89 Points?

[bcubed]

Isn't it about time for this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_1/predictor/default.stm

Still too many games to predict

What about now?
At least people just enter their predictions and there's no need for rambling analysis and endless impenetrable statistics

[Ozymandias]

I can't make my mind up whether Snowball is for real or a WUM with his amateur statistics

I wish he'd find another pastime.

[Hoop Blah]

I can't make my mind up whether Snowball is for real or a WUM with his amateur statistics

If that's a wind up then fair play to him for putting that much effort into it...rather sad though.

[CMRoyal]

I can't make my mind up whether Snowball is for real or a WUM with his amateur statistics

Maybe he's someone with too much time on his hands after going into semi-retirement.

[Snowball]

Interesting that according to Snowball when comparing teams and the runs they are on it is important to go beyond the bare statistics and look at the quality of the opposition, but when stating that Shane Long is a good football player the only thing that matters are the raw stats of goals scored per game, and we should ignore the fact he traps a ball further than most of us can kick it, or any other of the faults in his game.

This is the best post on this thread. How surprised am I that Snowball ignored it?

That's because the stats are factual, but saying "Long traps the ball further than most of us can kick it" is simply a dumb, personal impossible-to-substantiate, "comment"

Coppell giving Long a contract to 2011, however, tells me Coppell thinks Long has potential.

Long's goals-per-minutes played is a fact, his five premiership goals for reading v Lita's eight (in a lot more games) is also fact

But I know you hate facts, cmonurz, like the bullsh!t you posted about Swansea
trying ti infer that they don't normally play a full team against cup opposition

of course they did v reading and then next game v portsmouth

and they did v Ipswich, and then the same team next game v Fulham, and Martinez expects
to field the same team tonight in the league, but heck, why let facts get in the way, eh?

[Stranded]

Coppell has also said that Long needs to do it this season or probably move on.

He hasn't done it this season, so has about 15 games to possibly save his Reading career.

[Ian Royal]

Comunrz didn't say they always play a weakened side snowball. He showed a game where they had, which means, according to your rules for Reading, you should ignore it.

[Hoop Blah]

Coppell giving Long a contract to 2011, however, tells me Coppell thinks Long has potential.

Tells me that the club are protecting their investment in a player that will do a reasonable job in the squad without ever really being good enough to get in the starting eleven (unless we implode and become a poor Champsionship side at best).

By giving Long a contract we've tied him down and it's meant that if we decide to let him go we'll be able to demand money for him from whoever shows an interest. In the meantime he'll probably be a reasonably low cost alternative to bringing in another forward capable and willing to be our 3rd ot 4th choice forward, and one thats happy to be around the squad without getting in the side and causing a major fuss about it.

[cmonurz]

Comunrz didn't say they always play a weakened side snowball. He showed a game where they had, which means, according to your rules for Reading, you should ignore it.

Exactly.

My central point though, which you continue to ignore, is your hypocrisy Snowball in ridiculing Bristol City's 7 wins in 8 because of who they are played, but ignoring Swansea's 8 draws in a row, 5 against poor opposition, in their own run.

[Skyline]

Interesting that according to Snowball when comparing teams and the runs they are on it is important to go beyond the bare statistics and look at the quality of the opposition, but when stating that Shane Long is a good football player the only thing that matters are the raw stats of goals scored per game, and we should ignore the fact he traps a ball further than most of us can kick it, or any other of the faults in his game.

This is the best post on this thread. How surprised am I that Snowball ignored it?

That's because the stats are factual, but saying "Long traps the ball further than most of us can kick it" is simply a dumb, personal impossible-to-substantiate, "comment"

Unsurprisingly you have completely missed the point of the original post.

You are the one who says when looking at Shane Long we should base our opinions purely on the bare statistics. But you are also the one who says that when looking at Bristol City's run of 7 wins in 8 games we should look beyond the statistics at the quality of the opposition.

I doubt if you even realise the contradiction inherent in your two diametrically opposed views here.

[Snowball]

I doubt if you even realise the contradiction inherent in your two diametrically opposed views here.

