Jump to content

Ten to go - how many points will we need?


EBS1980

Recommended Posts

IF (!!) we get second when do you think it will be sorted?

 

I have feeling beating Hartlepool will be for promotion

 

This has been my hope for some time, but just looking again at the fixture lists for us, Hudds and Posh, it does seem quite likely.

 

On Sat 30th April, we're at home to Hartlepool, Posh are away at Rochdale and Huddersfield travel to Brighton.

 

Even if all three of us (Saints, Hudd, Posh) start the day on an equal number of points, if we win and they both lose, we're promoted at 5pm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been my hope for some time, but just looking again at the fixture lists for us, Hudds and Posh, it does seem quite likely.

 

On Sat 30th April, we're at home to Hartlepool, Posh are away at Rochdale and Huddersfield travel to Brighton.

 

Even if all three of us (Saints, Hudd, Posh) start the day on an equal number of points, if we win and they both lose, we're promoted at 5pm.

 

You have your dates mixed up. Saints are playing away at Brentford on 30th April.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
shame you did have the balls to bet on your prediction being closer than the loons - you would have been making a donation to charity!

 

I see your maths isnt up to scratch again; its still conceivable that we need 89 points, and my prediction of 93 points is no further away from that than your prediction of 20 (which would mean 85 points).

 

How about you grow up a bit ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28.

 

People writing 20 points are loons.

 

found your prediction for 93, help me out can't find my 85?

 

The offer for the original bet still stands.

 

Why don't you stop slagging people off when voicing reasoned opinions which were more valid than your drivel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

found your prediction for 93, help me out can't find my 85?

 

The offer for the original bet still stands.

 

Why don't you stop slagging people off when voicing reasoned opinions which were more valid than your drivel?

 

I expressed an opinion that 20 was too little and those thinking it would be enough we a card shortof a full deck.

 

Lo and behold, its beginning to look like 20 was indeed short of the mark...

 

However, back to the discussion...

 

You chose to get involved, you chose to respond to my comment. In the intervening period you have periodically dredged up my assertion (as you have here again) and took the p*ss out of it, yet you have the nerve now to claim that you havent indicated a belief in any sense of how many points would be enough ?

 

Pray tell, therefore, why you responded so forcefully to my assertion back then ? Simply to cause an argument ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pointing out both your bad manners and lack of knowledge, again!

 

Getting bored now. You were wrong both in your views and comments on others and didn't even have balls to back it up in wager.

 

You set yourself up to have take the **** taken out of you, be more reasonable and you won't be such an easy target.

 

Appreciate you are not the sharpest tool in the box but try not to be so offensive when you are wrong, ok?

 

Leave you to any last word you want. x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pointing out both your bad manners and lack of knowledge, again!

 

Getting bored now. You were wrong both in your views and comments on others and didn't even have balls to back it up in wager.

 

You set yourself up to have take the **** taken out of you, be more reasonable and you won't be such an easy target.

 

Appreciate you are not the sharpest tool in the box but try not to be so offensive when you are wrong, ok?

 

Leave you to any last word you want. x

 

I seem to remember you insisting that Seaborne was first choice centre back. I'll expect a written apology on my screen in the morning. God forbid anyone should express an opinion that shouldn't turn out to be correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember you insisting that Seaborne was first choice centre back. I'll expect a written apology on my screen in the morning. God forbid anyone should express an opinion that shouldn't turn out to be correct.

 

There is expressing opinions that are credible but wrong and there is being an asinine loon like Alpine who make stupid points solely to troll and be able to say "I told you so" if the worst case scenario does occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expressed an opinion that 20 was too little and those thinking it would be enough we a card shortof a full deck.

 

Lo and behold, its beginning to look like 20 was indeed short of the mark...

 

However, back to the discussion...

 

You chose to get involved, you chose to respond to my comment. In the intervening period you have periodically dredged up my assertion (as you have here again) and took the p*ss out of it, yet you have the nerve now to claim that you havent indicated a belief in any sense of how many points would be enough ?

