Levy's Plan

[Baleforce]

If the past isn’t relevant, what exactly is Levy being judged as a failure against?

 

[Bishop]

If the past isn’t relevant, what exactly is Levy being judged as a failure against?

The past isn't irrelevant, but top 4 as a goal wasn't relevant before 99.

Why is top half finishes any more palatable/less arbitary than top 4?

Because why top 4? We know why and as I keep saying that's only relevant post 99. If we are going to talk about the past, then let's use the indicators that were valued and relevant back then. Top half was valued, top 2 was valued top 4? Nope.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

The past isn't irrelevant, but top 4 as a goal wasn't relevant before 99.

Because why top 4? We know why and as I keep saying that's only relevant post 99. If we are going to talk about the past, then let's use the indicators that were valued and relevant back then. Top half was valued, top 2 was valued top 4? Nope.

Top 2 data from being in the top league would be interesting, probably not since the 60s had we off my head??

 

[billyiddo]

The past isn't irrelevant, but top 4 as a goal wasn't relevant before 99.

Because why top 4? We know why and as I keep saying that's only relevant post 99. If we are going to talk about the past, then let's use the indicators that were valued and relevant back then. Top half was valued, top 2 was valued top 4? Nope.

Top half was valued but finishing higher within that and therefore being better wasn't? Not sure i see the logic.

 

[Bishop]

Top half was valued but finishing higher within that and therefore being better wasn't? Not sure i see the logic.

Finishing as high up the table was the aim. But if someone were to separate out finishing places, top 4 would not have been where they drew the line. Top 3 might have been the line but more likely it would have been top 2 or top half period.

 

[billyiddo]

Finishing as high up the table was the aim. But if someone were to separate out finishing places, top 4 would not have been where they drew the line. Top 3 might have been the line but more likely it would have been top 2 or top half period.

So?

 

[Finney Is Back]

So did I. Haha I think we are both wrong then. Here are our top four finishes before Levy

• 1921–22: 2nd
• 1933–34: 3rd
• 1950–51: 1st (Champions)
• 1951–52: 2nd
• 1956–57: 2nd
• 1959–60: 3rd
• 1960–61: 1st (Champions - The Double)
• 1962–63: 2nd
• 1970–71: 3rd
• 1984–85: 3rd
• 1986–87: 3rd
• 1989–90: 3rd [1, 2, 3, 6]

And here they in the levy era

• 2009–10: 4th
• 2011–12: 4th
• 2015–16: 3rd
• 2016–17: 2nd
• 2017–18: 3rd
• 2018–19: 4th
• 2021–22: 4th [1, 2]

So not quite as good as thought, but still massively impressive considering the different time frames

Either you or your choice of LLM has hallucinated and missed some top 4 finishes from the 50s, 60s and 80s.

We had 16 top 4 finishes in the 50 years before Levy and 7 in the 25 years of Levy so Levy’s top 4 finishes record was pretty much identical (a teeny bit worse) whilst his trophy record was a third of the 50 years preceding him.

 

[Baleforce]

The past isn't irrelevant, but top 4 as a goal wasn't relevant before 99.

Because why top 4? We know why and as I keep saying that's only relevant post 99. If we are going to talk about the past, then let's use the indicators that were valued and relevant back then. Top half was valued, top 2 was valued top 4? Nope.

So what goals were?