ExiledAjax

Should still get those 3. But probably not much more. And then there was a penalty. For all Manning's faults, he has increased our penalty rate by I assume about 5000%.

Our performances and results are imposed upon us, and defined by, the opposition. There's a pattern to this and it's relatively plain to see.

It might be interesting to see how O'Leary does today. Huddersfield don't have the greatest attack, but it's not the worst either. With a bodge-job bulwark in front of him Max may get a bit more of a test today. To add - I think he'll do just fine, but it's something to look for.

I don't think these final four games mean anything at all. Someone the other told me that every game matters...which really isn't true. These last four don't matter to us, not beyond the final whistle anyway. I agree that squad churn will be a factor of course. I think also - your form before the "strong finish" should factor in as well. There's a big difference between a team that has been strong all season "finishing strong", and a team that was recently in relegation form doing so. I just think it's a meaningless phrase trotted out because it sounds like the right thing to say.

I wonder if there is any correlation, example, or evidence that links "finishing strong" in one season with a strong start to the following one? The idea that good results in April 2024 will increase the chance of good results in August 2024 has the feeling of a classic football cliché to me.

Not when you're dressed like that thanks.

There's an argument that says JKL should start even if Dickie was the fittest he's ever been.

So basically it's because the industry has developed so that the players have the power...and historically they've told clubs that the club has to pay. Agents haven't protested that as they want to be paid. Agents hold the keys to the door that gets the club talking to the players. It's "market practice". As Fevs says there are tax reasons, beneficial to the players, for this set up as well. Then if you look at the chart that @Davefevs posted you'll see that often the agent represents both the club and the player. Seems odd, and it is really, but it's allowed. New regulations were supposed to come into force at the start of this season to change some of this, but the agents took the FA to court and won, so those reforms were delayed. They finally came into force in 1 Jan this year, but were watered down. Agents can continue representing multiple parties provided all parties provide prior written consent and have the opportunity to seek independent legal advice. Clubs can also pay more than 50% of the total service fee in dual representation arrangements. Edit. You're not being thick at all. It's tricky, messy, and plenty of very clever people don't understand it fully either.

As I said when we played them, they're in disarray off the pitch. On the flip side they're also still top with 4 to play, even if it is just goal difference. They're probably still favourites to finish to 2.

Agent only represented the club. Knight didn't use an agent.

No agent involved in Knight's transfer as well.

Always tough when they can get away with accounts for a small company isn't it. Levels to this game.

Max has his own thread, but I don't think a few saves at the high end of the bell curve are enough to move him from (in my opinion) 6th or 7th in the squad to the top 5. He's had a good season. He's a good keeper. He's not in my top 5 for the season.

Fine. "Form that indicates a serious threat of relegation in an average season". But why use lot word when few word do?

But using the R word is a useful way to grade the shite. 1ppg is shite, but it's generally not relegation levels of shite.

Eh? You're creating subjectivity by requiring a qualifying characteristic - that it relates only to the current ongoing season - to be used to determine whether or not form is relegation form or not. Using your definition we are only able to analyse form if we make it subject to another data set. I (and everyone else it seems) present a definition of relegation form that can be used independently of any particular season, or even any other team. It can be applied across any division and any range of results. That's a definition that is without qualification and is not influenced by an outside or third-party action or opinion. It's objective.

This is the internet so I know I can't change your mind. But, if I may be so bold, this comes across as an eccentric definition of "form".

I say what I say. He's had a good season but the shots he's faced, whilst numerous, have on average been taken from relatively easy chances. He's faced shots that he's probably had a decent chance of saving. That's thanks to the screen in front of him. He's a good keeper, I keep saying that, and he's had a very solid season, but he's not in our top 5 players imo.

I think our result depends more on which Huddersfield turn up than which City turn up. We've still not really seen us defeat a "low block". If the Terriers drop one of those on us and stick an early reducer or two in on Twine then it'll be a long 90mins imo.

But then I posted an objective, cold, impartial measure of "form" - a simple rolling ten game measure of our games - and you didn't accept that as showing "relegation form" either. We were trucking along at 0.8ppg over ten games. If "form" is a measure of short term results then it has to be defined by a relatively short period of games. It can't be too short or you lose sufficient data points, it can't be too long or we may as well just loom at the table. The standard seems to be between 6 and 10. Taking the final game of the three games I mentioned - Ipswich on 5 March. Previous 6 games - 6 points, 1ppg, not quite "relegation form", but very close. 7 games - 6 points, 0.85ppg. Relegation form. 8 games - 7 points, 0.87ppg. Relegation form. 9 games - 8 points, 0.88ppg. Relegation form. 10 games - 8 points, 0.8ppg. Relegation form. That is cold and objective and consistent and shows unequivocally that we were, for some time in February 2024, showing the sort of form - in terms of results - that teams that normally get relegated show. It doesn't mean we were actually in any danger of being relegated - of course we weren't - it just means that for a period of games we were as bad as a team that would be.

But you've said that relegation form is measured across a season, but promotion form is measured in a 6 game block? But over a season, 0.8ppg, which is form we have shown this season, would give us 37 points. Wouldn't that relegated us this season when 22 other teams already have more than that? So by your own definition we were in relegation form. You're arguing with yourself mate.

I can't agree that the standard of one team's form is defined by the form of all the others. That means the measure and definition of form is circular and that the yardstick is constantly moving. Form when discussed as indicating the expected end of season achievement of any team - be it promotion, relegation, or otherwise - has to be discussed in the context of wider averages. For example, right now we're at 13 points in 6 games. That's top 2 form. Even arguably title-winning form. It won't get you that this season, but it's right up there in terms of what a team can reasonably be expected to achieve

The average total required to stay up over the past 15 seasons is 44.5 points. That is 0.97ppg. Therefore on average anything less than that is relegation form. The precise points tally that the team in 22nd has from time to time doesn't really matter as it's so transient. In the autumn all 3 teams at the bottom were running at less than 0.5ppg, a few weeks ago it was looking like you might need 49 to stay up. But, in both cases, a team would have been demonstrating "relegation form" if it had been running at 0.8ppg.

If you look at a rolling ten game period of form then we've been in definite relegation form (ie tracking at below 1.0ppg across 10 games) after three matches this season. Those were the three consecutive losses between 24 Feb and 5 March being: Sheff Wed (0.9), Cardiff, (0.8), and Ipswich (0.8). All other complete ten game blocks across the season have us at 1ppg or above.

1. Dickie 2. James 3. Vyner 4. Tanner 5. Knight Basically the defensive unit plus the screen in front of it. O'Leary will be my notable exception for many. In my opinion he's done his job, which has been made easier by the unit in front of him. Those outfield players therefore get the credit. I'd have him 6th or 7th probably.