Jump to content

Ten to go - how many points will we need?

EBS1980

By EBS1980,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted
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...

 

 

Sorry to stir the pot but not having read the thread except the last few posts, if we got 20 points, would we have finished third?

 

Twenty is closer to 22 but then the prize of second place would not be ours. So much depends on how everyone interprets the question of "how many points will we need".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickG

NickG

Posted
Posted
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!

 

This was the bumping for this thread. The question was what would be needed for the next 10 games. Therefore isn't it quite reasonable to bump it after those 10 games? Particularly when the OP was exactly right.

 

I suggest anyone who is offended by the tone of this thread should revisit the first page and the chronology of this leaving respectable debate ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EBS1980

EBS1980

Posted
  • Author
Posted
This was the bumping for this thread. The question was what would be needed for the next 10 games. Therefore isn't it quite reasonable to bump it after those 10 games? Particularly when the OP was exactly right.

 

I suggest anyone who is offended by the tone of this thread should revisit the first page and the chronology of this leaving respectable debate ;)

 

I guess i got it right then :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The9

The9

Posted
Posted (edited)
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.

 

Oh dear, you appear to have been so very wrong. What a terrible shame. Incredibly enough it seems to have come when Saints have met most of everyone else's expectations.

 

After 7 years of them meeting only the worst expectations, it finally puts the non-whingers in the ascension. I like it like that, and so does everyone else.

 

Your thread about us not signing enough players is overdue, by the way, season finished 2 days ago. :D

Edited by The9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted (edited)
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.

 

Errr....of course it's after the fact. This was a thread about what we would need when there were ten games to go.

 

Those ten games have now gone.

 

It is, therefore, as you accurately point out "after the fact".

 

So, we're revisiting things - "after the fact" - to see how we all fared. As you rightly acknowledge, we are "looking back when all the results are in".

 

It is only through this empirical approach that we can judge how good/bad/mad/acceptable/deluded/overstated/fanatical/random/insane those initial predictions were. I feel sure you will agree.

 

Well, the OP got it bang on.

 

I was a tad on the optimistic side. I reckoned 20 would be okay, but we actually needed 22.

 

I certainly wouldn't have thought anyone saying 21/22/23 was a "loon". They would have been a smidgen more accurate than me, for sure though.

 

In fairness to you, you did correct your initial innumerate error. You said we'd need 28 points when 27 points made it 100% mathematically certain that we'd be promoted automatically.

 

I'm happy therefore to accept your prediction - after proper consideration, rather than in the midst of a brain fart - was indeed 27 points.

 

This wasn't portrayed as a wild guess. It was emphasised with some clinical degree of certainty. Anyone saying 20 points was, in your words, a "loon". I take this to mean someone whose ability to judge the facts before them is utterly lacking. Someone whose predictions should be totally disregarded, essentially on the grounds of mental illness.

 

Even as events took their course, you reasserted your view that your prediction of 27 would be enormously more accurate than predictions of 20.

 

Those who you consider to lunatics ended up enormously closer to the truth than you did.

 

As I've said before....it's not just your utter wrongness, it's the beligerent certainty with which you cling to - and reassert - this wrongness (even after the facts!) that is so extraordinary (and - I concede - sometimes unintentionally entertaining).

 

You'll recall that you also felt it supremely unlikely that Saints would be automatically promoted - I think you put the chances at about 20% by recollection.

 

At the same time, I was confidently predicting we would go up automatically. I actually posted up a strong recommendation that Saints should be backed at 1/4 - yielding a 25% return in mere weeks. Anyone who followed my advice enriched themselves.

 

Also, I was pretty confident we'd get something from the Brighton game, actually. And I said so at the time. Most other people thought this too. We entered the match with the odds showing Brighton only at 2/1 to win (i.e. a vast majority of the money was on Saints to win or draw). So, your assertion that "Nobody was expecting Brighton to lose to us" is simply innacurate. In fact, as far as we can tell, most people were expecting that Brighton would fail to beat us. Excepting you, of course. And you turned out to be wrong.

 

It's just as well you "never placed a bet in [your] life" as this could end up being an extremely expensive hobby for you. Although previously, you claimed you no longer bet since you suffered from someone you won a bet against then not paying up.

 

So, even with regard to your recollection of your own behaviour you don't seem to be in full grasp of the facts.

 

Given this - and also your catastrophic record of Saints predictions to date - I'd strongly advise you to avoid making grand, sweeping statements about how others are likely to behave/perform.

 

Truly, it will only lead to further embarrassment, ridicule and possibly even a growing sense of self-loathing. Please, for your own sake at least, steer clear.

