Where are the next points coming from?

[ladysaint]

Cant take credit for the stats below which were on the Saintslist but found them very interesting.

We have played ten other teams twice in the PL, home and away. For every one of these ten pairs of fixtures we have gained three or more points - in other words at least one win. If we were to keep that up the whole season we really would be talking European form. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll keep it up for many more matches at all. Our next three games are Stoke (A), Liverpool (H) and Leicester (A). We need to win all those games just to keep the sequence running. In fact it's even more bizarre because we haven't won a single game against the nine teams we've only played once.

 

To put it another way, we've gained 37 points against the 10 teams we've played twice - 1.85 points per game. But we've only scored 4 (FOUR!) points against the nine teams we've played once - 0.4444 points per game. If we continue at that rate, we will get - wait for it - just four more points this season.

[The9]

No bed wetting here – just my two pence.

 

Next up is Stoke.

 

In Saints' current form, I can only see we'll get turned over at the Britannia, which is notoriously our bogey ground.

 

Then we host Liverpool and we all know what happened last time they came to St Mary's.

 

Leicester. I'm sure their title charge will still be in effect as they've got the benefit of their rivals playing European fixtures.

 

Everyone will expect three points from Newcastle but I reckon McClaren will be gone and they may benefit from new manager syndrome. Their record is poor at St Mary's but records are their to be broken.

 

As I said, we're not playing THAT well and everything could change in the next game but, if you go back to the Chelsea build-up thread, I stressed how important it was to beat them as the last time we went on a winning streak, only to lose, we went on a horrendous run and that's the last thing we want at this stage of the season.

 

No particular reason we can't beat Stoke up there. Last season we were the better side and somehow contrived to lose it.

 

Bit weird how we've got both Stoke and Leicester away at the same kind of time of year again, not to mention Everton, Spurs, Man City and Villa all in the last 3 months again. Suppose there are only 19 teams we could be playing though (but apart from Palace and Newcastle we played everyone from our last 10 matches at the tail end of last season too).

[The9]

Cant take credit for the stats below which were on the Saintslist but found them very interesting.

We have played ten other teams twice in the PL, home and away. For every one of these ten pairs of fixtures we have gained three or more points - in other words at least one win. If we were to keep that up the whole season we really would be talking European form. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll keep it up for many more matches at all. Our next three games are Stoke (A), Liverpool (H) and Leicester (A). We need to win all those games just to keep the sequence running. In fact it's even more bizarre because we haven't won a single game against the nine teams we've only played once.

 

To put it another way, we've gained 37 points against the 10 teams we've played twice - 1.85 points per game. But we've only scored 4 (FOUR!) points against the nine teams we've played once - 0.4444 points per game. If we continue at that rate, we will get - wait for it - just four more points this season.

 

Cool stat. They'd be the draws with Newcastle, Liverpool, Leicester and Villa then.

[mrfahaji]

Cant take credit for the stats below which were on the Saintslist but found them very interesting.

We have played ten other teams twice in the PL, home and away. For every one of these ten pairs of fixtures we have gained three or more points - in other words at least one win. If we were to keep that up the whole season we really would be talking European form. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll keep it up for many more matches at all. Our next three games are Stoke (A), Liverpool (H) and Leicester (A). We need to win all those games just to keep the sequence running. In fact it's even more bizarre because we haven't won a single game against the nine teams we've only played once.

 

To put it another way, we've gained 37 points against the 10 teams we've played twice - 1.85 points per game. But we've only scored 4 (FOUR!) points against the nine teams we've played once - 0.4444 points per game. If we continue at that rate, we will get - wait for it - just four more points this season.

 

I'm sure there are some expert statisticians on here that will find more holes in this analysis, but one thing that I would point out is that of the teams we've played twice, we have only 'done the double' over Swansea. Which suggests that the first match is not really much of a predictor of the second.

