League Two: 2014/15 analytics round-up

Statistically speaking, League Two is one of the easiest divisions to look at this year.
The top five teams in terms of overall shot share (Corsi/TSR) and shots on target share filled the top five end of season league positions.
The only teams that can really consider themselves unlucky in the division are Northampton and Oxford – both of whom had very good shot metrics but were bitten by a combination of their own below average PDO and slightly above average PDO for their competitors.

Position	Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	Goals For	Goals Against	Goal Difference	Points
1	Burton	46	28	10	8	69	39	30	94
2	Shrewsbury	46	27	8	11	67	31	36	89
3	Bury	46	26	7	13	60	40	20	85
4	Wycombe	46	23	15	8	67	45	22	84
5	Southend	46	24	12	10	54	38	16	84
6	Stevenage	46	20	12	14	62	54	8	72
7	Plymouth	46	20	11	15	55	37	18	71
8	Luton	46	19	11	16	54	44	10	68
9	Newport County	46	18	11	17	51	54	-3	65
10	Exeter	46	17	13	16	61	65	-4	64
11	Morecambe	46	17	12	17	53	52	1	63
12	Northampton	46	18	7	21	67	62	5	61
13	Oxford	46	15	16	15	50	49	1	61
14	Dag and Red	46	17	8	21	58	59	-1	59
15	AFC Wimbledon	46	14	16	16	54	60	-6	58
16	Portsmouth	46	14	15	17	52	54	-2	57
17	Accrington	46	15	11	20	58	77	-19	56
18	York	46	11	19	16	46	51	-5	52
19	Cambridge	46	13	12	21	61	66	-5	51
20	Carlisle	46	14	8	24	56	74	-18	50
21	Mansfield	46	13	9	24	38	62	-24	48
22	Hartlepool	46	12	9	25	39	70	-31	45
23	Cheltenham	46	9	14	23	40	67	-27	41
24	Tranmere	46	9	12	25	45	67	-22	39

If both these clubs can stay the course with their current squads, managers and plans then they should have a very good chance of promotion next season.
Earlier in the season Newport and Luton flirted with promotion and the playoffs, but their high PDO scores proved to be unmaintainable and they both slipped outside the top seven.
I discussed the arrival of Terry Butcher at Newport in an earlier post, but the Exiles have since discarded all except eight of their squad, so knowing what to expect at Rodney Parade next season is pretty tough.

Position	Team	Shots for total	Shots against total	Corsi/TSR	shots on target for total	shots on target against total	Shots on target share	Shooting % For	Save %	PDO
17	Accrington	472	518	0.477	178	208	0.461	32.59	62.97	95.56
15	AFC Wimbledon	466	489	0.488	187	201	0.482	28.88	70.14	99.02
1	Burton	503	385	0.566	196	138	0.587	35.22	71.74	106.95
3	Bury	474	385	0.552	189	141	0.573	31.76	71.63	103.39
19	Cambridge	468	527	0.47	185	195	0.487	32.99	66.16	99.15
20	Carlisle	431	576	0.428	159	210	0.431	35.22	64.76	99.98
23	Cheltenham	373	487	0.434	147	214	0.407	27.21	68.7	95.91
14	Dag and Red	419	581	0.419	147	242	0.378	39.45	75.62	115.07
10	Exeter	476	525	0.476	193	184	0.512	31.6	64.67	96.26
22	Hartlepool	394	505	0.438	137	223	0.381	28.45	68.62	97.07
8	Luton	457	516	0.47	173	204	0.459	31.23	78.43	109.66
21	Mansfield	464	491	0.486	174	192	0.476	21.83	67.69	89.53
11	Morecambe	452	572	0.442	196	206	0.488	27.03	74.74	101.78
9	Newport County	462	409	0.53	176	188	0.483	28.98	71.28	100.26
12	Northampton	503	436	0.536	207	174	0.543	32.38	64.38	96.76
13	Oxford	461	395	0.538	181	145	0.555	27.63	66.22	93.85
7	Plymouth	502	454	0.525	188	166	0.531	29.26	77.71	106.97
16	Portsmouth	445	440	0.503	188	184	0.505	27.67	70.67	98.34
2	Shrewsbury	563	335	0.627	242	138	0.637	27.69	77.53	105.21
5	Southend	541	421	0.562	230	156	0.596	23.48	75.63	99.11
6	Stevenage	418	410	0.505	182	162	0.529	34.06	66.65	100.71
24	Tranmere	432	444	0.493	167	207	0.447	26.95	67.62	94.57
4	Wycombe	475	382	0.554	195	147	0.57	34.35	69.37	103.72
18	York	547	515	0.515	222	214	0.509	20.72	76.18	96.9

