89 Points?

[Snowball]

City won 7 out of 8, against some teams in the bottom half of the table.

Not ~SOME, ALL

ALL of the teams were bottom half of the table, all, as in every one as in no exceptions

What's more they also played ALL THE BOTTOM SIX

It's disingenuous to make out that the word "some" applies, when it is ALL
and it's disingenuous to accidentally overlook that most of their wins havce
been against the bottom six

Swansea were unbeaten in 16, including a run of 8 draws, 5 of which came against bottom half of the table teams.
Your failure to acknowledge this, instead leaning on their good results against Birmingham and Cardiff, completely undermines your statistics and your arguments

Are you thick or what? I HAVE acknowledged it. Time and time again.
Need me to quote the 4-5 times I have said, "In a sixteen game run the club will play top, middle and bottom sides"

I have also pointed out, that IN THE WHOLE OF THE SEASON, NEVER MIND THIS RUN, BRISTOL HAVE NOT BEATEN A CURRENT TOP HALF SIDE. NOT ONE!

[AthleticoSpizz]

IN THE WHOLE OF THE SEASON, NEVER MIND THIS RUN, BRISTOL HAVE NOT BEATEN A CURRENT TOP HALF SIDE. NOT ONE!

great, nice timing Snowman

[Snowball]

AND BRISTOL (THAT GREAT TEAM). LOST TONIGHT TO A TEAM IN FIFTEENTH PLACE

1-0 away to a team that have won seven of their last eight. Selective use of stats again?

How the HELL is the most recent result "selective"?

They were on a run. The run stopped.

Swansea were on a run,. The run stopped.

Bristol have not beaten a single side that;'s currently in the top half of the table


So let me get it right, losing (they did lose, right?) to a side who before the game were lower than 15th (fact)
SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OTHER CLUB'S (DONCASTER) QUALTITY AND CURRENT FORM?


Yet when I made the point that Reading's so-called dodgy run was away to QPR (10 games unbeaten)
home to Preston (3 defeats in 18 games, now in 4th position) THAT is somehow wrong?

Or when I show Swansea's run MEANS MORE than Bristol's because Swansea have beaten plenty of good sides
(Reading, Preston, Burnley) and Bristol have mostly beaten the bottom six THAT''s wrong too?

[PlasticRoyale]

Maybe we should have a go at predicting match odds before they're posted by the bookies. A kind of put up or shut up type deal.

If you can consistently match what the market says (without cheating) then you've earned the right to quote statistics. If not, shut it!
This is not a dig aimed at anyone, as i'm including myself...

[Snowball]

CORRECTION. Bristol City HAVE beaten a top half-side, the side now TWELFTH

Results versus top half...... Played 14 WON 01 DREW 5 LOST 8 10-25 = 08 points = 0.57 points per game
Results versus bottom half Played 19 WON 12 DREW 6 LOST 1 32-12 = 42 points = 2.21 points per game


Results in opposition's
current league position

01 A LOST 0-2 Wolves
01 H DREW 2-2 Wolves
02 H LOST 1-2 Birmingham
03 H LOST 1-4 Reading
04 A LOST 0-2 Preston
05 A DREW 0-0 Cardiff City
06 A LOST 0-3 Sheffield Utd
06 H DREW 0-0 Sheffield Utd
07 H LOST 1-2 Burnley
09 H DREW 0-0 Swansea City
10 A LOST 1-3 Ipswich Town
11 H DREW 1-1 QPR
12 A LOST 2-4 Crystal Palace
12 H WON 1-0 Crystal Palace
=======================================
13 A DREW 0-0 Sheffield Wed
14 A WON 3-0 Coventry City
15 H WON 4-1 Doncaster
15 A LOST 0-1 Doncaster
16 H DREW 1-1 Derby County
17 A WON 1-0 Blackpool
18 A DREW 0-0 Barnsley
18 H WON 2-0 Barnsley
19 H DREW 2-2 Plymouth
19 A WON 2-0 Plymouth
20 H DREW 2-2 Nottm Forest
21 H DREW 1-1 Watford
21 A WON 4-2 Watford
22 H WON 1-0 Norwich City
22 A WON 2-1 Norwich City
23 A WON 1-0 Southampton
23 H WON 2-0 Southampton
24 A WON 2-0 Charlton
24 H WON 2-1 Charlton

[Arch]

AND BRISTOL (THAT GREAT TEAM). LOST TONIGHT TO A TEAM IN FIFTEENTH PLACE

1-0 away to a team that have won seven of their last eight. Selective use of stats again?