 

Pray tell, therefore, why you responded so forcefully to my assertion back then ? Simply to cause an argument ?

 

The most likely points total now is probably 21...of which we have acquired 18.

 

Of course, as little as 18 could still be enough in the unlikely event that Huddersfield lose both remaining games.

 

And we know for sure that 24 points will be enough, whatever Huddersfield do (barring any mad results like a 14-0 win for them)

 

So, the range now is from a minimum of 18 to a maximum of 24 - and most likely somewhere in the middle of this.

 

This hardly seems to justify describing those who said 20 at the outset as "loons". Such people may yet be bang on, and are only going to be out by an absolute maximum of 4 points.

 

In contrast, anyone who predicted 28 points is going to be out by an absolute minimum of 4 points - and could conceivably be out by ten points.

 

So the best you can hope for - in terms of the credibility of your own prediction - is that the eventual outcome is exactly halfway between what you predicted and what the "loons" predicted. More likely by far, is that the "loons" will be closer. And quite probably much closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most likely points total now is probably 21...of which we have acquired 18.

 

Of course, as little as 18 could still be enough in the unlikely event that Huddersfield lose both remaining games.

 

And we know for sure that 24 points will be enough, whatever Huddersfield do (barring any mad results like a 14-0 win for them)

 

So, the range now is from a minimum of 18 to a maximum of 24 - and most likely somewhere in the middle of this.

 

This hardly seems to justify describing those who said 20 at the outset as "loons". Such people may yet be bang on, and are only going to be out by an absolute maximum of 4 points.

 

In contrast, anyone who predicted 28 points is going to be out by an absolute minimum of 4 points - and could conceivably be out by ten points.

 

So the best you can hope for - in terms of the credibility of your own prediction - is that the eventual outcome is exactly halfway between what you predicted and what the "loons" predicted. More likely by far, is that the "loons" will be closer. And quite probably much closer.

 

Listen, you sad mathematics stoodent geek, I made a comment that anybody who predicted 20 points were enough was mad. There is no evidence that Huddersfield are suddenly going to go tits-up, and all the evidence in the world they are going to make us work to the finish line to get promoted. I therefore strongly content on current form that 24 is much more likely than 21 or 18 (is 20 even possible anymore ??) and as a result my comment has proven correct.

 

The issue as to whether my predcition that 28 points were needed to guarantee promotion from that day's perspective is an entirely separate issue which was proven wrong fairly quickly - at that time it was actually 27 points. Big Deal, 1 point out. A damn sight more accurate than NickGoebbels and the 20pointers are going to be at the end of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pointing out both your bad manners and lack of knowledge, again!

 

Getting bored now. You were wrong both in your views and comments on others and didn't even have balls to back it up in wager.

 

You set yourself up to have take the **** taken out of you, be more reasonable and you won't be such an easy target.

 

Appreciate you are not the sharpest tool in the box but try not to be so offensive when you are wrong, ok?

 

Leave you to any last word you want. x

 

Hillarious. The lack of self-awareness and hypocrisy in this post is astounding....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember you insisting that Seaborne was first choice centre back. I'll expect a written apology on my screen in the morning. God forbid anyone should express an opinion that shouldn't turn out to be correct.

 

I am so sorry :(

 

Can remember a discussion about this but can't remember the context (which means if we disagreed it was probably civil!). No problem with different opinions, after recent games we have had differing views on players performances. Think it was whether Adkins considers Seaborne suitable for as a first choice CB?? Agree Jaidi is further up pecking order but Adkins has started him for over 1/3 of games. Not sure if that answers you?

 

I will always respect another opinion - some posters (two) just talk such **** at times, and get offensive when met with any rationale.

Edited by NickG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Listen, you sad mathematics stoodent geek, I made a comment that anybody who predicted 20 points were enough was mad. There is no evidence that Huddersfield are suddenly going to go tits-up, and all the evidence in the world they are going to make us work to the finish line to get promoted. I therefore strongly content on current form that 24 is much more likely than 21 or 18 (is 20 even possible anymore ??) and as a result my comment has proven correct.