At the other end of the table Hartlepool’s escape from the clutches of relegation was a well-publicised one, especially given they were one of the worst teams in the league.
But even more remarkable (and less publicised) was Dagenham and Redbridge’s route to mid-table.
Put bluntly, whatever the Daggers’ forwards and goalkeeper were on this season, I want some of it.
The Daggers were even worse (just) than Hartlepool and did flirt with a relegation fight, but ended the season with a mammoth PDO of 115 which saw them comfortably mid-table.

They had the top shooting % in the whole division (four percentage points above the next best – Champions Burton) which was ten points above average and also the fifth highest save %. Can an ageing Jamie Cureton repeat this next year?
I suspect if things don’t change at Dagenham over the summer then the results next year could well be a lot uglier.
Positive PDO has a habit of hiding the faults and flaws of a team.

So with Wycombe and Southend battling for the final promotion spot, statistically speaking at least, I’m quite happy with having four of the top five shots teams going up.

And all of this is nicely rounded-up by the comparing the points teams gained with their shot share, shots on target share and PDO scores over the season.

Compared to the Championship some of the correlations are not quite so strong, but it is heartening to see that shot dominance in both its forms was more strongly rewarded than luck and variance.

Terry Butcher did a good job at Hibernian... and should improve Newport County

Terry Butcher was appointed manager of Newport County before the last game of the season and arrived in south Wales with much fanfare.
But why?
Butcher left his previous club (Hibernian) under a fairly substantial cloud and with a much diminished reputation having been at the helm for the majority of the 2013/14 season as Hibs finished second bottom in the then Scottish Premier League.
Hibs relegation was confirmed after the team blew a 3-0 lead from the first leg of the relegation playoff against Hamilton Academicals.
Worse for the Butcher, the Hibees actually owned the worst record in the SPL that season and it was only Hearts’ 15 point deduction for going in to administration that kept them off the bottom of the table.

So what did Newport’s board see in Butcher that makes them think the Exiles are a good place for him to resurrect his managerial career?
Well, as Seth Dobson points out Butcher did a pretty decent job at his previous club (Inverness Caledonian Thistle).
He improved the shots on target share consistently and obtained a better shot share than his first year in charge in each of the following three.
(These figures are for games not involving the Old Firm of Celtic and Rangers who tend to skew the league given their sheer financial dominance.) 

But that all came crashing down at Easter Road, right?
Actually, no. Terry Butcher did a pretty good job at Hibs and certainly improved the team’s performances compared to his predecessor Pat Fenlon – although that is not immediately apparent.

Looking at the simple league record it’s a pretty poor show.
Fenlon was ticking over at 1.15 points per games after 13 matches with the team in seventh place.
Butcher’s team went just 0.8 points per game over the remaining 25 games and ended the season in 11th.

But when we look at the shot metrics it was a very different tale.
Fenlon’s team had an overall shot share score (otherwise known as Corsi or Total Shots Ratio) of just 0.451 – meaning out of every 10 shots in a match, Fenlon’s Hibs took just 4.5 of them and conceded 5.5.
And the shots on target share was a paltry 0.437 – again meaning out of every 10 shots on target Fenlon’s team took just 4.37 of them.
What was keeping Fenlon’s team from being dragged into a relegation fight even then was a just below average PDO score of 95.11.
As the next two charts show, at the point of his departure Fenlon's team was almost as bad as Ross County, Hearts and St Mirren. 

But PDO is a highly volatile (uncontrollable) statistic which combines goal scoring percentage with save percentage.
A significant element of its variation (around 60%) is based on luck – the “goal off a beachball” factor.
Although it is hard to pinpoint, there does appear to be some influence of managerial tactics and player skill involved in PDO – keep allowing opposing strikers through one-on-one with your goalkeeper and it’s probably not going to end well.
So, the Hibees’ PDO of 95.11 under Fenlon was already below average and would be expected to regress upward slightly to around the 100 point league average over the course of the season.
In other words Hibs (and Terry Butcher when he arrived) were due a little bit of luck.

