89 Points?

[cmonurz]

I'm going to break two rules I set myself.

1 - not to insult Snowball despite his various personal digs at a lot of posters.

Snowball, you are an idiot.

2 - not to post again in response to Snowball.

I don't have any issue with taking a holistic view of this. But in your desperation to show just how good Swansea are, you decided to separate stats into top half and bottom half.

As a result, I looked at points gained against the bottom half, which shows the following (now definitive, my first attempt was just a brief look over, but you have broken it down nicely).

Bristol City vs bottom half
Won 12 Drawn 6 Lost 1 Points 42
Win 63%
Draw 32%
Lose 5%
Points per game 2.21

Swansea City vs bottom half
Won 5 Drawn 8 Lost 3 Points 23
Win 31%
Draw 50%
Lose 19%
Points per game 1.43

These stats suggest it wrong to imply that Swansea have an 'easier' run-in than Bristol City, as they have been so inconsistent against teams in the bottom half of the table, winning only a third of their games against those sides.

[Snowball]

I've made no such assumption - I used the word "relatively" quite deliberately. Swansea currently have 48 points from 32 games; Bristol C have 50 points from 33 games. A very similar record. So, if (as you state) Bristol C's record against top clubs is worse than Swansea's, ergo Swansea's record against bottom clubs must be RELATIVELY worse than Britol C's.

Except that, as I've shown, Bristol have played a lot more games against lower clubs and now have a very tough run in.

Your assumption doesn't allow for ratio of games played v top or bottom

Swansea have played a lot more games against top-half clubs, and they now have a much much easier run-in (and a game in hand)

Here is the comparison, Bristol have a really tough finish, Swansea have an easy one.

2 top six teams 5 top 12 teams 9 bottom half teams 5 in bottom 6 SWANSEA
4 top six teams 8 top 12 teams 5 bottom half teams 1 in bottom 6 Bristol

[Vision]

LOL. I'm sorry but Ive read more than enough of this. Wolves are top of the table but on FORM is playing them now an easier or harder proposition than playing Derby, Bristol City, Swansea, Doncaster or Cardiff all of whom are below them in the table but recent form stats suggest they are all playing better? I like the fact that you try to use stats to back up your argument and some of them have benn valid but all you've done here is talk yourself into a corner and frankly you're looking like some sort of lunatic obsessive.

Of course, for ONE club, maybe two, at a push three, but ALL ten?

And these comparisons are not made looking only at current form but for the whole season

And in the whole season Swansea have beaten Wolves (when their form was 7-1-1), Reading (after they had just WWWWW), Preston (only 3 defeats in 18)

Now i know you're just making it up. We did not have a 5 game winning streak when Swansea beat us. How many more of your numbers are pure fiction?

[CMRoyal]

Your assumption

For the last time, I did not make an assumption. Can't be bothered with the rest, it's like ever decreasing circles.

[Snowball]

Now i know you're just making it up. We did not have a 5 game winning streak when Swansea beat us. How many more of your numbers are pure fiction?

My mistake, it was not WWWWW it was WWWWWDD

The point still applies, and we were a top three side moving upwards, not a side on a bad run
just as Wolves &-1-1 were hardly a side on a bad run or Preston 3 defaeats in 18 now, one of those being the Swansea defeat)) were hardly having a bad one

[cmonurz]

Are you deliberately ignoring my point re Swansea's not very good record against the bottom half?

[CMRoyal]

We did not have a 5 game winning streak when Swansea beat us.

Swansea's win brought our glorious run of one win in a row to an end.

[CMRoyal]

Are you deliberately ignoring my point re Swansea's not very good record against the bottom half?

Don't forget the subtle shift from Top/Bottom 10 to Top/Bottom Half, which skews the argument in favour of Swansea for future games. Even though there's no comparison with the much inferior Bristol City.

I'm going for a lie down.

[Snowball]

Hmmmm - are you suggesting that Portsmouth and Hull WEREN'T going through a period of sustained poor results when they played Swansea??

HULL were third in the Premiership when Swansea beat them.

Yes Pompey were doing realtively poorly IN THE PREMIERSHIP
but they did beat BRISTOL 2-0 at Fratton Park in the previous round
ELEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO LOSING TO SWANSEA AT HOME

But what does all of this statistical porn actually MEAN??

It means, as far as I'm concerned, what I started out saying.


Reading will get about 89 points and be promoted.
Bristol will finish 10-11-12th and below Swansea
Swansea are a much better side and will finish higher than Bristol, a play-off place

Are you saying we will go up, or not?

UP, probably as champions

Are you saying Swansea will go up, or not?

Don't know. They should be in the play-offs comfortably. If they recover quickly from this shock defeat
they could still be 3rd/4th and could JUST squeak second. I think the top 4 will be Reading top and then Birmingham
Cardiff Swansea (any order) and Preston with Wolves maybe hanging on or finishing seventh

Are you saying that the points gained by the top 10 teams in the last 15-12 games of the season will determine if they go up, or not?

More than that. The sides going up usually average over 1.85 points a game in the run-in
and some (a fair few) over 2 points a game)

Are you saying that if a team gets 89 points they will get automatic promotion?

THIS season, certainly

[Snowball]

Are you deliberately ignoring my point re Swansea's not very good record against the bottom half?

No

[Ozymandias]

Nothing personal, but you're crackers

[cmonurz]

Are you deliberately ignoring my point re Swansea's not very good record against the bottom half?

No

Well you haven't addressed it. You are making an assumption that Swansea will score more points in the run-in, when on the season so far, they average 0.8 points per game less than Bristol City against bottom-half teams.

[Vision]

Now i know you're just making it up. We did not have a 5 game winning streak when Swansea beat us. How many more of your numbers are pure fiction?