How the HELL is the most recent result "selective"?

They were on a run. The run stopped.

Swansea were on a run,. The run stopped.

Bristol have not beaten a single side that;'s currently in the top half of the table

Why do you have to be so silly about this? You elected to point out (using caps lock, as you love to) only that BC had lost to a side in fifteenth. You ignored that the side was Doncaster, who have got 22 points from their last eight games. That's selective. It's significant that DR's form is good, just as it's significant that BC's form is still good, just as it's significant that they haven't beaten anyone higher up the table than Palace, just as it's significant that Cardiff have a poor record against top six teams, etc, etc. These things are all worth considering, but to single any one of them out to the exclusion of the others is foolhardy.

So let me get it right, losing (they did lose, right?) to a side who before the game were lower than 15th (fact)
SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OTHER CLUB'S (DONCASTER) QUALTITY AND CURRENT FORM?


Yet when I made the point that Reading's so-called dodgy run was away to QPR (10 games unbeaten)
home to Preston (3 defeats in 18 games, now in 4th position) THAT is somehow wrong?

Or when I show Swansea's run MEANS MORE than Bristol's because Swansea have beaten plenty of good sides
(Reading, Preston, Burnley) and Bristol have mostly beaten the bottom six THAT''s wrong too?

Where have I said either of those things are wrong? Stop making a tit of yourself.

[cmonurz]

What Arch said, and what I have been doing all along, although not as succinctly as Arch.

You are selecting aspects of the stats that back up your personal point of view, rather than using all of the stats to form your opinion.

You state above that Swansea were on a better run than Bristol City, yet (before Tuesday night's games), Bristol City had as many points in their previous 9 matches as Swansea did in their previous 14.

Nothing more to add to my previous post - you are completely ruining your contribution to this board by refusing to entertain other people's opinions and reasoning.

[Snowball]

What Arch said, and what I have been doing all along, although not as succinctly as Arch.

You are selecting aspects of the stats that back up your personal point of view, rather than using all of the stats to form your opinion.

You state above that Swansea were on a better run than Bristol City, yet (before Tuesday night's games), Bristol City had as many points in their previous 9 matches as Swansea did in their previous 14.

Nothing more to add to my previous post - you are completely ruining your contribution to this board by refusing to entertain other people's opinions and reasoning.

How strange, then, that on the previous page, about twenty posts ago, I posted this


SWANSEA
Last 06 W4 D1 L1 13-05 13 Points
Last 12 W4 D7 L1 17-09 19 Points
Last 18 W8 D7 L3 33-21 31 Points (Wins include beating Reading, Preston & Burnley - defeats against Wolves, Birmingham and Watford)

BRISTOL
Last 06 W5 D0 L1 10-03 15 Points
Last 12 W7 D2 L3 19-12 23 Points
Last 18 W8 D5 L5 24-21 29 Points (All wins against bottom half sides* - Defeats against Palace, Ipswich, Doncaster, Burnley, Preston)


* Now not exactly right as one win is against the side now 12th.


Are you now being selective about my posts?

That post shows, quite clearly that Bristol have scored more points in their last 6 and last 12, but not the 18

[cmonurz]

Nothing to add, except look at that post. Was that post really made to accept Bristol City's excellent recent form? Really? No.

I'm going to be as good as my word this time and resist posting in response to you again.