Edited by SaintBobby
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
Errr....of course it's after the fact. This was a thread about what we would need when there were ten games to go.

 

Those ten games have now gone.

 

It is, therefore, as you accurately point out "after the fact".

 

So, we're revisiting things - "after the fact" - to see how we all fared. As you rightly acknowledge, we are "looking back when all the results are in".

 

It is only through this empirical approach that we can judge how good/bad/mad/acceptable/deluded/overstated/fanatical/random/insane those initial predictions were. I feel sure you will agree.

 

Well, the OP got it bang on.

 

I was a tad on the optimistic side. I reckoned 20 would be okay, but we actually needed 22.

 

I certainly wouldn't have thought anyone saying 21/22/23 was a "loon". They would have been a smidgen more accurate than me, for sure though.

 

In fairness to you, you did correct your initial innumerate error. You said we'd need 28 points when 27 points made it 100% mathematically certain that we'd be promoted automatically.

 

I'm happy therefore to accept your prediction - after proper consideration, rather than in the midst of a brain fart - was indeed 27 points.

 

This wasn't portrayed as a wild guess. It was emphasised with some clinical degree of certainty. Anyone saying 20 points was, in your words, a "loon". I take this to mean someone whose ability to judge the facts before them is utterly lacking. Someone whose predictions should be totally disregarded, essentially on the grounds of mental illness.

 

Even as events took their course, you reasserted your view that your prediction of 27 would be enormously more accurate than predictions of 20.

 

Those who you consider to lunatics ended up enormously closer to the truth than you did.

 

As I've said before....it's not just your utter wrongness, it's the beligerent certainty with which you cling to - and reassert - this wrongness (even after the facts!) that is so extraordinary (and - I concede - sometimes unintentionally entertaining).

 

You'll recall that you also felt it supremely unlikely that Saints would be automatically promoted - I think you put the chances at about 20% by recollection.

 

At the same time, I was confidently predicting we would go up automatically. I actually posted up a strong recommendation that Saints should be backed at 1/4 - yielding a 25% return in mere weeks. Anyone who followed my advice enriched themselves.

 

Also, I was pretty confident we'd get something from the Brighton game, actually. And I said so at the time. Most other people thought this too. We entered the match with the odds showing Brighton only at 2/1 to win (i.e. a vast majority of the money was on Saints to win or draw). So, your assertion that "Nobody was expecting Brighton to lose to us" is simply innacurate. In fact, as far as we can tell, most people were expecting that Brighton would fail to beat us. Excepting you, of course. And you turned out to be wrong.

 

It's just as well you "never placed a bet in [your] life" as this could end up being an extremely expensive hobby for you. Although previously, you claimed you no longer bet since you suffered from someone you won a bet against then not paying up.

 

So, even with regard to your recollection of your own behaviour you don't seem to be in full grasp of the facts.

 

Given this - and also your catastrophic record of Saints predictions to date - I'd strongly advise you to avoid making grand, sweeping statements about how others are likely to behave/perform.

 

Truly, it will only lead to further embarrassment, ridicule and possibly even a growing sense of self-loathing. Please, for your own sake at least, steer clear.

 

F**k me I cant be bothered reading that. I gave up after 4 lines of anal-retentiveness...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sandwichsaint

sandwichsaint

Posted
Posted
Errr....of course it's after the fact. This was a thread about what we would need when there were ten games to go.

 

Those ten games have now gone.

 

It is, therefore, as you accurately point out "after the fact".

 

So, we're revisiting things - "after the fact" - to see how we all fared. As you rightly acknowledge, we are "looking back when all the results are in".

 

It is only through this empirical approach that we can judge how good/bad/mad/acceptable/deluded/overstated/fanatical/random/insane those initial predictions were. I feel sure you will agree.

 

Well, the OP got it bang on.

 

I was a tad on the optimistic side. I reckoned 20 would be okay, but we actually needed 22.

 

I certainly wouldn't have thought anyone saying 21/22/23 was a "loon". They would have been a smidgen more accurate than me, for sure though.

 

In fairness to you, you did correct your initial innumerate error. You said we'd need 28 points when 27 points made it 100% mathematically certain that we'd be promoted automatically.

 

I'm happy therefore to accept your prediction - after proper consideration, rather than in the midst of a brain fart - was indeed 27 points.

 

This wasn't portrayed as a wild guess. It was emphasised with some clinical degree of certainty. Anyone saying 20 points was, in your words, a "loon". I take this to mean someone whose ability to judge the facts before them is utterly lacking. Someone whose predictions should be totally disregarded, essentially on the grounds of mental illness.

