ExiledAjax

I'd say yes. The number of points achieved by the team in 6th is something outside of our control. Next season it could be 68, maybe one season it might be 75. I don't think it's the best yardstick to use to measure year on year progress. What is in our control - so far as it can be when we play other teams who have their own ideas - is our own points tally. That's probably going to very slightly improve on last season. So yeh it can be argued to be progress in terms of raw points output. The more interesting discussion is around the reasons for that very slight improvement.

Yeh, extend it by one game and we slip to 3rd, then obviously the further back you go through our losing run, the worse we get. It's still a very good little run of results. No taking away from that at all, and it's nice to have a third little run this season. We had the first under Nigel right at the start of the season, then the 3 festive wins over Sunderland, Hull and Watford, and now this little flourish at the death. Not enough really, but nice to look at.

It's low for a short-term single set of any 5 games. Fairly often you'd see at least one team winning 4 or even 5 in a row and so posting 12 or 15 points across 5 games. But, if we were able to maintain that form over all 46 games, we'd hit 101 points, so it's very high in terms of actual games -> points conversion.

What is interesting - to some - is that Manning is showing a consistent knack of delivering results well above what underlying numbers such as xG show. I discussed this with old spreadsheet boy @Davefevs last week and said the following to him, this was written before the Blackburn game. "The xG differentials [under Manning] at times have been as bad as they were under Holden, relegation style numbers tbh. Had we not already amassed the points we had I'd not have been so bullish about not fearing the drop. In his comparatively short spell here (beware small number bias) LM has us over-delivering across the board, we've scored more, conceded fewer, and in my "turn long-term xG into expected points" model, has a staggering 7 points more than my xG system reckons he should have - that's an extra 0.25ppg (three times as good as Pearson's total 0.08ppg extra per game). Notably, he did this at Oxford as well. NTT20 were always on about how Oxford were out of position as compared to underlying numbers. Since Manning has left they have regressed to their more natural position. Is Manningball the secret to shoving xG where some think it should go"?"

xG is not best used to say whether we should/shouldn't have got certain results. But. I do record it in that way as by doing so I can look back at the longer term trend. It's also the best measure of "luck" that I know of. With those caveats in place, here is what I have for the past 11 games. xG suggests that for the past 5 games, 6 points would have been "par" based on chance creation. We've received 11. For the preceding 5 that you identify, it's again 6 points for "par". We actually took 3. So for me, yes that suggests that the past 5 have seen us receive an element of fortune that we didn't get in those previous 6. Overall it's a 17 point haul from 11 games where as my xG measure suggests 12 would be what we'd get on average based on the chances created.

Thanks China but I think I need to clarify my opinion. What I was more getting at is that I think he does set us up quite consistently, and seems (to me at least) to approach games in a similar manner. What I see is that the extent to which that set up is actually effective is entirely determined by the attitude of the opposition. I think that can make it look like there's no overarching style, because we're not actually capable of imposing our desired style on a game (unless we're allowed to)...so what we see as fans is a reflection of the opposition du jour's style. Hope that makes sense.

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.