transfer reader

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.

I don't need you to explain anything to me, but we all know this. And you've exposed yourself as a liar during this conversation as well. Next time, try and be honest just for a change. Because not only are you a liar, you're a coward as well who lacks the balls and integrity to admit to being wrong even when it is shown to them.

In other words, you know you were dishonest with it, but lack the integrity to admit it. Grow up and stop being such a patronising git

You haven't proven it because you've used an imbalanced reference. As I already told you, you take away the extra game Birmingham had in that last table, and they go below us, that is removing the oldest game of theirs for that period, because that's how it works when checking a teams form, oldest off and newest added. What you've done is cherry picked 2 tables, one of which is not equitable, and decided to disregard anything else. I'll look forward to your lone use of 13 game form guides for the future then, while everyone else sticks with the standard ones. Or perhaps you'll switch to those when it suits your agenda. The only thing fundamentally dishonest in this, is yourself.

Except that isn't a table of 6 games is it? It's a table from a date range, in which multiple teams had played 7 games and a couple played 5. You know what happens if you take that extra game off Birmingham? That's right, they go below us, over an EQUAL 6 game period. I know you hate Manning, but at least make an effort to be honest Silvio.

So why to the start of the year instead of any other period? Why not back to his appointment? Why not to the start of February or Boxing day? Artificially selected samples get scrutiny for a reason. This is why there are commonly used standard blocks when looking at form, usually 5 or 6 games depending on the place doing it, but even they will be consistent with what they use. So going forward will you stick to a 13 game form, or will you change to what's convenient for you at the time?

But as others have pointed out, this is you curating a selection to be the worst possible for Manning. It's probably the only permutation of consecutive games you can use for this outcome. So, why would anyone reasonable person hyper focus on one set to try and push a narrative that doesn't apply to any others, doesn't apply for the established ways that form is generally used (past 5/6 games), and doesn't apply over the established methods even with our recent upturn in form disregarded? If I showed a similar table with us top or close to it because of our wins over Sunderland, Hull and Watford in December would that mean we were on course to win the league? Absolutely not. Intentionally selective datasets are a dishonest way to conduct an argument one way or the other.