 

In fact, every team we have played twice that we didn't win the first fixture against, we have beaten in game two. Which suggests that, from a statistical point of view, we will win the next three games...! I don't share such statistical optimism, not least because this fails to incorporate any Yoshida-coefficients.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm sure there are some expert statisticians on here that will find more holes in this analysis, but one thing that I would point out is that of the teams we've played twice, we have only 'done the double' over Swansea. Which suggests that the first match is not really much of a predictor of the second.

 

In fact, every team we have played twice that we didn't win the first fixture against, we have beaten in game two. Which suggests that, from a statistical point of view, we will win the next three games...! I don't share such statistical optimism, not least because this fails to incorporate any Yoshida-coefficients.

 

Surely the fact that one game would have been at home and the other away must have some bearing in the probabilities.

[Deano6]

I suppose the model is not assuming that we will precisely match the previous result, but that the previous result is a somewhat general indicator of the quality of opposition and we can be expected to perform worse against tougher opposition. So it's not saying we will match our Swansea result directly, but more that in a pool of Swansea, Stoke, West Brom and Crystal Palace we might be expected to get the same or similar number of points he first time we run through them as the second.

 

*caveat - I've no idea if those are a correct peer group, but they are teams I generally consider to be in the same "meh, upper bottom half table teams". They may be doing better or worse than that this year.

[The9]

I suppose the model is not assuming that we will precisely match the previous result, but that the previous result is a somewhat general indicator of the quality of opposition and we can be expected to perform worse against tougher opposition. So it's not saying we will match our Swansea result directly, but more that in a pool of Swansea, Stoke, West Brom and Crystal Palace we might be expected to get the same or similar number of points he first time we run through them as the second.

 

*caveat - I've no idea if those are a correct peer group, but they are teams I generally consider to be in the same "meh, upper bottom half table teams". They may be doing better or worse than that this year.

 

You forgot Leicester in that group.

[eurosaint]

I guess the Newcastle game just got a bit harder with Benitez being appointed, just on the basis of 'new manager syndrome' !

Hey ho, we are safe anyway but it would be nice to get a few more points on the board !

[mrfahaji]

Surely the fact that one game would have been at home and the other away must have some bearing in the probabilities.

 

Yes, it will, but I don't think the statistics above look to factor that in at all. If you look in detail as to how they reach the conclusion that the first set of fixtures indicate our performance in the return game, it actually works completely the opposite. I see what Deano6 is getting at above, but it feels like then you're just picking out the bits that are relevant to the argument and ignoring the parts which disprove it.

 

For example, the three most recent 'double fixture' teams are Sunderland, Bournemouth and Chelsea. We picked up 9pts last time, this time 1pt. First time against Watford, West Brom & Man United, we picked up 2pts, second time 9pts. The fact that these two groups offset each other and add up to roughly the same points seems more coincidence than evidence of a trend. The argument would, in my opinion, actually be more convincing if argued the other way around. Maybe I'll start a new thread with my own hypothesis...!

 

(I won't really).

[jawillwill]

Stoke.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

The Brittania

 

:)

[Maggie May]

Yay. We can lock dis thread now.

[The9]

No particular reason we can't beat Stoke up there. Last season we were the better side and somehow contrived to lose it.

 

[mrfahaji]

The evidence for the anti-hypothesis continues!

[Deano6]

Yes, it will, but I don't think the statistics above look to factor that in at all. If you look in detail as to how they reach the conclusion that the first set of fixtures indicate our performance in the return game, it actually works completely the opposite. I see what Deano6 is getting at above, but it feels like then you're just picking out the bits that are relevant to the argument and ignoring the parts which disprove it.

 

For example, the three most recent 'double fixture' teams are Sunderland, Bournemouth and Chelsea. We picked up 9pts last time, this time 1pt. First time against Watford, West Brom & Man United, we picked up 2pts, second time 9pts. The fact that these two groups offset each other and add up to roughly the same points seems more coincidence than evidence of a trend. The argument would, in my opinion, actually be more convincing if argued the other way around. Maybe I'll start a new thread with my own hypothesis...!

 

(I won't really).

