Final 12 Games

[Snowball]

Not the first time SnowbaLOL has got his facts wrong.

Except he didn't.

If we beat a club in the top six that then was relegated
would you say they were a "top club"?

No, final position is the measure, or right now, the most recent position.

Are Leicester not "contenders"?

[Snowball]

When we won at Derby...

1 20 7 3 1 22 07 4 5 0 14 05 +24 41 QPR
2 21 5 3 2 16 09 6 1 4 19 13 +13 37 Cardiff City
3 21 6 3 2 14 05 5 1 4 14 13 +10 37 Swansea City
4 21 5 1 4 19 20 5 4 2 18 15 +2 35 Leeds United
5 21 6 1 3 16 10 4 3 4 12 13 +5 34 Coventry City <<<<
6 21 5 2 4 19 17 4 4 2 14 12 +4 33 Norwich City
7 21 6 1 3 24 11 3 2 6 10 16 +7 30 Derby County

So were they a top club?

Or do we take their current position?

Are/Were Coventry "a top club"

[RoyalJames101]

Away 20-12-2008 READING FC 3-1 Birmingham 2nd
Away 13-01-2010 READING FC 2-1 LIVERPOOL Premiership
Away 24-02-2010 READING FC 3-2 WBA 2nd
Away 24-03-2010 READING FC 2-1 Leicester 4th
Away 28-08-2010 READING FC 2-1 Leicester 10th
Away 23-10-2010 READING FC 4-0 Burnley 7th
Away 01-03-2011 READING FC 1-0 Everton Premiership


Away 18-08-2009 READING FC 0-0 Swansea
Away 10-04-2010 READING FC 0-0 Cardiff
Away 14-09-2010 READING FC 0-0 Millwall
Away 20-11-2010 READING FC 1-1 Watford
Away 28-12-2010 READING FC 1-1 Hull
Away 01-02-2011 READING FC 2-2 Cardiff

They were 23rd?

I'm on about where they ARE, not where they WERE.

Should I talk about where Derby WERE (the day we played them) or where they are now, which, presumably measures their true quality

But shouldn't you be measuring us against their "true quality" when we played them, not where they are now.

[Ian Royal]

I'd say it's important to take a match in the context it was played in, less so what happened after the event, which could be several months and a transfer window later.

Although as ever there are lots of factors that need to be taken into account and it's not very smart to dismiss where teams are currently as Leicester (amongst others) for example are clearly in a league position more reflective of their actual quality now, than they were early in the season.

[RoyalJames101]

I'd say it's important to take a match in the context it was played in, less so what happened after the event, which could be several months and a transfer window later.

Although as ever there are lots of factors that need to be taken into account and it's not very smart to dismiss where teams are currently as Leicester (amongst others) for example are clearly in a league position more reflective of their actual quality now, than they were early in the season.

Spot on IR.

[Snowball]

If you "experts" say so...

Then replace "top side " Leicester with DERBY

Still exactly the same number of top sides we've beaten away or drawn with away.

I win.

[Ian Royal]

If you "experts" say so...

Then replace "top side " Leicester with DERBY

Still exactly the same number of top sides we've beaten away or drawn with away.

I win.

So one top six side this season then. Not much of a win.

[RoyalJames101]

If you "experts" say so...

Then replace "top side " Leicester with DERBY

Still exactly the same number of top sides we've beaten away or drawn with away.

I win.

Quite clearly i was just talking about home games...

[Snowball]

Now, TODAY Forest are a top six side. They are still (today) shorter odds
for promotion than Reading FC.

In a couple of weeks, say they are 7th (but still on a bad run)
and we go there and win, and they carry on falling down the table
and end up 13th or lower.

Were they a "top side" or a crap side?


Or do we have to ignore position-the-day-we-play them and look at current form?


And in a season or so when asked "Do we beat top sides" do we have to look at every
game and check where the side was the day we played them? RIDICULOUS!!!

[Snowball]

12 November, Derby are 4th, on a roll

4 Derby County 18 9-3-6 . . 32-21 . . +11 30

They have a couple of bad results and play us 18th December

Top side? Crap?

When they lost to us, early in a bad run, their defeat was one of 7 they
eventually experienced in 9 games.

I'd say they were NOT a top side, wouldn't you?

But WHEN WE PLAYED THEM, THEY WERE SEVENTH.


Your call...

[Snowball]

If you "experts" say so...

Then replace "top side " Leicester with DERBY

Still exactly the same number of top sides we've beaten away or drawn with away.