 

The issue as to whether my predcition that 28 points were needed to guarantee promotion from that day's perspective is an entirely separate issue which was proven wrong fairly quickly - at that time it was actually 27 points. Big Deal, 1 point out. A damn sight more accurate than NickGoebbels and the 20pointers are going to be at the end of the season.

 

Oh dear. Resorting to personal abuse in the first sentence. Very often the sign of a person who has made a fool of themselves.

 

As it happened, we needed 22 points.

 

Huddersfield performed on the very high end of expectations.

 

A last gasp equaliser against Posh and that final minute winner at Brighton, making the hurdle just a tiny bit higher.

 

Of course, we actually got 27 points, which proved more than adequate.

 

I think it's fair to say those "loons" who said 20 points would probably be enough were pretty close to being right. Just a tiny smidgen on the optimistic side.

 

Anyone who said 27 or 28 points was way, way out. Almost to the point of innumeracy. This should have been obvious at the time given the spread betting markets. It would have entailed Hudders ending on 92 points which would have been a massive "buy" on the markets. Virtually no money at all was going on this outcome at any stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ten to go and I think we will need 22 points to get 2nd place.

 

7 wins, 1 draw and 2 defeats.

 

 

What do others think will be needed?

 

didn't need a thread, the OP was spot on 22! Prize for most insightful poster goes to EBS1980!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBF to Alps, if we had only got the 22 points, there's a good chance it wouldn't have been enough.

 

errrr....run that past me again?

 

we now KNOW 22 points was enough.

 

If we rewind history, I'd still argue that 20 points was very likely to be enough - but Huddersfield performed at the very high end of expectations. Run through that last run of games in 100 different universes, and in 90+ of them, Huddersfield would not do as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

errrr....run that past me again?

 

we now KNOW 22 points was enough.

 

If we rewind history, I'd still argue that 20 points was very likely to be enough - but Huddersfield performed at the very high end of expectations. Run through that last run of games in 100 different universes, and in 90+ of them, Huddersfield would not do as well.

 

I think he was referring to the fact that in their last match Huddersfield knew that they were out of it, and so played a friendly against Brentford, with both eyes on the playoffs. If they had needed a result against a very poor Brentford team I'm sure it wouldn't have ended 4-4. Assuming they did indeed need to (and most likely have succeeded) in beating Brentford, the required target would have been 24 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he was referring to the fact that in their last match Huddersfield knew that they were out of it, and so played a friendly against Brentford, with both eyes on the playoffs. If they had needed a result against a very poor Brentford team I'm sure it wouldn't have ended 4-4. Assuming they did indeed need to (and most likely have succeeded) in beating Brentford, the required target would have been 24 points.

 

That argument is circular though, and you could equally well make the point that we reduced the points needed by playing so well and taking it out of their hands. If our form had been weaker we might have needed the last game; but the fact was that - entirely of our own making - we played well enough to take it out of their hands by then. As such, it is perfectly valid to say we only needed 22 points.

 

Alpine was being his normal loony, argumentative, trolling self and was proved utterly wrong again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That argument is circular though, and you could equally well make the point that we reduced the points needed by playing so well and taking it out of their hands. If our form had been weaker we might have needed the last game; but the fact was that - entirely of our own making - we played well enough to take it out of their hands by then. As such, it is perfectly valid to say we only needed 22 points.

But we might have lost to Plymouth and then we would have needed 3 points from yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, you sad mathematics stoodent geek, I made a comment that anybody who predicted 20 points were enough was mad. There is no evidence that Huddersfield are suddenly going to go tits-up, and all the evidence in the world they are going to make us work to the finish line to get promoted. I therefore strongly content on current form that 24 is much more likely than 21 or 18 (is 20 even possible anymore ??) and as a result my comment has proven correct.