 

Even as events took their course, you reasserted your view that your prediction of 27 would be enormously more accurate than predictions of 20.

 

Those who you consider to lunatics ended up enormously closer to the truth than you did.

 

As I've said before....it's not just your utter wrongness, it's the beligerent certainty with which you cling to - and reassert - this wrongness (even after the facts!) that is so extraordinary (and - I concede - sometimes unintentionally entertaining).

 

You'll recall that you also felt it supremely unlikely that Saints would be automatically promoted - I think you put the chances at about 20% by recollection.

 

At the same time, I was confidently predicting we would go up automatically. I actually posted up a strong recommendation that Saints should be backed at 1/4 - yielding a 25% return in mere weeks. Anyone who followed my advice enriched themselves.

 

Also, I was pretty confident we'd get something from the Brighton game, actually. And I said so at the time. Most other people thought this too. We entered the match with the odds showing Brighton only at 2/1 to win (i.e. a vast majority of the money was on Saints to win or draw). So, your assertion that "Nobody was expecting Brighton to lose to us" is simply innacurate. In fact, as far as we can tell, most people were expecting that Brighton would fail to beat us. Excepting you, of course. And you turned out to be wrong.

 

It's just as well you "never placed a bet in [your] life" as this could end up being an extremely expensive hobby for you. Although previously, you claimed you no longer bet since you suffered from someone you won a bet against then not paying up.

 

So, even with regard to your recollection of your own behaviour you don't seem to be in full grasp of the facts.

 

Given this - and also your catastrophic record of Saints predictions to date - I'd strongly advise you to avoid making grand, sweeping statements about how others are likely to behave/perform.

 

Truly, it will only lead to further embarrassment, ridicule and possibly even a growing sense of self-loathing. Please, for your own sake at least, steer clear.

 

Two bald men fighting over a comb!

 

Did you really stay up until 2 o'clock to post this!!

 

If anyone is going to bump this thread it will be me!!!

 

I called it before Charlton away as us needing 7 wins and 4 mulligans (a draw or a lose) ... as it turned out we would have made it on goal difference with 7 wins and 1 draw, and we actually needed 7 wins and two draws to win it outright ... a pretty good prediction by me!!!!

 

And can we go easy on the mental illness insults - anyone with any experience of these issues will know in reality this debilitating illness is a million miles away from the casual stereotype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted (edited)

If Saints had got only 22 points then they would have gone into the Walsall match at best 1 point ahead of Huddersfield (possibly 2 behind them). Huddersfield would then have had a realistic chance of promotion, and would have gone all out for the win in their last match, and most likely have beaten a crap Brentford team (rather than play a 4-4 friendly, with both eyes on the playoffs).

 

So, even though we'll never know for certain, I would say that we needed 24 points for promotion (losing to rather than beating Walsall), which is roughly half way between 20 and 28. ;)

Edited by Dark Munster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sandwichsaint

sandwichsaint

Posted
Posted
If Saints had got only 22 points then they would have gone into the Walsall match at best 1 point ahead of Huddersfield (possibly 2 behind them). Huddersfield would then have had a realistic chance of promotion, and would have gone all out for the win in their last match, and most likely have beaten a crap Brentford team (rather than play a 4-4 friendly, with both eyes on the playoffs).

 

So, even though we'll never know for certain, I would say that we needed 24 points for promotion (losing to rather than beating Walsall), which is roughly half way between 20 and 28. ;)

 

And ain't that the truth?

 

All this 'predictor' this and 'games in hand' that; 'what the second place team got last year' bollix can only take you so far, the points needed for promotion is the same as, or one more, than the team that comes third. If the team in third is going like a train then you have to go like a train, plus one. Which is pretty much how it happened.

 

At the risk of poking a sleeping mathematical hornets' nest I'd say that at the time it was made 28 was a 'better' prediction than 20!

 

As it happened 28 would have got us there with something to spare, 20 wasn't enough, even if 20 did turn out to be nearer the final requirement than 28.

 

Factor in Hudds 'winning' their last game and the realistic benchmark was prob 24 points - an estimate of 20 turned out to be a game and a half short and an estimate of 28 was a game and a half too high.

 

I know which side of that split we'd all like to be on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickG

NickG

Posted
Posted

Pretty simple.

 

OP asked for predictions as to how many points would be needed for promotion.

 

There were 10 games left.

 

OP predicted 22 more points to give 87, fair few were somewhere around there.

 

The only way to assess that prediction is with hindsight at the end of the season when we know the answer.

 

The answer was 87 points would have been enough to give us promotion.

 

The OP was spot on.

 

Credit where it is due.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...