 

So you're saying the first time through playing those teams we got 11 points against those six teams and the second time through we got 10? Looks like the model's working pretty well then. Not sure why you're so dismissive of it that you say it is "coincidence" and yet accept weaker evidence (based on fewer games) as fact. Looks like confirmation bias to me - interpreting the data to suit whatever it was you originally intended to find.

[Pilchards]

How about this for a stat.

If we carry on with our current form we should finish around the 7th, 8th mark.

 

Cool or what?

[John B]

For as long as I have supported this club we have picked up points from unlikely teams and dropped them against poor sides. I expect this to continue until I croak.

 

Proved right again I see

 

I have said many times the only consistent thing about the Saints is their inconsistency

 

Liverpool next they are in some second rate cup which we thought we were beneath last autumn and left on Thursday so perhaps that will give us the edge

[mrfahaji]

So you're saying the first time through playing those teams we got 11 points against those six teams and the second time through we got 10? Looks like the model's working pretty well then. Not sure why you're so dismissive of it that you say it is "coincidence" and yet accept weaker evidence (based on fewer games) as fact. Looks like confirmation bias to me - interpreting the data to suit whatever it was you originally intended to find.

 

except I wasn't originally trying to find anything... As the Stoke game is an example of, each time we beat a team that we lost to previously goes against the prediction, but then is used to reinforce it - i.e. Now we can say that after 11 games we have picked up at least 3pts against teams, but the initial hypothesis based on 10 games suggested we wouldn't beat Stoke...

 

As I said above, I can see the idea behind looking at groups of games, but the original post doesn't suggest this thinking and when you drill down into the detail, the individual games work almost completely opposite to the hypothesis (Swansea, I think, is the only game that has been a repeat result).

Edited 13 March, 2016 by mrfahaji

[Deano6]

except I wasn't originally trying to find anything... As the Stoke game is an example of, each time we beat a team that we lost to previously goes against the prediction, but then is used to reinforce it - i.e. Now we can say that after 11 games we have picked up at least 3pts against teams, but the initial hypothesis based on 10 games suggested we wouldn't beat Stoke...

 

As I said above, I can see the idea behind looking at groups of games, but the original post doesn't suggest this thinking and when you drill down into the detail, the individual games work almost completely opposite to the hypothesis (Swansea, I think, is the only game that has been a repeat result).

 

But it isn't trying to predict individual games. It is trying to predict the total points from a whole group of games. So trying to break it down and allocate it to individual matches is to use it for a purpose it was never intended to cater for.

 

To suggest that a better model would be that you beat the teams you lose to first time round would lead to the nonsensical conclusion that everyone ends up around the same number of points at the end of the season. It makes far more sense to suggest that teams further ahead are also more likely to win more games in the future. If you stopped a 100m race half way through you wouldn't predict the guy at the back to run a faster pace than everyone else in the second half. This isn't MarioKart.

[mrfahaji]

But it isn't trying to predict individual games. It is trying to predict the total points from a whole group of games. So trying to break it down and allocate it to individual matches is to use it for a purpose it was never intended to cater for.

 

To suggest that a better model would be that you beat the teams you lose to first time round would lead to the nonsensical conclusion that everyone ends up around the same number of points at the end of the season. It makes far more sense to suggest that teams further ahead are also more likely to win more games in the future. If you stopped a 100m race half way through you wouldn't predict the guy at the back to run a faster pace than everyone else in the second half. This isn't MarioKart.

 

I don't think we're going to agree on this one, are we? I concur that it would be absurd to assume, at the half way point of the season, that all teams are going to beat teams they haven't beaten before and vice-versa, but the problem with the initial model is that it isn't from half way, and actually, that IS what Southampton have been doing so far. When I read the sentence "Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll keep it up for many more matches at all. Our next three games are Stoke (A), Liverpool (H) and Leicester (A). We need to win all those games just to keep the sequence running. In fact it's even more bizarre because we haven't won a single game against the nine teams we've only played once", it made it sound, to me at least, that it was intended as a predictor of individual results, and I was just pointing out the flaw in that approach.

 

If the Premier League was more like MarioKart, there would at least be hope of a Blue Shell if and when Tottenham get into the lead...

