Deano6

You've gotten very sarky lately Ponty. And I've just used up my last post to say that.

If West Ham won all the rest of their games til the end of the season and everyone above them lost, they would win the Premiership. So what?

Which 'bright spark' moved this thread then?

errr...FYI 11/10 means less than 50% chance.

Whereas I remember him for scoring 2 of our 3 goals in The Greatest Game Of All Time TM.

I've read that book and didn't notice many kids running around in it.

The position of "Mod" is equivalent to the old "Milk Monitor" at school ...while Admins are fully fledged "Dinnerladies".

He used to attend the same church as me.

Well done Jawillwill. Keep up your strenth lad.

Great result again for Saints today. As it looks like Blackpool are dropping like a stone, I thought it'd be interesting to see who their next few games are against. Pretty interesting that it's all teams around the bottom 8... Saturday, 07 March 2009 Blackpool v Norwich, 15:00 14 March 2009 Barnsley v Blackpool, 15:00 21 March 2009 Blackpool v Southampton, 15:00 Saturday, 04 April 2009 Blackpool v Plymouth, 15:00 Saturday, 18 April 2009 Charlton v Blackpool, 15:00 Saturday, 25 April 2009 Blackpool v Nottm Forest, 15:00

Not just the shareholders. Season ticket holders too.

Ok ok, I'll be leader. Was that really so hard?

One of George Carlin's famous '7 words you can't say on TV'. ****, ****, ****, ****, ****Sucker, Mother****er, and Tits

Don't be a tw*t.

Can you cheat on a pregnancy test?

You know my brother?

Completely agree. It's getting like a 4 or 5 team lottery down there now. Shame we haven't been tracking this all season. Fully in support of this becoming a sticky as we enter the "squaky bum time" of the end of season run-in.

I don't really get it. I can't work it out from the voices and reading the comments just seems to be full of smallminded spiteful yobbos who think it's ok to victimise other groups of people (not banter, there's some pretty offensive stuff) just because they come from a different part of town.

Was funny that Perry consistenly beat him in the air, despite only coming up to Parkin's neck, just by running in front of him and jumping up!

Oh please, because what a great thread that was - what with all the regular posters on it and all.

I felt like this: That's odd, I wasn't expecting that. Still think we'll lose tho.

No he wasn't.

For those interested in the stats, this pic shows it all... Top of the shots, well ahead of most, with an average of 13 per game. 54% of our shots are on target which is also well up there. However we are a long way bottom of Goals as a %age of Shots (12.9%) which this table is sorted on. Pedants who spot this stat is different to the one I quoted above should note this one is taken as a percentage of the shots that were on target, my earlier one was for all shots. Quite incredibly we need to shoot THREE TIMES as much as Reading in order to score a goal!

Why?

No it doesn't. It shows if you write a long enough and confusing enough post people believe it without bothering to read it properly. St Marco is plainly wrong on this one and Saint Warwick is right. I'll explain... a) St Marco says the stats are wrong because they are internally inconsistent within the Football League site. Saint Warwick showed they were in fact right, but that the individual players page only shows the top 20 players. b) St Marco then produces another site which shows Saints have had less shots than the Football League site. But when I look at that site (go "Championship" and "shots"), I find Saints are still top of the Shots table - which was the point being made that he didn't like. It's always going to be true that the definition of a 'shot' is going to be quite subjective from analysis to analysis, but so long as you apply a consistent definition the tables work. Saints are top as everyone else's totals are similarly reduced. c) St Marco then bizarrely tries to justify his point using ratios. Again I believe this is just to confuse people. You simply can't divide one number by another (to get a ratio), multiply back by the same number and not end up where you started. Unless of course St Marco himself is using two different data sets in which case he is begging the question. The situation is very simple. We have (using the definitions of shots from Football League site): Played 32 Scored 29 (joint 3rd bottom in league) Shots 419 (1st in league) or according to St Marco's other source 416 (1st in league) If ratios are your bag then it's: Goals per game = 0.91 Shots per game = 13.1 but I think crucially, and this is the point being made by most on here, is the last ratio Goals per shot = 0.069 or 1 goal in every 14.4 shots :smt107 That is quite abysmal, especially if we are to believe Whitey Grandad's stat that you'd expect to score 1 in 6 on average (I can't verify for the accuracy of that stat). Statistics really aren't difficult to understand unless people choose to present them confusingly. So, St Marco you are perfectly entitled to choose not to believe the stats, but that does not make them wrong.