Instead what they got was an absolute cratering of PDO.
This was despite improved play that saw Butcher reverse Fenlon’s shot share (taking 5.58 shots of every 10) and also make a significant improvement in shots on target share to bring Hibs up to basically league average (taking almost 5 of every ten shots on target).

Butcher improved Hibs' overall shot performance by four shots per game – getting the team to take 2.69 shots per game more and restricting the opposition to 1.32 fewer shots per game.
There was also an improvement in the shots on target total (although not so significantly) with Hibs taking an extra three shots on target every four games.

Unfortunately, Butcher inherited a league average save percentage (around 70%) and saw that drop by 10 percentage points - meaning the team was shipping an inordinate amount of goals.
Meanwhile, the below average scoring percentage stayed right where it was.
Whether this horrible save rate was down to Butcher’s tactical decisions or just dumb luck is hard to say (I didn’t see enough of Hibs games to look at that). But I would usually lean more towards the latter – especially where we have seen both extremes in Butcher’s history at ICT.

At the end of the season that left Hibs looking like this compared to the rest of the league...

.... performances which should have had then in the top eight, and potentially the top six. Instead they finished bottom but one.

So to sum up – Hibs probably sacked Butcher far too readily (although given the relegation it is not surprising) and Newport potentially have a very good manager who should improve the team over the next few years.

Incidentally, Newport ended this League Two season with a very nice 0.53 overall shot share, a not quite so nice 0.483 shots on target share and a pretty much league average PDO of 100.26.

Enjoy the summer Exiles fans.

League Two Week 43

Position	Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	Goals For	Goals Against	Goal Difference	Points
1	Burton	43	25	10	8	61	35	26	85
2	Shrewsbury	43	25	8	10	65	29	36	83
3	Wycombe	43	22	14	7	64	42	22	80
4	Bury	42	23	7	12	56	39	17	76
5	Southend	42	21	12	9	50	35	15	75
6	Stevenage	43	19	11	13	59	50	9	68
7	Plymouth	43	18	11	14	50	33	17	65
8	Luton	43	17	11	15	49	43	6	62
9	Newport County	43	17	11	15	47	50	-3	62
10	Exeter	43	16	13	14	58	61	-3	61
11	Northampton	43	17	7	19	62	56	6	58
12	Morecambe	43	15	12	16	48	49	-1	57
13	AFC Wimbledon	43	14	14	15	53	57	-4	56
14	Portsmouth	43	13	14	16	49	51	-2	53
15	Dag and Red	43	15	8	20	50	55	-5	53
16	Oxford	43	12	16	15	44	49	-5	52
17	Accrington	43	14	10	19	54	70	-16	52
18	York	43	11	18	14	45	47	-2	51
19	Cambridge	43	12	12	19	56	60	-4	48
20	Mansfield	43	13	9	21	35	55	-20	48
21	Carlisle	43	13	7	23	51	70	-19	46
22	Hartlepool	43	11	8	24	34	63	-29	41
23	Cheltenham	43	9	13	21	39	63	-24	40
24	Tranmere	43	9	12	22	43	60	-17	39

Position	Team	Played	Shots for total	Shots against total	Corsi/TSR	shots on target for total	shots on target against total	Shots on target share	Shooting % For	Save %	PDO
17	Accrington	43	444	486	0.478	166	192	0.464	32.51	63.54	96.05
13	AFC Wimbledon	43	436	473	0.48	177	194	0.477	29.94	70.62	100.55
1	Burton	43	465	357	0.566	179	128	0.583	34.09	72.65	106.74
4	Bury	42	438	357	0.551	177	132	0.573	31.63	70.45	102.09
19	Cambridge	43	433	495	0.467	174	180	0.492	32.19	66.66	98.85
21	Carlisle	43	412	536	0.434	150	198	0.431	34	64.66	98.66
23	Cheltenham	43	359	450	0.444	144	196	0.423	27.08	67.88	94.96
15	Dag and Red	43	388	556	0.411	134	230	0.368	37.32	76.09	113.41
10	Exeter	43	450	492	0.478	184	173	0.516	31.51	64.73	96.24
22	Hartlepool	43	370	487	0.432	126	211	0.374	27	70.16	97.16
8	Luton	43	428	493	0.465	162	193	0.456	30.26	77.73	107.99
20	Mansfield	43	439	445	0.497	164	177	0.481	21.34	68.93	90.27
12	Morecambe	43	421	533	0.441	182	190	0.489	26.38	74.22	100.6
9	Newport County	43	427	385	0.526	161	178	0.475	29.2	71.9	101.09
11	Northampton	43	469	411	0.533	192	164	0.539	32.28	65.86	98.14
16	Oxford	43	423	368	0.535	162	138	0.54	27.15	64.5	91.65
7	Plymouth	43	471	422	0.527	173	149	0.537	28.91	77.84	106.76
14	Portsmouth	43	406	420	0.491	171	177	0.491	28.66	71.19	99.85
2	Shrewsbury	43	530	313	0.629	225	125	0.643	28.88	76.81	105.69
5	Southend	42	500	376	0.571	215	147	0.594	23.27	76.19	99.45
6	Stevenage	43	383	383	0.5	169	153	0.525	34.9	67.33	102.23
24	Tranmere	43	402	414	0.493	157	190	0.452	27.39	68.43	95.81
3	Wycombe	43	456	349	0.566	186	132	0.585	34.42	68.19	102.62
18	York	43	521	470	0.526	210	193	0.521	21.42	75.64	97.07