I win.

So one top six side this season then. Not much of a win.

Amazingly quick response from the man who says I'm on ignore...

[Snowball]

I'd say it's important to take a match in the context it was played in, less so what happened after the event, which could be several months and a transfer window later.

Although as ever there are lots of factors that need to be taken into account and it's not very smart to dismiss where teams are currently as Leicester (amongst others) for example are clearly in a league position more reflective of their actual quality now, than they were early in the season.

Spot on IR.

Hmmm, context, huh?

So say we were about to play the top club who had been clear-top all season but suddenly started
a poor run, say DLDLDL... They are still top when we play them and after they play us they stay top.

Do you want to say they are a top side or a side on a crap run?

Make yer bloody minds up...

[Ian Royal]

Did I not just say it's complicated? And imply that you should consider current position, recent form, end of season position and modal position because anything else is prone to being an oversimplification and could easily misrepresent the real situation.

Of the lot I would say recent form at the time of the game is probably the best indicator of how you should do / how a good a result you got. Although even that can be skewed by not taking into account the level of opposition played to get that form.

What's that, football is full of hundreds of variables that makes statistics extremely difficult to use well? Hmm, sure I've heard that somewhere before...


I have you on ignore to keep the board tidy and discourage myself from getting into pointless slanging matches with you. Doesn't mean I don't occasionally check what you've said when I'm interested in the conversation going on.

[Snowball]

Or a side has been in the bottom 3 all season and with 15 games to go they
WDWWDW and then we play them while they have move up to 4th bottom?

Good side or bad side?

[Snowball]

Did I not just say it's complicated? And imply that you should consider current position, recent form, end of season position and modal position because anything else is prone to being an oversimplification and could easily misrepresent the real situation.

Of the lot I would say recent form at the time of the game is probably the best indicator of how you should do / how a good a result you got. Although even that can be skewed by not taking into account the level of opposition played to get that form.

What's that, football is full of hundreds of variables that makes statistics extremely difficult to use well? Hmm, sure I've heard that somewhere before...



.

The statement I responded to was about
winning away at top sides.

NOT "How were they playing at the time"

It's either final position or position at the time of the game.

Say we make the top six by the end of the season. That to me makes us a top side and IMO we have been a top side ALL SEASON just slightly under-performing/unlucky/a few too many draws until the last 15 games.

if we end up in the POs in 6th and win the POs, do you think there would be a fan of any team in this league that would say we were NOT a top side? And yet we could do that on the last day...


I just think too many on here just pick holes for the sake of it.

If you want to say "We do X or don't do Y against "top sides"
then DEFINE what you mean by "top side"
or don't complain when someone else uses a perfectly reasonable definition.

[Mr Angry]

Or a side has been in the bottom 3 all season and with 15 games to go they
WDWWDW and then we play them while they have move up to 4th bottom?

Good side or bad side?

At the time we play them, then they are a side thats in form - isn't that all that matters? Whether you, me, or anyone else thinks that they are a "good" or "bad" side is irrelevant, as that criteria is merely subjective, and based upon our own individual prejudices.

For example, I think we will struggle at home to Pompey SOLELY based upon our history - no home win against them since Jan 1982. No scientific reasoning (as all runs like that come to an end eventually - and there is no reason at all why it shouldn't end this season) just gut fear.

Another example to use your language; Scunthorpe - good side or bad?

By your criteria, they are a "bad" side, as they have consistently been in the bottom 3 all season. So when we go there, we should win easily as, in your opinion, we have been a "good" side all season, just unlucky.

And yet, they beat us at the Mad Stad.......and we are yet to beat them since they came up in the 3 games we played them. Furthermore, they had some good recent results (beating Swansea, Sheff Utd and Forest - all things we have singularly failed to do this season) before crashing to Preston last time out. This has led to a change of manager.....and anecdotally at least, a new Manager usually sees a team improve temporarily (dead cat bounce).

Therefore, taking those things into consideration, the simple equation of "good" team beating "bad" team is a massive over-simplification, and I wouldn't be 100% confident of getting 3 points when we go to Glanford Park.

[Snowball]

Or a side has been in the bottom 3 all season and with 15 games to go they
WDWWDW and then we play them while they have move up to 4th bottom?

Good side or bad side?

At the time we play them, then they are a side thats in form - isn't that all that matters? Whether you, me, or anyone else thinks that they are a "good" or "bad" side is irrelevant, as that criteria is merely subjective, and based upon our own individual prejudices.

