1990–91 French Division 2
Statistics of Division 2 in the 199–91 season.
Overview
It was contested by 36 teams, and Nîmes Olympique and Le Havre won the championship.
Group A
Pos | Team | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Promotion or relegation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Nîmes Olympique | 34 | 17 | 10 | 7 | 40 | 27 | +13 | 44 | Promoted |
2 | RC Strasbourg | 34 | 19 | 5 | 10 | 70 | 37 | +33 | 43 | |
3 | Valenciennes | 34 | 13 | 17 | 4 | 30 | 17 | +13 | 43 | |
4 | Olympique Alès | 34 | 17 | 9 | 8 | 37 | 32 | +5 | 43 | |
5 | Istres | 34 | 14 | 9 | 11 | 41 | 41 | 0 | 37 | |
6 | Bastia | 34 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 46 | 35 | +11 | 35 | |
7 | Avignon | 34 | 10 | 15 | 9 | 41 | 37 | +4 | 35 | Relegated |
8 | Rodez | 34 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 32 | 38 | −6 | 34 | |
9 | Annecy | 34 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 26 | 25 | +1 | 33 | |
10 | Mulhouse | 34 | 11 | 10 | 13 | 41 | 35 | +6 | 32 | |
11 | Martigues | 34 | 11 | 10 | 13 | 41 | 38 | +3 | 32 | |
12 | Gueugnon | 34 | 9 | 14 | 11 | 30 | 29 | +1 | 32 | |
13 | Épinal | 34 | 11 | 8 | 15 | 33 | 40 | −7 | 30 | |
14 | Gazélec Ajaccio | 34 | 11 | 8 | 15 | 30 | 39 | −9 | 30 | |
15 | Chaumont | 34 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 32 | 50 | −18 | 30 | Relegated |
16 | Louhans-Cuiseaux | 34 | 7 | 14 | 13 | 28 | 36 | −8 | 28 | |
17 | Dunkerque | 34 | 6 | 14 | 14 | 17 | 36 | −19 | 26 | |
18 | Dijon | 34 | 7 | 11 | 16 | 29 | 52 | −23 | 25 | Relegated |
Source: rsssf.com
Group B
Pos | Team | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Promotion or relegation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Le Havre | 34 | 18 | 11 | 5 | 52 | 17 | +35 | 47 | Promoted |
2 | Lens | 34 | 14 | 14 | 6 | 49 | 26 | +23 | 42 | |
3 | Stade Lavallois | 34 | 16 | 9 | 9 | 49 | 29 | +20 | 41 | |
4 | Angers | 34 | 16 | 8 | 10 | 52 | 32 | +20 | 40 | |
5 | Rouen | 34 | 15 | 10 | 9 | 46 | 26 | +20 | 40 | |
6 | Stade Reims | 34 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 38 | 29 | +9 | 37 | Relegated |
7 | En Avant Guingamp | 34 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 35 | 37 | −2 | 35 | |
8 | St Seurin | 34 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 33 | 37 | −4 | 34 | |
9 | Tours | 34 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 26 | 32 | −6 | 33 | |
10 | Red Star Paris | 34 | 9 | 14 | 11 | 36 | 43 | −7 | 32 | |
11 | Beauvais | 34 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 21 | 25 | −4 | 31 | |
12 | La Roche sur Yon | 34 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 35 | 46 | −11 | 31 | |
13 | Bourges | 34 | 10 | 11 | 13 | 35 | 51 | −16 | 31 | |
14 | Le Mans | 34 | 8 | 14 | 12 | 28 | 33 | −5 | 30 | |
15 | Chamois Niort | 34 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 26 | 33 | −7 | 29 | Relegated |
16 | Orléans | 34 | 7 | 14 | 13 | 29 | 41 | −12 | 28 | |
17 | US Créteil | 34 | 7 | 12 | 15 | 28 | 52 | −24 | 26 | Relegated |
18 | Olympique Saint-Quentin | 34 | 7 | 11 | 16 | 24 | 53 | −29 | 25 |
Source: rsssf.com
gollark: Unfortunately, it probably will in practice.
gollark: But that's probably a hard-to-teach mindset thing.
gollark: What would probably be better than teaching specific tools is teaching people, well, how to learn/adapt to new ones, how to debug things, actual manual reading, and whatnot.
gollark: I see. Not really sure about *that*, but sure.
gollark: I mean, it might at least teach very basic things like "things need support to stay up".
References
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.