89 Points?

[Ian Royal]

I'm out too. It's just not worth the agravation

[Southbank Old Boy]

Big deal. A lot of statistics ARE relevant.

Some are relevant when used intelligently and not in isolation as the only relevant information.

Oh and Wolves are ahead of us, because they have more points than us you 'tard.

I can read, dummy, and I can see that Wolves have more points.

BUT IN THIS TABLE BIRMINGHAM ARE BELOW US (EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE MORE POINTS!

Now who's the 'tard?

A "True table" ignores number of games and ranks teams in points-per-game only

What the table shows is that EVEN IF WE HAD PLAYED THE SAME NUMBER OF GAMES AS WOLVES
we ought to be fractionally below them. That to me is a bit of a surprise as we have two games in
hand and need just 4 points to pass them. The point is, to date we have not averaged 2 points a game
over the whole season and should not "automatically" be expected to gain the necessary four points.

TRUE TABLE.....what a load of b#ll#cks

[Snowball]

Why is a true table "a load of bollocks"


What is wrong with a table showing how many points per game teams are accruing?

It gets rid of all that, "Well they've three games in hand, and if they win all three..." stuff

The point is, we have two games in hand, and we'd LIKE to win both but would be happy,
probably, with a win and a draw to take us top on GD.

But the simple fact is, over the season so far we HAVEN'T averaged 2 points a game
and so it would not be a surprise if we failed to get the four points needed

I think the points-per-game "true table" is neat because it ACCURATELY shows
which teams are winning/drawing/accumulating points.


Obviously, by the season's end the true table IS the real table

[Snowball]

I'm out too. It's just not worth the agravation

Nothing to do with:


Quote: Oh and Wolves are ahead of us, because they have more points than us you 'tard.

and Birmingham are BELOW us because they have more points than us.

(two g's in aggravation, BTW)

[Southbank Old Boy]

Why is a true table "a load of bollocks"


What is wrong with a table showing how many points per game teams are accruing?

It gets rid of all that, "Well they've three games in hand, and if they win all three..." stuff

The point is, we have two games in hand, and we'd LIKE to win both but would be happy,
probably, with a win and a draw to take us top on GD.

But the simple fact is, over the season so far we HAVEN'T averaged 2 points a game
and so it would not be a surprise if we failed to get the four points needed

I think the points-per-game "true table" is neat because it ACCURATELY shows
which teams are winning/drawing/accumulating points.


Obviously, by the season's end the true table IS the real table

Its bollocks because it counts for nothing

It might show how many points a team is averaging per game, but in reality that doesnt count for anything unless they have played the same games as everyone else

The only table that matters is the one come the end of the season. In the meantime the only table that matters is the one that shows how many points a team has already got

[Snowball]

Its bollocks because it counts for nothing
It might show how many points a team is averaging per game, but in reality that doesnt count for anything unless they have played the same games as everyone else
The only table that matters is the one come the end of the season.

After 31/32/33 games virtually every side has payed every side at least once and the toughness
is (more-or-less) evened out. We showed this with the "tough games to come"

Reading (best-off) still have two tough homes (Sheffield Utd and Birmingham)
and the worst-case clubs are on 4 tough games.

That's doesn't leave exactly a massive difference in the 31-32-33 already played, does it?

Of more relevance is that clubs can still put on a run and IMPROVE their points-per-game
and that seems to happen every season in the run-in. Even so ppg so far is a fair predictor.


In the meantime the only table that matters is the one that shows how many points a team has already got


I like it. So "who they've played" now DOESN'T matter? And of course, some have played 1-2-3-4 extra games



There ARE a few anomalies. Like Bristol have a horrible run-in, but in general most clubs have about
the same tough/easy home/away games left.


It's like the idiocy that goes on about Reading's extra away load to come. When in fact it's 7 Home, 8 away (and all against bottom half clubs)

[Snowball]

Actually, our away form versus bottom half clubs is not that good (1.2 points per game)


2.14 x 2 = 04.28 Home form v top half clubs
2.61 x 5 = 13.05 Home form v bottom half clubs
1.20 x 8 = 09.60 Away form versus bottom half clubs

27 points giving us 86

Which means we need to improve on our season so far to be sure of a top two spot

I still predict 89

[Southbank Old Boy]

Your missing the point that its only the points a team has accumulated in relation to the other teams that really matters

Your obsession with looking at it using far too many stats is just daft as you can see all you need from what happens on the pitch and the table you see in the paper the following morning

[Snowball]

Unless we score in our next few matches the highest number of points we will get per game will be 1.

FACT

Discuss.

