If we can't get him and keep Cressy then I'd take this - Jonny Williams is the sort of player that you build a team around
I agree that Johnny is the creative midfielder that we have been badly lacking probably since Magilton! Not saying they are similar but Johnny has the ability to run at Defences and at the end of the day we are crying out for that kind of threat in Midfield. He would be a great link up for McGoldrick so yes I would sign him in a heartbeat!
Hampy, I've always understood your side of the argument, you wont hold on to the peak position from a good run, form - unless the change has been induced by a change in the dugout - will trough again and you'll end up back at your season [mode] average position. The further you go into the season the easy it is to identify the teams 'zone'. I think the big bone of contention is what to call our 'zone'. On our side we consider 'with 2 games of the play-offs' as 'play-off challengers', you appear to define it as play-off also rans/outsiders. Being within 2 games (max 6 point difference) your right, does not literally mean 2 games. To overturn it is probably closer to four games and then to retain the position is probably another 2 and then at least equalling the points gained by all the other teams below for the rest of the season, it does take a significant upshift in form -or at least the team that fell out of the top 6 to continue their trough of form. This was the way the run in was going, Brighton and Reading appeared to be, if not so much in a trough, not in good form. Our form was neither here nor there, it would take a stretch of the imagination to say we were going through an excellent run of form, an excellent week results wise put it in our hands, but in my eyes, it wasnt a 'run' (2 wins on the back of a draw and a loss is a relatively normal points total for us - no stats to back it up but a quick glance at the results list). So going into watford and bournemouth there was no feeling of 'our run has to come to an end at some point', which is why losing and drawing in the way we did was so disappointing. Yes to guarantee it, regardless of what Reading and Brighton did we would need to win every game but it meant that Reading and Brighton also had to win all there games to guarantee them selves a chance. The reason teams are 6th - 10th not 1st - 5th are because they haven't been winning games with any regularity or consistency. Therefore our argument is/was not that we were in the driving seat because we were likely to win all our games and get ourselves a play-offs spot, we were in pole position because our 'peers/the other challengers' had slipped up and now needed to run faster than us -all we needed to do was keep pace down the home straight - something we had been doing most of the season (see my long points difference post).
Sorry to drag the argument back. I started typing before the truce was called (yeah, i know... slow typer/poster)
Mike - almost there except that we were in that apparent pole position off the back of some great results so were at the peak as you correctly define it prior to playing Watford. We weren't a million miles off on the face of it - winning the Watford game and not conceding that goal to Bournemouth would have seen us almost home and dry - but that's the human perception of it (my own included) rather than the statistical reality of it and it's not hard to argue that at least one of the Watford or Bournemouth results was a statistical inevitability.
That's where I disagree, excellent week, but it was off the back of a disappointing one against Forest and Blackburn so I would describe it as on the up-slope, not necessarily at the peak, 3 points from those two games was far from an impossibility. But then, as you may have gathered, I'm forever an optimist.
Now is that less than "within 4 points".? Sorry could not resist.! I am going to honour the truce, above is just a little joke.!
We'd just won two back to back so it was definitely a peak (although that peak could have got 3 points higher). What you can't predict is any one result but you can be pretty accurate about things evening out over a longer period of time. Optimism is very much a right-brain phenomenon in old money.
Fair enough, Hampy. On checking the results again I thought winning 2 was a little more common occurrence than it was. While I was doing that though, out of interest I totalled up our 'half season' points 1st Half - game 1 to (and including) game 23 - 35 points 2nd Half - game 36 to now (game 45) - 30 Points. Gap to half season total - 5 points Gap to play-offs - 5 points. ... Not sure what to make of that ... obviously there is the chance the play-off gap will remain at 5 points even if we beat Wednesday, but that is a 'What If?' and a half, where did we lose those other two points?
The consensus is that you all sorted it out between yourselves without me having to wade in. Well done boys
Just double checked. Same results, and we're on 65 now so the maths makes sense. Im using our seasons Wikipedia page, not been updated since Doncaster but I've added that solitary point to this half.
What happened to games 24-35? Incidentally to win at Watford and against Bournemouth it'd be the probability of winning four straight rather than two, since there were already two wins behind us.
I would grade it a straight 'B' the boys did extremely well whilst under the radar but struggled to perform once the weight of expectation was on there shoulders, this is a learning curve for many of the younger players who have been used to fighting to survive rather than playing for glory. Good work and plenty to build on.
Oh right! I see what you mean, typo, I meant game 24, it was because i'd just typed in 35 for the points total.