League Two Week 34

Position	Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	Goals For	Goals Against	Goal Difference	Points
1	Shrewsbury	34	19	7	8	49	25	24	64
2	Burton	34	19	7	8	46	30	16	64
3	Wycombe	34	17	12	5	49	30	19	63
4	Luton	34	16	10	8	41	28	13	58
5	Bury	34	17	7	10	46	35	11	58
6	Southend	34	16	10	8	38	30	8	58
7	Newport County	34	15	8	11	40	39	1	53
8	Plymouth	34	15	7	12	40	26	14	52
9	Stevenage	34	15	7	12	49	43	6	52
10	Northampton	34	15	5	14	54	43	11	50
11	AFC Wimbledon	34	12	10	12	43	43	0	46
12	Morecambe	34	12	9	13	35	35	0	45
13	Portsmouth	34	11	11	12	39	38	1	44
14	Exeter	34	11	11	12	43	48	-5	44
15	Accrington	34	13	4	17	42	55	-13	43
16	Cambridge	34	11	8	15	48	47	1	41
17	Mansfield	34	11	8	15	29	42	-13	41
18	Dag and Red	34	11	7	16	39	46	-7	40
19	Oxford	34	9	12	13	37	41	-4	39
20	York	34	7	15	12	34	40	-6	36
21	Carlisle	34	11	3	20	41	58	-17	36
22	Tranmere	34	8	10	16	35	45	-10	34
23	Cheltenham	34	8	10	16	30	49	-19	34
24	Hartlepool	34	7	6	21	25	56	-31	27

Position	Team	Shots for total	Shots against total	Corsi/TSR	shots on target for total	shots on target against total	Shots on target share	Shooting % For	Save %	PDO
15	Accrington	365	386	0.486	132	156	0.459	31.81	64.73	96.54
11	AFC Wimbledon	328	367	0.472	130	138	0.485	33.07	68.83	101.9
2	Burton	360	277	0.565	142	101	0.584	32.39	70.31	102.7
5	Bury	365	291	0.556	150	109	0.579	30.65	67.9	98.55
16	Cambridge	354	401	0.469	142	148	0.49	33.81	68.23	102.05
21	Carlisle	329	424	0.437	125	159	0.44	32.79	63.52	96.31
23	Cheltenham	297	364	0.449	121	157	0.435	24.78	68.8	93.58
18	Dag and Red	314	445	0.414	112	192	0.368	34.8	76.05	110.85
14	Exeter	359	409	0.467	147	145	0.503	29.25	66.9	96.14
24	Hartlepool	286	409	0.411	98	178	0.355	25.51	68.54	94.05
4	Luton	341	380	0.473	137	141	0.493	29.92	80.15	110.07
17	Mansfield	357	372	0.49	135	142	0.487	21.48	70.42	91.9
12	Morecambe	337	414	0.449	144	152	0.486	24.31	76.98	101.29
7	Newport County	350	303	0.536	130	136	0.489	30.78	71.31	102.1
10	Northampton	364	343	0.515	149	139	0.517	36.23	69.07	105.3
19	Oxford	333	304	0.523	129	113	0.533	28.69	63.71	92.4
8	Plymouth	382	334	0.534	130	119	0.522	30.76	78.14	108.9
13	Portsmouth	334	339	0.496	138	135	0.505	28.27	71.85	100.12
1	Shrewsbury	446	252	0.639	185	100	0.649	26.48	74.99	101.47
6	Southend	406	306	0.57	170	129	0.569	22.36	76.75	99.1
9	Stevenage	315	312	0.502	138	129	0.517	35.52	66.68	102.21
22	Tranmere	321	328	0.494	123	143	0.462	28.46	68.54	97
3	Wycombe	343	273	0.557	144	101	0.588	34.02	70.3	104.33
20	York	419	372	0.53	174	163	0.516	19.54	75.46	95