[Hoop Blah]

Just wondering as I've not looked into it, but how many times have City played a top half side, especially at home, and lost then Snowball?

It's all well and good saying they've not beaten any but have they had many opportunities to do so?

[Mr Angry]

Lies, damn lies and statistics anyone??

[Snowball]

You state above that Swansea were on a better run than Bristol City, yet (before Tuesday night's games), Bristol City had as many points in their previous 9 matches as Swansea did in their previous 14.

I STILL say Swansea are on a better run that Bristol City

Because beating crappy sides in the second 12 does not equate to
beating Reading 2-0 (and thrashing them)
beating Preston 1-4 at their ground (Preston 2 defeats in their other last 17 games)
beating Burnley

Swansea started badly, losing their first game at Charlton but since then, in 32 league games have lost just 5 games

Three of their six defeats were by top-three sides, and like Reading (Defeats by Charlton and Southampton) they've dropped a goolie to Charlton and Watford

1-4 Wolves (TOP)
2-3 Birmingham (2nd)
0-4 Reading (3rd)

0-2 Palace (12th)
0-2 Watford (21st)
0-2 Charlton (24th)


I still say Swansea will finish above Bristol City at the end of the season

I still say that you must take into account the nature of wins, what the opposition is, and
also the fact that Swansea WERE drawing too much but now they are turning draws into wins

I ALSO say that Swansea are turning out "first-elevens" in the cup games and the
Histon, Pompey, Fulham games improve the look of their run overall


Answer this question. Which of the two sides, Bristol/Swansea will finish highest?

[Snowball]

Just wondering as I've not looked into it, but how many times have City played a top half side, especially at home, and lost then Snowball?

It's all well and good saying they've not beaten any but have they had many opportunities to do so?

I posted that data already. Here it is again

PLAYED 15 W1 D5 L9 10-25

DIFFERENCE HOME VERSUS AWAY

01 A LOST 0-2 Wolves
04 A LOST 0-2 Preston
05 A DREW 0-0 Cardiff City
06 A LOST 0-3 Sheffield Utd
10 A LOST 1-3 Ipswich Town
12 A LOST 2-4 Crystal Palace

AWAY FORM PLAYED 7. WON NIL DREW ONE LOST FIVE SCORED 3 CONCEDED 14 ONE POINT from 7 games

01 H DREW 2-2 Wolves
02 H LOST 1-2 Birmingham
03 H LOST 1-4 Reading
06 H DREW 0-0 Sheffield Utd
07 H LOST 1-2 Burnley
09 H DREW 0-0 Swansea City
11 H DREW 1-1 QPR
12 H WON 1-0 Crystal Palace

HOME FORM Played 8. WON ONE, DREW FOUR LOST THREE SCORED 7 CONCEDED 11 7 points from 8 games = .875 points per game

In other words they are absolutely crap against top ten sides and have a single 1-0 win against the side in 12th

[CMRoyal]

I still say that you must take into account the nature of wins, what the opposition is,

Interesting concept if applied to Reading (record against top six: W 5, D 4, L 1; record against bottom five: W 2, D 3, L 2).

[Alan Partridge]

You state above that Swansea were on a better run than Bristol City, yet (before Tuesday night's games), Bristol City had as many points in their previous 9 matches as Swansea did in their previous 14.

I STILL say Swansea are on a better run that Bristol City

Because beating crappy sides in the second 12 does not equate to
beating Reading 2-0 (and thrashing them)
beating Preston 1-4 at their ground (Preston 2 defeats in their other last 17 games)
beating Burnley

Swansea started badly, losing their first game at Charlton but since then, in 32 league games have lost just 5 games

Three of their six defeats were by top-three sides, and like Reading (Defeats by Charlton and Southampton) they've dropped a goolie to Charlton and Watford

1-4 Wolves (TOP)
2-3 Birmingham (2nd)
0-4 Reading (3rd)

0-2 Palace (12th)
0-2 Watford (21st)
0-2 Charlton (24th)