 

The issue as to whether my predcition that 28 points were needed to guarantee promotion from that day's perspective is an entirely separate issue which was proven wrong fairly quickly - at that time it was actually 27 points. Big Deal, 1 point out. A damn sight more accurate than NickGoebbels and the 20pointers are going to be at the end of the season.

 

This needs framing....

 

Tell me something about the number 22. Is it closer to 20 or to 27.

 

I don't have enough fingers and toes to work that out...but by recollection, it's a "damn sight" closer to 20...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he was referring to the fact that in their last match Huddersfield knew that they were out of it, and so played a friendly against Brentford, with both eyes on the playoffs. If they had needed a result against a very poor Brentford team I'm sure it wouldn't have ended 4-4. Assuming they did indeed need to (and most likely have succeeded) in beating Brentford, the required target would have been 24 points.

 

But all of these imponderables don't alter the final tally.

 

One could also argue that if they'd failed to get such an impressive points haul earlier (e.g. no last minute penalty against Posh, not every shot on target going in vs. MK Dons), then they'd have "given up" sooner and our required points tally would have been correspondingly much lower.

 

As it was, the number of required points was 22. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we might have lost to Plymouth and then we would have needed 3 points from yesterday.

 

Might have, didn't. Huddersfield could have lost more games and the required points would have been lower. Neither happened, the only thing that matters is what did happen.. and that is alpine was proved (again) to be an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conceited and smugness from Saint Bobby after-the-fact is absolutely hillarious (the pure abuse from Red and White Army of no surprise whatsoever...). Really. Looking back when all the results are in and sneering is priceless.

 

It only needed one result to be flipped and we would have needed 25 points, which is a damned sight closer to 28 than 20.

 

Nobody was expecting Brighton to lose to us. Huddersfield might have played differently yesterday if there was still something to fight for, and not already condemned to 3 more games.

 

As far as I am concerned, the fact is we needed more than 20, which was always over-optimisitic lunacy. The fact that NA and the team played until the last match confirms this. Exactly how many points were required above 20 is for me still a cause for debate.

 

But, hey-ho, Saint Bobby can continue to sneer and gimp on about bookies and spread betting odds if he really wants to, but with someone who has never placed a bet in his life and finds the whole exercise somewhat sad, he really is missing the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conceited and smugness from Saint Bobby after-the-fact is absolutely hillarious (the pure abuse from Red and White Army of no surprise whatsoever...). Really. Looking back when all the results are in and sneering is priceless.

 

It only needed one result to be flipped and we would have needed 25 points, which is a damned sight closer to 28 than 20.

 

Nobody was expecting Brighton to lose to us. Huddersfield might have played differently yesterday if there was still something to fight for, and not already condemned to 3 more games.

 

As far as I am concerned, the fact is we needed more than 20, which was always over-optimisitic lunacy. The fact that NA and the team played until the last match confirms this. Exactly how many points were required above 20 is for me still a cause for debate.

 

But, hey-ho, Saint Bobby can continue to sneer and gimp on about bookies and spread betting odds if he really wants to, but with someone who has never placed a bet in his life and finds the whole exercise somewhat sad, he really is missing the target.

 

Alpine, you're very quick to bump threads to rub it in when you're right. You can't complain when people do the same to you when you're wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This all seems very petty and unnecessary from all sides. We got promotion so who gives a rats arse. Unless I missed something and there were prizes on offer?

 

Something was said about a bet. I glazed over after reading about 10 posts, thats 30 seconds of my life I wont get back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alpine, you're very quick to bump threads to rub it in when you're right. You can't complain when people do the same to you when you're wrong...

 

Daren, that's crap. I have never bumped a 3-month old thread, simply because I cant be bothered finding them. If I am feeling particulary indignant at the abuse I receive, I might go down the first page of thread titles, but even them its seldom. Usually if I am wrong, its good news for the club, so I am usually happy to let bygones be bygones. I will admit to reminding someone of a particular incident of abuse for an expressed opinion, with a barbed comment, once-in-a-while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...