Yesterday an F365 Mailboxer used the familiar phrase ‘mid-table mediocrity’. It’s a phrase we all use at some time, and we pretty much know what it means: a team that won’t get relegated but won’t threaten the top spots either. But when you think about it, it’s an odd sort of phrase, and bears a little more scrutiny.
First of all, in a way it’s redundant. The ‘med’ in ‘mediocrity’ already tells us we’re in the middle. Words like ‘median’, ‘medium’, ‘mediate’ and even ‘medieval’ have the same root. So if you’re mediocre, you should be in midtable anyway. Unless you’re drastically over-performing or under-performing your xG, which is another subject.
But when we say ‘mid-table mediocrity’ we’re usually talking more than table position. We’re using ‘mediocre’ in another sense, meaning something like ‘not terribly good’. It’s an insult.
Here’s the problem, though: the usual way we measure teams is in fact the table. Good teams are at the top, poor teams are at the bottom, middling teams are in the middle. And since there’s always going to be a mid-table, there are always going to be middling teams. Using ‘mediocre’ to describe them thus seems a little unfair.
In fact, it seems particularly unfair when it comes to the Premier League. In the 2016/17 season, a certain six clubs (and you know who they are) finished in the top six spots. In 2017/18, those same clubs (and you still know who they are) finished in the top six again. Moreover, in those two seasons, the seventh-place teams finished eight and nine points behind the top six. Not exactly close.
You won’t need to look at the current table to know the sequel. Same six clubs, seventh-place team already nine points behind. If I didn’t know better, I’d say money is running a closed shop up there.
So at least for the moment, the best every other club in the league can do is mid-table. But I certainly wouldn’t want to condemn all those sides to mediocrity. Is there a way to separate the mediocre mid-tablers from the non-mediocre?
Well, we can try point totals. In 2016/17, seventh-place Everton finished with an impressive 61, after which there was a big drop-off to Southampton and Bournemouth, with 46. So maybe that’s a fair split. But for 2017/18 it’s not so easy. Burnley finished seventh with 54, followed by Everton with 49 and Leicester City with 47. And this year, Watford’s current 32 points is only one ahead of Leicester and West Ham. Where can you draw the line?
Another trouble with this approach is that every team’s point total is a reflection of how good all the other teams are. That’s not only true when comparing mid-table sides: the way mid-table sides get there is by being better than the relegation candidates. Are the mid-table sides mediocre and the relegation sides bad? Or are the mid-table sides good and the relegation sides mediocre? And how many points above the drop zone do you have to be?
If ever the term seemed appropriate, it was 2016/17. At the end of the season, eighth through 17th were separated by only six points, the range was an underwhelming 40-46 points, and the best goal difference was minus 7.
But that was partly because that year the top six teams had the highest combined point totals since…forever, I’m guessing. I only checked back to the year 2000, and we all know the trend. Again: every team’s points reflect everyone else’s. If you’ve got a lot of teams at the same level, why not just put it that way?
That certainly seems to apply to this year’s table, where we find something very unusual: a set of teams clearly ahead of the relegation candidates, clearly behind the top six, and themselves quite tightly bunched. In fact, the gap between seventh and 13th is only six points. Only once in the previous 12 seasons was the gap that small after 22 matches.
These are sides that are doing fairly well, too. As an example, the current tenth place team has 30 points. Again looking at 22 matches, only once in the last seven years has tenth place had as many points. That was in Leicester’s title season, when the rich teams were underperforming.
One more number, which I really like: in the last eight weeks, not once has the seventh-place team repeated from week to week. Moreover, five different clubs have held that spot in the same period. We could even increase those numbers to nine and six, if we counted Manchester United pre-Solskjaer. But let’s play fair, since United can no longer be called mid-table.
Take a look at some of the players on those teams from seventh to 13th. Limiting ourselves to three from each side:
Watford: Roberto Pereyra, Gerard Deulofeu, Abdoulaye Doucouré
Leicester City: James Maddison, Jamie Vardy, Harry Maguire
West Ham: Felipe Anderson, Marko Arnautovic (for the moment), Declan Rice
Everton: Richarlison, Gylfi Sigurdsson, Idrissa Gana
Wolves: Willy Boly, Rúben Neves, Raúl Jiménez
Bournemouth: Ryan Fraser, Callum Wilson, David Brooks
Brighton & Hove Albion: Shane Duffy, José Izquierdo, Pascal Gross
That’s a lot of talent. If you go down the squads you’ll find varying levels of quality, but I wouldn’t want to call any of those teams mediocre. ‘Mid-table excitement’ is more like it.
It’s significant that the Mailboxer who used the term was an Arsenal fan, and was talking about a ‘fall’ into mid-table mediocrity. If you’re in the top tier, and you drop down in class, it certainly is mediocrity compared to where you were before. But until one of the remaining clubs splashes some serious cash and/or hires someone who can beat Marcelo Bielsa’s powerpoints, the glass ceiling is here to stay.
So I vote for a moratorium on the term ‘mid-table mediocrity’, at least until we can come up with some clearer standards. Better yet, let each club’s supporters decide what terms to use, based on expectations and quality of play. And get ready for frequent choruses of ‘rubbish!’
Peter Goldstein