So now we IGNORE current league position or latest position or finishing position?

If "current form" then don;'t we open up a can of worms?
We had so-so current form but we were playing all top sides.
Forest are about to enter a 4-5-6 games run all against top sides.
You can't look at form without considering the opposition.

There is a simple relevance. OVERALL position. No way are Leicester a Scunthorpe.
They are a side who last year finished high, who this year will finish top-half at least
and might still squeak into the play-offs. Next year they will challenge.
So I see them as a very good side.

This list drives me mad because nobody ever defines anything. One person complains because we "never" win away to top clubs.
Shouldn't we (a) say what the hell is MEANT by a top club and agree that's a fixed definition?
From our perspective aren't WBA, Liverpool, Everton, Burnley "top clubs"?

What is the point of tossing out loose-phrases and then challenging
every response because it doesn't suit one person's private definition?

For example, I think we will struggle at home to Pompey SOLELY based upon our history - no home win against them since Jan 1982. No scientific reasoning (as all runs like that come to an end eventually - and there is no reason at all why it shouldn't end this season) just gut fear.

Plus, really, aren't they a top club? Loads of history, recently Premiership
and still have a very very good first eleven, AND they are top on form
for the last six games

Another example to use your language; Scunthorpe - good side or bad? By your criteria, they are a "bad" side, as they have consistently been in the bottom 3 all season. So when we go there, we should win easily as, in your opinion, we have been a "good" side all season, just unlucky.

I can't win. The TABLE says they are a poor side. But they are at home and home advantage often makes a difference. Ask Forest

But their home form is 4-4-11 15-34 and that is DREADFUL

And yet, they beat us at the Mad Stad.......and we are yet to beat them since they came up in the 3 games we played them.

We blew that game. We were hardly outplayed.
Last season away (a better side than now) they were fighting for points
and needed one more to avoid relegation. Didn't we go 2-0 up as well?

Furthermore, they had some good recent results (beating Swansea, Sheff Utd and Forest - all things we have singularly failed to do this season) before crashing to Preston last time out. This has led to a change of manager.....and anecdotally at least, a new Manager usually sees a team improve temporarily (dead cat bounce).

Who knows?

Therefore, taking those things into consideration, the simple equation of "good" team beating "bad" team is a massive over-simplification, and I wouldn't be 100% confident of getting 3 points when we go to Glanford Park.

I've never said that, but the better sides win more often against the lesser ones.

[Mr Angry]

Firstly, calm down Snowball; I wasn't being aggressive, merely highlighting some inconsistencies.

IMHO, the relative overall positions of the teams has pretty well zero influence when 2 teams run out to play a game; a far greater influence is the current form of the 2 teams involved. And you look at the form of BOTH teams, not just yours; thats why the win at Ipswich was so good as they had "been in form".

As for Pompey, again, whether they are "good" or "bad" is irrelevant; my fear of not getting out of the game is solely historic, and totally irrational.

You are right that Leicester isn't Scunthorpe, and vice versa; but to be honest, I would rather play Leicester right now then Scunthorpe; why? Because though I acknowledge that Leicester are the better team, Scunthorpe - their last game notwithstanding - have had the best form of their season recently, whilst Leicester have been relatively out of form. As for whether Scunny outplayed us or not on the opening game of the season - thats totally irrelevant; they got the 3 points. (You don't get points for "being unlucky"). And yes, at their place we did go 2 up, and we were undone by a couple of critical reffering decisions (specifically not giving a red card) on the day; but thats football! Thats why you cannot simply look at stats and say "this will happen".

And yes - I agree with you, better sides DO win more often than lesser sides........but not always. (as in horse-racing; approx. 1/3rd of winners are favorites)

[Ian Royal]

And the whole point of a discussion forum is the discussion part... which means when someone posts up some analysis it will get picked apart, because it'll always have an element of over-simplification to prevent it from becoming some sort of unreadable thesis.

Nothing is ever black and white so once a general over-view is put up the limitations get discussed and people decide whether they think those invalidate the general observation.

Frankly I think it's pretty hard to invalidate the view that we haven't really performed well enough against the better, or form, teams in the division this season.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Agreed in principle, but form is only part of it.

A good team (i.e. one with lots of good, expensive, players and a big squad) in very poor form may still be much harder team to beat than a lesser team (i.e. one without lots of resources so lesser players, often kids, and a small squad) in the form of their lives.