My mistake, it was not WWWWW it was WWWWWDD

The point still applies, and we were a top three side moving upwards, not a side on a bad run
just as Wolves &-1-1 were hardly a side on a bad run or Preston 3 defaeats in 18 now, one of those being the Swansea defeat)) were hardly having a bad one

Thats the only one of your stats i bothered to check and it proved to be false so you'll forgive me if i don't hold too much store by them.

Can you really not see how inconsistent your approach is. Even in that last paragrapgh you're taking Preston's form over 18 games....Wolves over 9 games and Reading's over 7 games to reinforce your point.

Personally I agree that Swansea will finish above Bristol City but that is based solely on seeing both sides play on 3 or four occasions which is just as relevant as the skew eyed stats you keep producing.

[Stranded]

When we were in the Prem Coppell made the point that we were not like the top 4 or top ten sides,
that we should not expect any points off the top four and not many off the next six

He said his target was to finish top of the third min-league in the Prem.

HE knows there's a difference, I know there's a difference.

Anyone with average intelligence knows there's a difference.

I've highlighted a very key part there....

The Prem, as anyone who follows football will know, is very different to the CCC - there are four or five clubs that for a variety of reasons are fields ahead of the pack - as a result for a number of clubs, particularly those in the bottom 8 simply cannot compete against them - for example, you would not see a club avoid relegation on the last day and then qualify for the Champions League the next season - whilst in the CCC we saw Hull go up last season having just stayed up the year before.

The two competitions are all but incomparable.

[Stranded]

[
HULL were third in the Premiership when Swansea beat them.

Just a point here:

You are correct, the club Hull City were indeed 3rd when Swansea beat them - this was after 2 games in the season.

The team Swansea beat were not 3rd. The team put out that night showed a small matter of 11 changes to the starting line up from the Blackburn game that preceded it. Phil Brown then made 9 changes for the following league game.

[Snowball]

Bristol City vs bottom half Won 12 Drawn 6 Lost 1 Points 42 Win 63% Draw 32% Lose 5% Points per game 2.21
Swansea City vs bottom half Won 5 Drawn 8 Lost 3 Points 23 Win 31% Draw 50% Lose 19% Points per game 1.43

These stats suggest it wrong to imply that Swansea have an 'easier' run-in than Bristol City, as they have been so inconsistent against teams in the bottom half of the table, winning only a third of their games against those sides.

OF COURSE. I agree. If you can show me that Swansea have "some kind of problem" playing lower sides, I'd agree with you.

But even if you use the stats of the season so far Swansea should come home above Bristol

Bristol have 8 top half games left, at a predicted .57 points per game = 4.56 points (I predict no more than 3-4)
they have five lower-half games at a current average of 2.2 = 11 points

Total predicted 15.56.... I've said I think they'll get 12 or so and end up 10th or so. We shall see

Swansea NINE games v bottom half clubs at 1.43 points a game (your stats) = 13 points

They also have 5 games against top sides. If they just win two of those (Bristol & Palace) that's 6 points from 5, total 19 grand total 67

I predict Bristol 62, the stats (not allowing for bottom six games) say 65

Worse-case scenario I'd see Swansea 2 points clear of Bristol. I actually think the gap will be a lot more

74-80 Swansea (so no, I can't see them making second)
62-66 Bristol

[Snowball]

[
HULL were third in the Premiership when Swansea beat them.

Just a point here: You are correct, the club Hull City were indeed 3rd when Swansea beat them - this was after 2 games in the season.

The team Swansea beat were not 3rd. The team put out that night showed a small matter of 11 changes to the starting line up from the Blackburn game that preceded it. Phil Brown then made 9 changes for the following league game.

I don't dispute that. It was stated that Hull City were on a bad run when they lost to Swansea.

THAT was the statement I answered.

[Snowball]

When we were in the Prem Coppell made the point that we were not like the top 4 or top ten sides,
that we should not expect any points off the top four and not many off the next six
He said his target was to finish top of the third min-league in the Prem.
HE knows there's a difference, I know there's a difference.
Anyone with average intelligence knows there's a difference.

I've highlighted a very key part there....
The Prem, as anyone who follows football will know, is very different to the CCC - there are four or five clubs that for a variety of reasons are fields ahead of the pack - as a result for a number of clubs, particularly those in the bottom 8 simply cannot compete against them - for example, you would not see a club avoid relegation on the last day and then qualify for the Champions League the next season - whilst in the CCC we saw Hull go up last season having just stayed up the year before.
The two competitions are all but incomparable.

Not the point I was making. Point I was making is that there IS a difference between beating top six versus bottom six sides
or top ten versus bottom ten sides. I'd agree that say tenth/eleventh versus 15th/16th there's little in it.

[SteveRoyal]

Nothing personal, but you're crackers

[Snowball]

Are you deliberately ignoring my point re Swansea's not very good record against the bottom half?

No

Well you haven't addressed it. You are making an assumption that Swansea will score more points in the run-in, when on the season so far, they average 0.8 points per game less than Bristol City against bottom-half teams.

Even if Swansea and Bristol maintain their season-so-far points-per-game (suing YOUR stats) (top/bottom) Swansea will finish above Bristol

When you look at your stats they fail to take into consideration that Bristol
have only one bottom six side to play, so in fact I predict they will get LESS
than the 15.5 predicted by your cruder stats.

Swansea had three very early defeats (3 in first and in the next 24 have
lost only 3 times, two of those games versus Wolves and Birmingham) so
it's clear that

3 defeats in first 08 games (Charlton, Palace, Reading)
3 defeats in next 24 games (Wolves, Birmingham, Watford)


Swansea are improving

It's also clear that Swansea got into an 8 consecutive draw rut
but then managed 4 quick wins, so they are improving there too.