We didn't score against Wolves (so the list keeps saying) but we won 1-0 = 3 points

[Snowball]

Your missing the point that its only the points a team has accumulated in relation to the other teams that really matters

WHICH other teams? Our close rivals? All the league?

isn't that total common sense, and the obvious fact that most points ends up highest also common sense?

Why would you imagine I don't know that 106 points won us this league a few years ago?

Your obsession with looking at it using far too many stats is just daft as you can see all you need from what happens on the pitch and the table you see in the paper the following morning

Do you think I watch a game and use a slide-rule. or get excited/bored/angry the same
as the average punter?

But looking at cold facts BETWEEN games is a lot more sensible that gut-instinct.

[Southbank Old Boy]

That depends on your stats or you gut feelings!

Where did i say anything about 106 points by the way?

[Snowball]

Where did i say anything about 106 points by the way?

I didn't say YOU did. I'm just making the point that just because I try to overcome subjectivity
(because my academic training tells subjectivity is 95% bollocks) doesn't mean I'm not an average
fan come the kick-off, or that I don't know that total points is all that matters at the end.


But I also think it's ridiculous to speculate on results, league-positions etc with nothing more
than gut-feeling to guide us. I watch a predictions comp on another board (not Reading) and
in any week about 80% of the punters are miles out with their predictions. They get the score
right about once a season.


Take today's game. We have had a dry period, but against Preston who parked the bus
(and have lost 3 in 18 and lie fourth), a 0-0 away draw at QPR (ten games undefeated
and beat Wolves and Birmingham 1-0 at Loftus Road), and we beat Wolves.

Prior to that we lost at Swansea, and for 60 minutes were outplayed, but it seemed
SSC didn't change his tactics early enough when their midfield 3 played round our 2

When he changed it and added Marek we started to play, and Lita's stupidity/selfishness
prevented a likely Doyle equaliser. Losing Rosy on 80 didn't help and the killer goal duly
came. But Swansea were on a terrific seventeen game streak.

So I don't see much of a hiccup at all and I expect us to win by 2-3 today.

That to me is statistical analysis not SIMPLY looking at results


Bristol, are, of course (or were) on a good run (not excellent because they have only been beating crap teams)

And when you analyse them a little more closely their away form against the top sides is APPALLING, just one 0-0 draw
at Cardiff, so I have no LOGICAL reason to believe they can cause us damage at The Madjeski.

I also see that Saints outplayed Bristol for large parts of the game, hit the woodwork at least twice, and the
killer Bristol goals was a 93rd minute breakaway, long pass out with the Saints keeper in the Bristol penalty area trying
to do a Federici. In other words, Bristol were very lucky.

I saw the highlights of Bristol at Norwich and it was low-standard football. Norwich had a man sent off (unjustly)
and conceded a penalty going 1-2 down at half-time. A 0-0 second half against ten men, a side in 22nd, isn't "great"


So analysing, qualitatively and statistically I think we are still a top side likely to win the Championship
playing at home to a side which at best will finish 9th (I think 10th-11th) and are crap away against decent sides

If I was a bookie I wouldn't offer more than 1/2 for a Reading win, 5/2 draw. I would want 8/1 for a Bristol win.

But MY GUT FEELING? I'm "worried sick" that we'll blow our chance to get within a point of Wolves,
that Bristol will steal a 1-0 and we'll drop into the play-offs, or "if we're lucky" we'll have another
goal-less draw. But that's just built-in pessimism. There's no common-sense to it.


3-1 or 4-1 is the bet I'll put on

[Snowball]

Reading v Bristol C.

8/13 Reading
12/5 Draw
17/4 Bristol (you can get 6/1)

Reading HT, Bristol FT is 66-1

[Schards#2]

Reading v Bristol C.

8/13 Reading
12/5 Draw
17/4 Bristol (you can get 6/1)

Reading HT, Bristol FT is 66-1

Sensible punters have taken 90/1 on Betfair. It'll be about 25's with the thieves in the concourse.

12-1 for 0-0 looks tempting too.

[Dirk Gently]

12-1 for 0-0 looks tempting too.

What are the odds for "no goal scorer" - far more profitable (q.v. Reading vs Wolves).

[Schards#2]

12-1 for 0-0 looks tempting too.

What are the odds for "no goal scorer" - far more profitable (q.v. Reading vs Wolves).

They don't have a first goalscorer market on Betfair unless the games on live.

[Southbank Old Boy]

Where did i say anything about 106 points by the way?

I didn't say YOU did.

So what did this mean then?

Why would you imagine I don't know that 106 points won us this league a few years ago?

I think you need to get a grip

[Platypuss]

Bristol City can't beat top 10 teams.

Good old SnowbaLOLOLOL

[PEARCEY]

Snowbollocks more like

[Snowball]

Bristol City can't beat top 10 teams.

Good old SnowbaLOLOLOL

and now they can.