[The9]

This isn't MarioKart.

 

It's MarioKart on Super Nintendo and DS, not Mario Kart since then.

[Deano6]

I don't think we're going to agree on this one, are we? I concur that it would be absurd to assume, at the half way point of the season, that all teams are going to beat teams they haven't beaten before and vice-versa, but the problem with the initial model is that it isn't from half way, and actually, that IS what Southampton have been doing so far. When I read the sentence "Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll keep it up for many more matches at all. Our next three games are Stoke (A), Liverpool (H) and Leicester (A). We need to win all those games just to keep the sequence running. In fact it's even more bizarre because we haven't won a single game against the nine teams we've only played once", it made it sound, to me at least, that it was intended as a predictor of individual results, and I was just pointing out the flaw in that approach.

 

If the Premier League was more like MarioKart, there would at least be hope of a Blue Shell if and when Tottenham get into the lead...

 

I agree with this post.

[SaintTex]

from Stoke and Liverpool

 

I'll take the six points.

[SaintBobby]

No bed wetting here – just my two pence.

 

Next up is Stoke.

 

In Saints' current form, I can only see we'll get turned over at the Britannia, which is notoriously our bogey ground.

 

Then we host Liverpool and we all know what happened last time they came to St Mary's.

 

Leicester. I'm sure their title charge will still be in effect as they've got the benefit of their rivals playing European fixtures.

 

Everyone will expect three points from Newcastle but I reckon McClaren will be gone and they may benefit from new manager syndrome. Their record is poor at St Mary's but records are their to be broken.

 

As I said, we're not playing THAT well and everything could change in the next game but, if you go back to the Chelsea build-up thread, I stressed how important it was to beat them as the last time we went on a winning streak, only to lose, we went on a horrendous run and that's the last thing we want at this stage of the season.

 

This thread and opening post just get funnier and funnier with each passing match.

 

A bed wetting classic.

[badgerx16]

This thread and opening post just get funnier and funnier with each passing match.

 

A bed wetting classic.

 

It has the makings of a truly Golden thread.

[SaintTex]

so um yeah, the next points came from Stoke, Liverpool and Newcastle. 9 points out of 12.

 

Saints sitting at 50 points with 5 matches to go. Go back and read page 1 for laughs.

[SaintBobby]

I think 50 points will be our absolute maximum

 

10th place finish for us IMO

 

Classic. "Absolute maximum". Lols.

[Batman]

Classic. "Absolute maximum". Lols.

 

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Classic. "Absolute maximum". Lols.

 

Dont knock him he`s right sometimes....remember when he said...err..........nope he was wrong then to...

 

Give me time i will find something...wont I ? surely

[sadoldgit]

Dont knock him he`s right sometimes....remember when he said...err..........nope he was wrong then to...

 

Give me time i will find something...wont I ? surely

 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but poor old Batman isn't even that consistent!

[Redslo]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but poor old Batman isn't even that consistent!

 

To be fair, this mockery should wait until we get one more point.

[sadoldgit]

To be fair, this mockery should wait until we get one more point.

 

But where is that going to come from?

[St Jim]

Just another classic Saintsweb thread

[angelman]

Just another classic Saintsweb thread

 

 

Oh come on. Football supporters are generally either optimistic pessimists or pessimistic optimists. Realists are few and far between.

[nta786]

Anyone want to get the ball rolling for the next 5 games?

Guess I'll just do it

 

Everton (A)= Loss

Aston Villa (A)= Win

Man City (H)= Draw

Spurs (A)= Loss

Crystal Palace (H)= Win

 

7 out of 15, with an 8th placed finish.

 

Of course, I am hoping I'm completely wrong, starting this saturday... surely we are due a win at Goodison Park.

[whelk]

i don't think post has actually bed wet - see far worse from many. Didn't say we wouldn't get anymore but clearly pessismistic for the last 4 games.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

To be fair, this mockery should wait until we get one more point.

 

We will draw against Villa so no problem

[Shroppie]

We will draw against Villa so no problem

Not too sure. We only managed a point at home. Fortress Villa Park could be difficult ?

