The points are not the project. A tactical read on why the early table measures structural readiness rather than title form, and what the chaser-versus-chased framing from The Athletic reveals about tempo control in the Premier League.
The question surfaces every September, almost on cue. Six or seven matches played, the table beginning to take its early shape, and someone — usually a manager under pressure or a broadcaster reaching for a narrative — declares that this is when title races are won. It is a comfortable claim. It is also, on the evidence, a misleading one.
A fast Premier League start is not what it appears. The points it produces matter less than the conditions they create, and the conditions depend almost entirely on what kind of fast start a team is having. There is the points-fast start, which is what shows up in the league table and dominates the discussion. There is the performance-fast start, visible in expected goals and expected goals against, which often tells a different story. And there is the cohesion-fast start, the one that lives in how a team moves between phases and settles on a structure. Historically, only the third has been a reliable title indicator.
The Guardian's recent examination of the relationship between fast starts and title outcomes draws this distinction carefully. Across recent seasons, the pattern is not that the team topping the table in October lifts the trophy in May. It is that the team whose underlying numbers stabilise first — whose defensive shape is settled, whose pressing triggers are consistent, whose wide combinations are repeatable — has usually been there at the end. Manchester City's run of titles is the obvious reference point, but the mechanism matters more than the result: the template the Guardian identifies is structural rather than points-based.
The Athletic's framing — is it better to be the chaser or the chased? — reaches a related conclusion from a different angle. Being the chased compresses your tactical options. Every opponent sits deeper, breaks up the game, asks you to break them down. You accumulate possession without accumulating clear chances, and your players begin to feel the gravitational pull of the lead. Being the chaser, by contrast, gives you tempo. You can pick the games in which to press high, the games in which to sit and counter, the games in which to manage the squad. The chaser's advantage, where it exists, is that they can let the leader's early points burn up under the weight of low-block opposition.
This is where the tactical analysis becomes useful, because it separates the question of fast starts from the question of structural readiness. A team can take 16 points from its first six and still be tactically unsettled — defending in transition in a way that opponents have already identified, building out from the back into a structure that breaks under pressure. A team can take 10 points from its first six and have already established the shape that will carry it through April. The first version generates headlines; the second tends to generate the league.
There is also a question of opponent behaviour. The teams that face a title favourite in the autumn are not the teams that face one in the spring. Early-season matches between contenders are often played with a degree of caution, both sides reading the other, neither wanting to be the one that loses first. Late-season matches between contenders are played with the desperation of teams who cannot afford to drop points. A fast start built on a run of winnable fixtures can flatter a side; the same fixture list reordered in February would tell a different story.
The implication is not that early points are worthless. They are obviously not. The implication is that the early points are doing a different job than the narrative suggests. They are not foreclosing the title. They are buying a team margin for the kind of structural tinkering that all title winners need to do in the second half of the season, when injuries accumulate and opponents have filmed enough footage to find the seams.
A coaching staff that reads its own team carefully in the autumn is not asking whether they have a lead. They are asking whether the system is doing what they designed it to do under repeated pressure, whether the substitutions work, whether the second-phase patterns are connecting. Those questions are tactical. The points are the consequence, not the project.
The City case, which has dominated the discourse for a different reason entirely, sits at an oblique angle to this. Whatever the regulatory outcome, the structural question is the same: a team that has set its tactical identity early in the season is a different proposition from a team that is still searching. That has always been true. The only thing that changes is the margin within which it is true.
So when the table is read at this point in the calendar, the honest reading is not about who is on top. It is about who looks like they know what they are doing. The teams that know tend to be there at the end. The teams that are merely winning will tell you by Christmas.
Live scores, lineups and goal alerts for the teams in this story — get Socc360 for iOS.