Snowball I AM chilled out.
It's not MY fault you are all wrong and I'm right on this.
Steve and I were talking on the phone and he agrees, "87 min"
It's 90 mins. BUT that doesn't account for added on time.
by Rawlie19 » 26 Jan 2009 22:14
Snowball I AM chilled out.
It's not MY fault you are all wrong and I'm right on this.
Steve and I were talking on the phone and he agrees, "87 min"
by Snowball » 26 Jan 2009 22:24
by Snowball » 26 Jan 2009 22:53
by Rex » 27 Jan 2009 03:26
by Snowball » 27 Jan 2009 06:01
loyalroyal4lifeTommy Youlden's Ears Gonna take a bit more than last season...
1 WBA 81
2 Stoke City 79
3 Hull City 75
think we are looking at least 10 points higher than that.
by Rawlie19 » 27 Jan 2009 06:36
Snowball Oh, and there's me thinking he meant 87 (points) minimum.
Here's one prediction:
If (IF) we win tomorrow night we'll win this league
by CMRoyal » 27 Jan 2009 09:04
S09RoyalRawlie19 I'm bored.Snowball I'm rightCMRoyal Give me strength
![]()
![]()
We'll be promoted in April.![]()
by CMRoyal » 27 Jan 2009 09:21
Snowball For Sheffield to have 82 points they must lose eight points.
Meaning in your fictional season
(a) they "drew" 4 games in your fictional season that they actually won in the real season
or
(b)they "lost" 8 games in your fictional season that they actually drew in the real season
in the case of (a) the chasing teams have an extra 8 points to share out!!
in the case of (b) the chasing teams have an extra SIXTEEN points to share out
The point is that when a side gets 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 THEY KILL OTHER SIDES WHO LOSE POINTS.
In their 90-point season Sheffield WON 9 points against Watford-Preston-Leeds
BUT THEY TOOK 12 POINTS OFF THESE CLUBS in doing so!
by Rawlie19 » 27 Jan 2009 09:24
by CMRoyal » 27 Jan 2009 09:38
Snowball I AM chilled out.
It's not MY fault you are all wrong and I'm right on this.
Steve and I were talking on the phone and he agrees, "87 min"
by cmonurz » 27 Jan 2009 10:14
by Snowball » 27 Jan 2009 10:35
cmonurz Snowball makes me want to gouge my eyes out.
The only person using conjecture to put together their argument is Snowball himself. He is making the assumption that the points gap between second and third is a direct function of matches between clubs in that vicinity of the league table.
As I posted earlier - we might lose to Birmingham, but they might lose three further matches more than Reading by the end of the season, to teams not in the promotion picture. Further, our wins might take points off teams not fighting for promotion.
The fact is that in order to achieve promotion we need 1 point more than the team in third place. How we achieve that is an irrelevance - and can be achieved in hundreds of different ways.
by Rawlie19 » 27 Jan 2009 10:59
Snowballcmonurz Snowball makes me want to gouge my eyes out.
The only person using conjecture to put together their argument is Snowball himself. He is making the assumption that the points gap between second and third is a direct function of matches between clubs in that vicinity of the league table.
As I posted earlier - we might lose to Birmingham, but they might lose three further matches more than Reading by the end of the season, to teams not in the promotion picture. Further, our wins might take points off teams not fighting for promotion.
The fact is that in order to achieve promotion we need 1 point more than the team in third place. How we achieve that is an irrelevance - and can be achieved in hundreds of different ways.
Want to borrow a spoon?
YES, THIS season, after the last game we only need to be one point ahead of whoever is third.
In fact that's wrong, we can be on equal points with a better goal difference
I can count. I went to school.
But it is a total fallacy to think we need 1 more than the average third place of PREVIOUS seasons.
We need one more than the HIGHEST-EVER third place. NOT the average third place
And the answer to that is 87 Points.
by cmonurz » 27 Jan 2009 11:17
by Sun Tzu » 27 Jan 2009 11:27
cmonurz Snowball, 87 points will not necessarily win us promotion.
The mathematical argument that secures promotion in any season is 'points total of 3rd place + 1 point'. That is a stone cold fact. Show me any regular season where 'points total of 3rd place + 1 point' does not result in automatic promotion.
by S09Royal » 27 Jan 2009 11:28
by Platypuss » 27 Jan 2009 11:33
Snowball But it is a total fallacy to think we need 1 more than the average third place of PREVIOUS seasons.
by Platypuss » 27 Jan 2009 11:34
Sun Tzucmonurz Snowball, 87 points will not necessarily win us promotion.
The mathematical argument that secures promotion in any season is 'points total of 3rd place + 1 point'. That is a stone cold fact. Show me any regular season where 'points total of 3rd place + 1 point' does not result in automatic promotion.
I can come up with at least one example of that.....
by Snowball » 27 Jan 2009 11:54
by Snowball » 27 Jan 2009 11:56