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[Lighthouse]

Anyone want to get the ball rolling for the next 5 games?

Guess I'll just do it

 

Everton (A)= Loss

Aston Villa (A)= Win

Man City (H)= Draw

Spurs (A)= Loss

Crystal Palace (H)= Win

 

7 out of 15, with an 8th placed finish.

 

Of course, I am hoping I'm completely wrong, starting this saturday... surely we are due a win at Goodison Park.

 

I'll go with that but with a point at Goodison. 8 points, 2 worse off that last season, not too shabby.

[angelman]

I'm going for the full 15.

[Deano6]

I'm going for the full 15.

 

Good luck with that. Let us know how you get on.

[Shroppie]

I'm going for the full 15.

Based on a very subjective estimate of the probabilities of 3 points in individual matches, I get less than a 1% chance of that happening.

 

But together as one. We march, or perhaps that should be dream, on.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[eurosaint]

Anyone want to get the ball rolling for the next 5 games?

Guess I'll just do it

 

Everton (A)= Loss

Aston Villa (A)= Win

Man City (H)= Draw

Spurs (A)= Loss

Crystal Palace (H)= Win

 

7 out of 15, with an 8th placed finish.

Of course, I am hoping I'm completely wrong, starting this saturday... surely we are due a win at Goodison Park.

 

Was talking to my grandson yesterday about this and you have said exactly the same as I did (result for result!).

Spooky

[The9]

I don't usually do predictions but I'll go for WWDLW which gives us 10/15 from the remaining games. It is fairly contingent on us playing Man City when they're still in Europe though - and of course getting robbed blind by Spurs.

 

Oh, and breaking whatever hoodoo we have at Goodison, where we usually lose no matter how bad they are. At least we should have a defence and defensive midfield against them unlike at St Mary's.

 

I did also say we'd finish 8th a month or two ago (I think it was when we'd just gone all those games without conceding), so something's probably got to give as we're unlikely to get 10 points and finish 8th.

[Matthew Le God]

Since Christmas...

 

[SaintTex]

No bed wetting here – just my two pence.

 

Next up is Stoke.

 

In Saints' current form, I can only see we'll get turned over at the Britannia, which is notoriously our bogey ground.

 

Then we host Liverpool and we all know what happened last time they came to St Mary's.

 

Leicester. I'm sure their title charge will still be in effect as they've got the benefit of their rivals playing European fixtures.

 

Everyone will expect three points from Newcastle but I reckon McClaren will be gone and they may benefit from new manager syndrome. Their record is poor at St Mary's but records are their to be broken.

 

As I said, we're not playing THAT well and everything could change in the next game but, if you go back to the Chelsea build-up thread, I stressed how important it was to beat them as the last time we went on a winning streak, only to lose, we went on a horrendous run and that's the last thing we want at this stage of the season.

 

Stoke W

Liverpool W

Leicester L

Newcastle W

Everton D

Aston Villa W

Man City W

 

5-1-1 (16 points out of 21 since this post)

 

averaging 2.4 goals per game during this run.

[Dr Who?]

As long as we have enough points to avoid relegation, it doesn't matter a great deal. 10th would be brilliant but 16th or 17th wouldn't be a disaster.

 

I think we may get 44 points

 

Still wheeling out this comedy gold?

[Maggie May]

Stoke W

Liverpool W

Leicester L

Newcastle W

Everton D

Aston Villa W

Man City W

 

5-1-1 (16 points out of 21 since this post)

 

averaging 2.4 goals per game during this run.

 

I deserve praise for this.

[whelk]

So 5pts dropped (19 pts gained) out of possible 24 since this thread

[angelman]

I'm going for the full 15.

 

Good luck with that. Let us know how you get on.

 

Based on a very subjective estimate of the probabilities of 3 points in individual matches, I get less than a 1% chance of that happening.

 

But together as one. We march, or perhaps that should be dream, on.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

 

Bloody Everton ruined the chance of it happening, but otherwise we are looking good. I suspect though that that wasn't quite what you two were meaning!