transfer reader

To intentionally use stats that are uneven on games played to try and make some kind of point is dishonest, and to continue to do so after it is pointed out is intentionally so I get you're pals with that *****, doesn't mean you have to take a side though. Or is it ok for him to be as patronising as possible and make drugs accusations?

Made the claim of us being relegation form pre Easter when not a single form guide matched that. The only 'form' tables Silvio provided where we were in relegation form was one with a very specifically curated selection of dates, over about 13 games. So non standard and specifically selected to be the worst case that could be found. And the 2nd was a table where it had us playing 6 games, about half the teams playing 7, about half also on 6, and a couple on 5. But over the set of results for that table, if you used an equal number across all teams, whether 5 or 6 (standard amounts used in form guides) or even 7, we were not bottom 3 of them. I pointed this out but it was still used further. This is intentional dishonesty. The act of a liar. That is not to say we weren't in bad form. But at least 3 teams were worse, and at least 2 of the 3 from a worse starting point, so not relegation form.

No, you're just not taking what I'm saying. The 2nd of the ones you quoted is where I'm showing what my point was. I am not making the claims about the form, I disagreed with Silvio ********'s one, showed multiple times how they were being dishonest by using a table where teams had different amounts of games played to make a claim about our form. With the screenshot etc, that's me pointing out how it would be seen, not me making an assertion. Even the first line of it is out of context because it's a response to someone else saying something way off base. If you have to remove context to misrepresent and then claim I'm gaslighting, that's actually you gaslighting.

If you don't like it when you're accused of lying, just don't lie. That's not ******* difficult. Still probably too much for you to wrap your head around though.

No, because the bolded point was you accusing me. Tell you what, next time a team wins 20 in a row and aren't top of the form table let me know and I'll concede any point you want. Because even for a hypothetical, that is beyond the extreme.

Yes, moving the goalposts by inserting extra information to the hypothetical at a later point. It went from top 2 won all 10, 3rd won 9 and drew 1 and that was all to the top 2 only played the bottom 10 sides, but 3rd played tougher games. You changed the hypothetical after it was originally made. To be clear, I don't believe you've contributed anything to this thread. If you believe otherwise, fair enough. As for the bolded part, that wouldn't go against what I've been saying, a team winning 20 in a row would be at the top of the form table. I have never, at any point, suggested anything different, show me where I have, or don't bother responding with your drivel.

I wasn't watching all of it, but in the bits I did watch it felt like a matter of time before BL scored.

No, I'm not suggesting favouring any. I've said from the start to do the same to all clubs. This does of course mean you get issues in extreme examples, but these are extreme examples. Alternatively, you could for this example give each team a win over each other or 2 draws, a neutral outcome for both sides. You're also now making extra assertions on who each team has played which weren't there before. You gonna put those goalposts back later, or keep on moving them when it suits?

Is it unlucky when Leverkusen had over 30 shots to West Ham's 1?

But it's a bullshit assumption to make, because you are favouring one team over the rest. There is nothing to base the assumption of 3rd beating 1st and 2nd on. It is flawed reasoning.

The point is why is that form only being extrapolated over a season for one side and not the others? It's promotion form on the assumption that it is kept up for the whole season AND that the teams who were doing better also drop points.

Or you just weren't being clear Seeing as from the start youve been acting as if I was doing something I wasn't regarding form. For the third time, I wasn't the one making claims based on form.

Where are you getting this from? What did you think you're responding to? Because you aren't responding to the words I'm saying, at all.

Again, tell that to the people making claims about when we were in 'relegation form' I was correcting fallacious conclusions being made.

I'm not the one making and drawing conclusions, just making a point about misuse of the stats. Not sure why the team in your scenario doesn't get a full season though.

No, you're missing what I said Our form is top 2 form because it's literally top 2 in the form table. If it was bottom 3 of the form table it would be relegation form. That's been my point from the start. You're adding in ppg, form is always relative to the performances of other teams, but you're ignoring that. Even in those quotes where you've claimed I'm arguing with myself you've ******* misread. There's literally no more ways for me to state this, I don't know why you're struggling with reading so much. For those struggling to understand, below the red line = relegation form.

Yeah, the not necessarily part was because, if I remember right, the video was a Burnley win vs Man City or similar. So an extremely low possession game plan from the start with that being their main out. So similarities, just not identical.

But in reality it is always moving. If it was a points threshold where any team below that threshold was relegated, then a hard 'under X ppg is relegation form' would be correct. But that isn't the case. What determines relegation is whether you are able to outperform at least 3 other teams over the season. This is why some years 1.1 ppg hasn't been enough, and others 0.9 ppg has been. If every game ended in a draw for 5 weeks, would that mean all the teams were showing relegation form? Or just that it was a selection of very evenly matched fixtures (likely with a handful of games where a team didn't capitalise fully). Our current form is top 2 form because it's the 2nd best over the last 6 games. Yes, wider context of averages are relevant to get an idea of a target amount. But that doesn't mean you discount how other teams are performing, because that's more relevant than what the points needed for safety over the last Y years is. A complacent 'as long as we're above 1 ppg' approach would have seen teams relegated in 2016-17. You can set numbers to define good, bad, indifferent form, but relegation, playoff, promotion and title form is always relative and always changing.

There was a coaches voice or similar video where a manager (possibly Dyche, but don't hold me to that) talked about a game where they deliberately conceded possession with a ball into the channel, with the intention of then pressing high. Idea being they'd press up high while the opposition were still regrouping from the turnover, and try to catch people out of position in the process. I know that's not necessarily what we were doing last night, just a point about how a long ball into the channel and a high press aren't exclusive and can be utilised together.

No, it wasn't. We were relying on others dropping points to catch them, so it was not in our own hands.

I respect what you are saying however; 1. Silvio was being intentionally dishonest with the data used, which is why I kept pointing out the difference in games played for the latest table Silvio used. I say intentionally, because I corrected it multiple times and Silvio persisted with it. Intentional dishonesty, deceit or whatever description is lying. 2. The 'meth user' was their attempt to try and insult me, I simply turned it back around at them after multiple patronising comments from them.

Couldn't argue with that Only if there weren't 3 teams with a worse ppg over the same games. A team could pick up 1 point every 10 games, as long as 3 teams aren't getting any then they're doing better than those 3. In this league it's only 3 down, so 4th worst isn't relegation form, regardless of the number at the time.

Yes and no Yes, that level of ppg is what would likely get you relegated at the end of the season, but it is only relegation form if over the same number of games (rolling 10 in this case) there aren't 3 teams who are worse. Teams have stayed up with under 1 ppg before (Reading 21/22, Derby 20/21, Millwall 18/19, Reading and Bolton 17/18), because 3 teams were worse than that. That's 5 times in the last 6 completed seasons.

His 2 data points that have us in the bottom 3 are New year to pre Easter, and 6 games pre Easter for us, but 7 for some other teams. Weirdly if you use an equal number of games for pre Easter (his own selected date) we aren't bottom 3. But this isn't dishonesty! I mean, who wants to use valid data for a comparison instead of data that is inequitable? That's just a bizarre notion and the way every reputable form guide works (using x number of games across all the clubs being compared, instead of x, x+1 and x-1 for different teams).

Uncontroversial, but factually incorrect by any equitable and standard use of a form guide. After several patronising and condescending posts from yourself, yes. As well as continual dishonesty. I hope you do lay off the meth.