in with quaslity when the need arises.

Not so sure that is true, though (as far as I can see, anyway).

6 of the 7 clubs with 4 or more teams finished in the Top-10. You can use a variety of sound-bites to make a guess why that is ... I'll use "Success Breeds More Success".

That would seem to indicate, at the very least, a trend?

I think it's a problem if the trend continues (7 out of 7 in the Top7 places, if you see what I mean), as potential new entrants with only two teams (and, maybe to a bit less of an extent, existing 2-3 team clubs) start to wonder whether they can compete successfully, in what is a comparatively small league.

The league would not want to lose clubs, through them losing heart. To an extent, Windsor and especially Grads Red hold out the hope of success to other fewer team clubs.

I would like to see the disciplinary data mixed in as that would show an interesting trend I reckon....

A very decent suggestion.

Bit of a b*gger to do, because that stat appears only to be publically available on the "Player Stats" pages ... However, I can make that happen and I agree it will add an interesting dimension (well, one imagines an interesting dimension).

I'll pull the data and update the table as soon as I get chance.

[Ross30]

Cruie, not may of the red and yellow cards received by players are actually shown in the players' stats, as clubs entered that information (or chose not to) themeselves, as opposed to the CSL doing it. So it may be a waste of your time to base further rankings on that information.

Interesting reading again this year with the club rankings, thank you. I guess each club utlimately has its own expectations and aims to judge themselves against. Pembroke strived to be as competitive as possible in our top four 4 teams and 3 of them won the league, so we were really happy. Our B's were right up there too and our div 4 and 5 teams this year were really about developing younger players and ensuring everyone who trained got a game.

Congratualtions to Immanuel, Mercedes, Rostrevor and Mount Barker on their title wins, and I agree that Rostrevor overall had a very impressive season with all their teams doing well. Looks like Immanuel and Mt Barker will add even more strength to division 1A next season, which will be great. Two clubs with decent pitches too!

[cruie]

Thanks for the heads up, Ross.

No point in me collating that, then. Shame, I agree it would have been interesting to see how the card-count stacked up against club performances.

Oh well ...

[wojindows]

Cruie, not may of the red and yellow cards received by players are actually shown in the players' stats, as clubs entered that information (or chose not to) themeselves, as opposed to the CSL doing it. So it may be a waste of your time to base further rankings on that information.

It would be great if all the clubs could plug in their stats - it's not that hard, is it? And failing that, the CSL could put in the missing goal scorers, and bookings... maybe next year.

As an aside - if you want any queries run on the data from this year, or past - let me know.