Ah NOW I see what you mean. It is NOT a contradiction

the trouble is that "quality of the opposition" IS A STATISTIC


if Reading were to play Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Villa and win all five games

is there anyone on the planet who would not agree that was a better performance
then beating Newport County, Histon, Basingstoke, Maindenhead and Slough?

My taking into consideration the relative strengths of teams (based on current league position)
is hardly unreasonable. To me it's just common sense. Bristo are not beating the best sides

Bristol City have failed to beat ANY of the top TEN

The highest current-placed team they have beaten this season is THIRTEENTH

Their record against top half sides this season SUCKS

Lost SIX Drawn 5 Won ZERO

5 goals scored 17 conceded

0-2 Wolves LOST
1-2 Burnley LOST
1-2 Birmingham LOST
1-4 Reading LOST
0-3 Sheffield United LOST
0-2 Preston LOST

0-0 Sheffield United
0-0 QPR
0-0 Cardiff
0-0 Swansea
2-2 Wolves



LOOK AT THEIR WINS THIS SEASON
WITHT THE CURRENT POSITION ALONGISDE

9 of their 13 wins against bottom 6 sides,

ALL of their wins agains dies in the bottom half of them table, (and that's not a valid statistic?)

13 Palace
14 Coventry
15 Blackpool
16 Doncaster


18 Plymouth (in free fall)
20 Norwich City
20 Norwich (2)
21 Barnsley
22 Watford
23 Southampton
23 Southampton (2)
24 Charlton
24 Charlton (2)

[Snowball]

Comunrz didn't say they always play a weakened side snowball. He showed a game where they had, which means, according to your rules for Reading, you should ignore it.

Exactly.

My central point though, which you continue to ignore, is your hypocrisy Snowball in ridiculing Bristol City's 7 wins in 8 because of who they are played, but ignoring Swansea's 8 draws in a row, 5 against poor opposition, in their own run.

Is there anywhere where I praise those eight draws?

Do you not think a run of 16 without defeat, which has moved from 8 draws to mostly wins is not IMPROVEMENT?

You patently fail to get that ANY side in a long run will play top/middle/bottom sides
and all they can do is beat what's in front of them

BUT BRISTOL CITY HAVE NOT WON ONE GAME, NOT ONE, AGAINST A SIDE IN THE TOP HALF OF THE TABLE

NINE OF THEIR SEASON'S WINS HAVE BEEN VERSUS BOTTOM 6 SIDES. THE OTHER FOUR VERSUS 13TH-14TH-15TH-16TH

in other words, across the whole of this season, they have been exposed the moment they have played a good side

[cmonurz]

1. This misses the points you made earlier on the thread that the results of a team contribute to their position, i.e. one of the reasons these teams are lower than Bristol City is because they have beaten them all.

2. City have won 7 games out of 8. That's a great run, and better than Swansea's.

[Snowball]

Runs MUST take into consideration the quality of the opposition

Look what happens when you see Reading v the top sides and Bristol v the top sides

Against top 10 sides 11 games W0 D5 L6 05-17 = 05 points 0.45 points per game : Bristol

Against top 10 sides 15 games W7 D5 L3 24-11 = 26 points 1.73 points per game : Reading

READING
4-0 Swansea
4-1 Bristol
3-0 Wolves
3-1 Birmingham
3-1 Burnley
1-0 Wolves
2-0 Sheffield United
2-2 Cardiff
1-1 Cardiff
0-0 QPR
0-0 QPR
0-0 Preston
0-1 Burnley
1-2 Preston
0-2 Swansea



BRISTOL
Lost SIX Drawn 5 Won ZERO

0-2 Wolves LOST
1-2 Burnley LOST
1-2 Birmingham LOST
1-4 Reading LOST
0-3 Sheffield United LOST
0-2 Preston LOST

0-0 Sheffield United
0-0 QPR
0-0 Cardiff
0-0 Swansea
2-2 Wolves

[Snowball]

1. This misses the points you made earlier on the thread that the results of a team contribute to their position, i.e. one of the reasons these teams are lower than Bristol City is because they have beaten them all.

2. City have won 7 games out of 8. That's a great run, and better than Swansea's.

OK Einstein, now explain why Bristol have totally failed to beat a single side in the top half

[cmonurz]

It's completely irrelevant to their current run, which is 7 wins in 8 games. If these games were nailed on wins, then we wouldn't have lost to Southampton, or Charlton, and Birmingham wouldn't have lost to Blackpool, twice, Wolves would not have lost to Coventry, etc.