I still say Swansea will finish above Bristol City at the end of the season

I still say that you must take into account the nature of wins, what the opposition is, and
also the fact that Swansea WERE drawing too much but now they are turning draws into wins

I ALSO say that Swansea are turning out "first-elevens" in the cup games and the
Histon, Pompey, Fulham games improve the look of their run overall


Answer this question. Which of the two sides, Bristol/Swansea will finish highest?

why do you know the answer?

stats like these are pretty much meaningless, you don't get more points for beating someone at the top than at the bottom, can have a better record against the top teams bt Swansea in those figures have blown the good work by getting turned over at Watford and Charlton. I too would back Swansea to finish above Bristol City because I believe them to be the better side, but they could get injuries, or loss of form or anything between now and May. They've already lost their best player Bodde for the rest of the season, whose to say Jason Scotland won't get injured saturday and be out? If he did they would be totally screwed because he's the only forward who can play their system.

These factors are what stats don't show. Just because Bristol City haven't done that well against the other top teams thus far means nothing with regard to Saturday. I think they'll be really up for Saturday,they'll have 4000 fans cheering them on, they'll be annoyed they lost in the week and will want to put that 4-1 right.

[CMRoyal]

Well, I'm going to argue the case for Bristol C finishing higher than Swansea, based on snowball's stats.

Put simply, Bristol C are very reliable at beating the teams below them. Swansea are a bit more fragile. So, if City continue to accrue points against teams below them, they only need to pick up the odd scrap here and there from their more inconsistent playoff rivals (draws will do) to have a very strong finish to the season. Assuming most everybody loses away to Wolves, Brum, 'ding, what does it matter if City do so as well? They are more resilient against the beatable opposition than are Swansea, and that will hold them in good stead for the rest of the season as games get tighter and scrappier.

[Gordons Cumming]

I think they'll be really up for Saturday,they'll have 4000 fans cheering them on, they'll be annoyed they lost in the week and will want to put that 4-1 right.

............but they wont.

[Alan Partridge]

I think they'll be really up for Saturday,they'll have 4000 fans cheering them on, they'll be annoyed they lost in the week and will want to put that 4-1 right.

............but they wont.

Might do........

[Snowball]

Nothing to add, except look at that post. Was that post really made to accept Bristol City's excellent recent form? Really? No.
I'm going to be as good as my word this time and resist posting in response to you again.

But I DON'T "accept" Bristol's "excellent recent form". Their recent form is NOT excellent IMO

That's the whole point of my argument and has been throughout this particular debate

They have have beaten bad sides, not good sides or even decent sides

Last 06 they beat 5 sides, the sides in , then as soon as they played a half-decent team (15th, on a bit of a run, they lost)
Last 12 they beat 7 sides, the sides in, 12th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th they also drew with Wolves and Wednesday but lost to Ipswich and Burnley

So you do agree that they have W7 D2 L3 in their last 12?

And SIX of those 7 wins are against the bottom seven clubs.

What is there not to get? How is that "EXCELLENT FORM"?


I call that mid-table form, at best. I predict they will finish out of the top-ten by season's end.
They aren't a terrible side, they are a mid-table side, and their recent form is not "excellent"

This season Swansea have beaten

3-1 WOLVES (TOP)
2-0 READING (3rd)
2-0 PRESTON (4th)
4-1 PRESTON (4th
2-0 BURNLEY (7th)
3-0 IPSWICH (10th)

They've also drawn with Burnley, QPR, Cardiff, Sheffield Utd, Birmingham

That's SIX wins and 5 draws v top ten sides. (and three defeats) 23 points from 14 games


and yes they've had wins against lowly clubs,
but MORE wins against top clubs while Bristol have had NONE

1-0 Plymouth (19th)
3-1 Forest (20th)
3-1 Watford (21st)
3-2 Norwich (22nd)
3-0 Saints (23rd)

[Stranded]

Would you equally say that if they had said only won 1 in 7 but against all the clubs above them, that this was not bad form?