you've misunderstood the point and used an incorrect (and irrelevant anyway) statistic

the point is that good defence is more likely to keep you up than a good attack - the teams that get relegated usually do so because their defences are poor than because their attacks are. The promoted teams last year stayed up not because they 'attacked' but because Reading and Wigan's defences were so poor (after all, Stoke us us had absolutely rotten attacks and yet stayed up so presumably the promoted teams could have done the same if they'd had decent defences).
And your comment about 4 of the last 6 promoted teams attacking and staying up presumably includes Swansea in the first season up, which means you have fallen for one of the great footballing media myths of our time. That Swansea team was a very defensive one (not an adventurous & refreshing attacking one), who just passed the ball about at the back all game to keep it away from the opposition (passing football is not the same as attacking football). They only scored 44 goals that season - less than two of the relegated teams (fitting in with the thrust of the article) and only 3 more than we managed last season. They stayed up because they only conceded 51 goals - defensively sound.

Posted By: mr carra, Aug 29, 15:52:48