League Two Week 30

Position	Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	Goals For	Goals Against	Goal Difference	Points
1	Shrewsbury	30	17	7	6	43	20	23	58
2	Burton	30	17	7	6	41	27	14	58
3	Wycombe	30	15	11	4	41	23	18	56
4	Southend	30	15	9	6	33	24	9	54
5	Luton	29	14	10	5	36	23	13	52
6	Newport County	30	13	8	9	37	36	1	47
7	Plymouth	30	13	7	10	35	22	13	46
8	Bury	30	13	7	10	40	34	6	46
9	Exeter	31	11	10	10	42	44	-2	43
10	Stevenage	30	12	6	12	39	38	1	42
11	AFC Wimbledon	29	11	8	10	40	38	2	41
12	Morecambe	30	11	8	11	31	29	2	41
13	Northampton	30	12	4	14	47	41	6	40
14	Cambridge	29	10	7	12	44	36	8	37
15	Accrington	29	11	3	15	37	49	-12	36
16	Portsmouth	29	8	10	11	29	33	-4	34
17	Oxford	30	8	10	12	33	38	-5	34
18	Dag and Red	30	9	7	14	32	39	-7	34
19	Carlisle	30	10	3	17	38	52	-14	33
20	Tranmere	29	7	10	12	30	35	-5	31
21	Mansfield	29	8	7	14	24	37	-13	31
22	Cheltenham	30	7	9	14	26	45	-19	30
23	York	30	5	14	11	29	37	-8	29
24	Hartlepool	30	6	6	18	23	50	-27	24

Position	Team	Played	Shots for total	Shots against total	Corsi/TSR	shots on target for total	shots on target against total	Shots on target share	Shooting % For	Save %	PDO
15	Accrington	29	328	343	0.489	118	143	0.452	31.35	65.74	97.09
11	AFC Wimbledon	29	267	301	0.47	108	117	0.48	37.02	67.52	104.55
2	Burton	30	321	248	0.564	130	93	0.583	31.54	70.98	102.52
8	Bury	30	321	268	0.545	131	99	0.57	30.53	65.64	96.18
14	Cambridge	29	301	338	0.471	124	121	0.506	35.48	70.26	105.74
19	Carlisle	30	293	375	0.439	112	140	0.445	33.91	62.85	96.77
22	Cheltenham	30	277	340	0.449	113	145	0.438	23.02	68.96	91.98
18	Dag and Red	30	276	399	0.409	100	170	0.37	32	77.06	109.06
9	Exeter	31	330	374	0.469	134	133	0.502	31.33	66.9	98.23
24	Hartlepool	30	265	363	0.422	89	158	0.36	25.86	68.36	94.21
5	Luton	29	292	321	0.476	117	123	0.487	30.76	81.3	112.07
21	Mansfield	29	317	326	0.493	120	128	0.484	20	71.09	91.09
12	Morecambe	30	299	372	0.446	125	137	0.477	24.79	78.83	103.62
6	Newport County	30	314	276	0.532	119	120	0.498	31.08	70	101.08
13	Northampton	30	329	294	0.528	133	121	0.524	35.32	66.12	101.44
17	Oxford	30	298	273	0.522	120	104	0.536	27.51	63.47	90.97
7	Plymouth	30	341	309	0.525	114	110	0.509	30.69	80	110.69
16	Portsmouth	29	278	292	0.488	113	117	0.491	25.65	71.8	97.45
1	Shrewsbury	30	387	219	0.639	166	88	0.654	25.91	77.27	103.18
4	Southend	30	362	276	0.567	154	115	0.573	21.42	79.13	100.56
10	Stevenage	30	284	280	0.504	120	119	0.502	32.49	68.06	100.55
20	Tranmere	29	290	277	0.512	109	113	0.491	27.52	69.02	96.54
3	Wycombe	30	300	238	0.558	121	82	0.596	33.89	71.94	105.82
23	York	30	369	337	0.523	154	148	0.51	18.83	74.99	93.83