By my calculations, City have 21 points from their last 8 games, and Swansea have 21 points from their last 13.

You can't on the one hand say City's run isn't great because of the teams they have played, and then not equally highlight the draws Swansea achieved against similar poor sides.

And that's me out, enjoy arguing this point further with yourself.

[Snowball]

It's completely irrelevant to their current run, which is 7 wins in 8 games.

against crap clubs

If these games were nailed on wins, then we wouldn't have lost to Southampton, or Charlton,

I have never said they were "nailed-on wins" man Utd won the premiership but we drew 0-0 there.
All sides fail to win games they should win on form, for many reasons, over-confidence, the weaker
side raising their game, packing the defence, occasionally just bad luck

and Birmingham wouldn't have lost to Blackpool, twice, Wolves would not have lost to Coventry, etc.

RUBBISH. even very good sides can lose to decent mid-table sides. happens every season

I EXPECTED Wolves to struggle at Coventry and said so. Local derbies are notorious "levellers"

By my calculations, City have 21 points from their last 8 games, and Swansea have 21 points from their last 13.

OK, I predict that Swansea will finish above Bristol. want to put money where your mouth is?

You can't on the one hand say City's run isn't great because of the teams they have played,
and then not equally highlight the draws Swansea achieved against similar poor sides.

Is it possible you are senile? YES they played some MID-TABLE sides, but only TWO lower sides
But they also played some very good side AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE... eg winning 4-1 AWAY to preston
who have only lost 2 other games in 18.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the SPREAD of games, just like you ignore Bristol's
crappy results before this (short-lived) run.

And that's me out, enjoy arguing this point further with yourself.

Of course. And that has NOTHING to do with the fact that Bristol have only managed 5 points from 11 games against top-ten sides.

[S09Royal]

1. This misses the points you made earlier on the thread that the results of a team contribute to their position, i.e. one of the reasons these teams are lower than Bristol City is because they have beaten them all.

2. City have won 7 games out of 8. That's a great run, and better than Swansea's.

OK Einstein, now explain why Bristol have totally failed to beat a single side in the top half

I love how you type almost everything in Bold writing, we can read what you're writing y'know, secondly, i do hope you haven't just jinxed that. I do want to walk out of a game where Reading actually win again.

[Snowball]

If Bristol win tonight away to Doncaster and then beat Reading at the Madjeski
THEN they are having a good run (and I will say so)

and IMO if we lose to Bristol we don't deserve to go up


Remember when we were in the premiership and Coppell said he didn't expect
to get any points against the top four and very few against the next four

he said he wanted to come top of the bottom eight (or words to that effect)

we all know that beating Derby was a helluva lot easier than drawing wit, say Arsenal

we all know (when we are being honest and not pig-headed) that beating Plymouth
or Charlton is not a big deal (PS we lost to Charlton early on when we were still suffering
the relegation hangover, IMO)

[Platypuss]

Interesting that according to Snowball when comparing teams and the runs they are on it is important to go beyond the bare statistics and look at the quality of the opposition, but when stating that Shane Long is a good football player the only thing that matters are the raw stats of goals scored per game, and we should ignore the fact he traps a ball further than most of us can kick it, or any other of the faults in his game.

This is the best post on this thread. How surprised am I that Snowball ignored it?

That's because the stats are factual, but saying "Long traps the ball further than most of us can kick it" is simply a dumb, personal impossible-to-substantiate, "comment"

Coppell giving Long a contract to 2011, however, tells me Coppell thinks Long has potential.

Long's goals-per-minutes played is a fact, his five premiership goals for reading v Lita's eight (in a lot more games) is also fact

But I know you hate facts, cmonurz, like the bullsh!t you posted about Swansea
trying ti infer that they don't normally play a full team against cup opposition

of course they did v reading and then next game v portsmouth

and they did v Ipswich, and then the same team next game v Fulham, and Martinez expects
to field the same team tonight in the league, but heck, why let facts get in the way, eh?

That's a lot of words when all you ended up saying was " "