transfer reader

I will also say, trying to remove my inherent bias after watching Manor Farm for 21 years of my 28 so far, I would struggle to see a side other than Frome that I'd consider favourites in a 1 off game

Fits with what pretty much every other team has said about them. Their manager left after they lost to farm, but think that was due to personal reasons. They haven't uploaded anything to their youtube since then either. In a word, no. About 100-130ish. For context, Manor Farm have averaged 285 this season and the Cribbs average is 140ish boosted by a 550ish crowd when they played Farm at home.

Cribbs are quite proud of being anti-football They were happy sharing this on their twitter after the write up of their Paulton game

Convincing 3-0 win for Farm Other results mean playoffs aren't sealed yet, but entirely in our own hands and a win at Tavistock in the week will do it.

Apologies Dave, I misinterpreted and thought you were suggesting one from myself. It was quite a large number I'd say (from memory) and the issue was over the performance.

Does it?

I doubt even the most optimistic fan thinks we'll score that many.

Because it is a far more complex case and Man City are doing absolutely everything in their power to hinder the investigation. There's also an issue that some of the information came about from leaks, so there has to be extra precautions taken to not let them use that to make certain stuff inadmissible.

I think people forget as well how unhappy the forum was after the Preston game at the start of the season too. Very much under NP. The reality is that turgid performances will happen under any and every manager. There's been multiple times I've turned off a game of a Man City because they just stifle the game and make it dull to watch, even at 0-0. Now, it can truthfully be said that if it was us doing that I'd have kept watching because I'd have had a vested interest in the outcome, but it is an example of the current best team in the country under a manager who many claim to be one of the best also putting in turgid displays from time to time.

Final home game of the season for Farm tomorrow against Melksham. A win would all but secure the playoffs. Quite likely to be a party in the clubhouse with a win.

If they decide a light shower isn't quite worthy of red flagging it.

See above I can't be bothered any more Dave, don't try and keep it going. I expected better from you, as you're usually reasonable

I really can't be arsed with dealing with the pile on any more or the posts taken with context removed as if that made them some kind of argument, so I'll move on. @Silvio Dante I apologise for insulting you. I don't care whether you bother to apologise for the needless condescending posts and I frankly don't expect it. But I'm willing to bury the hatchet at this point and move past it.

23 points over a season as a lone stat would be considered relegation form as historically that amount would see relegation. 23 points over a season, with the context that was added of there being 3 teams projected (by the same methodology) to do worse would then become not relegation form as it would see survival. Notice how context changes things? That really wasn't the gotcha you think it was.

Intentionally selective and manipulated datasets are dishonest, whichever way they are used. That's what I said. Silvio continued to use those which is intentional dishonesty. They then followed that up with multiple condescending posts, all this before I called him a liar. That was then followed up by an accusation of meth use. But keep defending your pal.

You were called those things in response to you continually using an unfair set of numbers in one table, even after it was pointed out. Which at that point does become dishonest. And multiple extremely disrespectful condescending posts followed as well. I tend to give people responses based on what they say to me, I do sometimes slip up and react to others unfairly, but in this discourse, the disrespect was started by your dishonesty.

I had already given examples from the Championship, as the very post you're quoting says. The Premier League this season was another example of it. Now you are being dishonest.

I've got into a lather as the result of accusations of being on meth and a ******* pile on. Maybe that's acceptable for you though.

It is not accurate over any division or season It is accurate over some. It is not true to then call it objectively relegation form

Have I denied that at any point?

And this is what my point was with regards the tables SD used. First one was intentionally selected to be between the two good runs of results under LM. The second was a response to me saying something about if at least 3 teams were in worse form, then their form is relegation form as it's 3 down. The 2nd table had us on 6 games, but Birmingham above us with 7 games. If you removed the oldest game from Birmingham (the way that form charts always work, by removing the oldest and updating with the newest) then over equal games they'd have also been below us and we wouldn't have been bottom 3. So both tables were manipulated data.

Yes, if it was an accurate statement because then it would be correct. I'd still have an issue with the very selective dataset for the first table and the second table having uneven amounts of games, but that's seperate to whether a statement is actually true.

No more eccentric than you defining something that isn't objective as objective.

No, I called them dishonest and a liar for using a dishonest and inequitable table. I didn't say anyone needs to use a bookies form guide, or even mention bookies until now. I did reference that most media uses either 5 or 6 games. I took issue with them using a very deliberately curated set to paint the worst picture possible, and questioned whether they'd show consistency with using that same number of games for a dataset going forward and doubt that they would. This has already been covered multiple times though, at least the first part has, so you should know that, instead of making assertions on my supposed motivation.

That's because it isn't objective. I said to you already you cannot put a number value on what relegation form is because of how it changes year on year. At the moment, based on the current ppg of the teams in the bottom 3, 30 points would be enough for safety in the Premier League That requires less than 0.8 ppg. So all of those ppg values wouldn't be relegation form. Yes, it's a different division, but it's an easy example and I already listed to you before several seasons where teams stayed up in the Championship with a lower ppg than the value you were using. IF relegation was based on a minimum points level, then you could say below X ppg is objectively relegation form.