League Two Week 27

Position	Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	Goals For	Goals Against	Goal Difference	Points
1	Wycombe	27	14	10	3	40	21	19	52
2	Shrewsbury	27	15	6	6	39	18	21	51
3	Burton	27	15	6	6	37	26	11	51
4	Luton	26	13	8	5	30	18	12	47
5	Southend	27	13	8	6	29	23	6	47
6	Newport County	27	13	7	7	36	32	4	46
7	Bury	27	13	5	9	39	32	7	44
8	Stevenage	27	12	5	10	39	35	4	41
9	Exeter	28	11	8	9	38	39	-1	41
10	Plymouth	27	11	7	9	30	19	11	40
11	Morecambe	27	10	7	10	27	25	2	37
12	Cambridge	26	10	6	10	40	30	10	36
13	AFC Wimbledon	26	10	6	10	37	37	0	36
14	Northampton	27	10	4	13	40	38	2	34
15	Accrington	26	10	3	13	35	43	-8	33
16	Oxford	27	7	9	11	30	36	-6	30
17	Cheltenham	27	7	9	11	24	37	-13	30
18	Portsmouth	26	7	8	11	28	33	-5	29
19	York	27	5	13	9	27	32	-5	28
20	Mansfield	26	7	7	12	21	33	-12	28
21	Tranmere	26	6	9	11	27	31	-4	27
22	Dag and Red	27	7	6	14	27	38	-11	27
23	Carlisle	27	8	3	16	33	49	-16	27
24	Hartlepool	27	4	6	17	19	47	-28	18

Position	Team	Played	Shots for total	Shots against total	Corsi/TSR	shots on target for total	shots on target against total	Shots on target share	Shooting % For	Save %	PDO
15	Accrington	26	295	303	0.493	112	131	0.461	31.24	67.16	98.4
13	AFC Wimbledon	26	249	264	0.486	100	109	0.479	36.99	66.04	103.03
3	Burton	27	280	233	0.546	116	85	0.577	31.9	69.41	101.31
7	Bury	27	286	245	0.539	117	91	0.563	33.34	64.82	98.16
12	Cambridge	26	271	302	0.473	113	105	0.518	35.41	71.44	106.85
23	Carlisle	27	263	331	0.443	96	124	0.436	34.38	60.48	94.86
17	Cheltenham	27	260	309	0.457	106	127	0.455	22.64	70.85	93.49
22	Dag and Red	27	250	370	0.403	89	159	0.359	30.33	76.09	106.43
9	Exeter	28	295	329	0.473	119	122	0.494	31.92	68.03	99.95
24	Hartlepool	27	246	340	0.42	81	149	0.352	23.46	68.45	91.9
4	Luton	26	265	286	0.481	104	107	0.493	28.85	83.18	112.03
20	Mansfield	26	283	297	0.488	102	117	0.466	20.6	71.78	92.38
11	Morecambe	27	264	332	0.443	112	121	0.481	24.1	79.35	103.45
6	Newport County	27	282	255	0.525	110	110	0.5	32.74	70.9	103.64
14	Northampton	27	296	264	0.528	119	110	0.519	33.62	65.47	99.09
16	Oxford	27	272	242	0.529	109	95	0.534	27.54	62.1	89.63
10	Plymouth	27	305	285	0.517	107	102	0.512	28.03	81.38	109.41
18	Portsmouth	26	257	278	0.48	106	114	0.482	26.42	71.05	97.47
2	Shrewsbury	27	357	190	0.653	154	76	0.669	25.33	76.33	101.65
5	Southend	27	335	250	0.573	139	106	0.567	20.86	78.3	99.16
8	Stevenage	27	262	259	0.503	114	110	0.509	34.22	68.17	102.4
21	Tranmere	26	252	243	0.509	100	100	0.5	27.01	69.01	96.02
1	Wycombe	27	277	214	0.564	115	71	0.618	34.78	70.44	105.22
19	York	27	324	305	0.515	134	133	0.502	20.15	75.95	96.1