Over the last 10 game Plymouth, Boro, Watford, Swansea, Luton and Derby are all below us, with another half a dozen having only earned a point or two more than us. Of the top 6 form teams I think we only have Cov and Sunderland left to play? I would rather be in that position than of someone like Cardiff still having a lot of those top 6-10 form teams left. Nothing is guaranteed but anything that can lean in our favour is optimal surely. Over the last 6 8 teams are in worse form than us - Plymouth, Portsmouth, Oxford, Watford, Boro, Swansea, Luton and Derby. The best bit about both samples? In both, the bottom 3 sides are all in worse form than us. In both, teams around us in the table are in worse form than us. Unless our form suddenly falls off a cliff or multiple teams around us suddenly pick up, we are in a good position and certainly not one that is doomed.
Now try the last 3. We played 1 top side, 1 mid table side, and 1 fellow struggler. Over those 3, nobody has a worse points tally than us, nobody, other than, bizarrely, Boro (who aren't relevant to the point) Of our rivals, Plymouth, Derby, Stoke, Portsmouth and Swansea have all collected more points. The logic is that we're supposed to get better by the week. Over the last 3, and I fully realise it's 'only' 3, our form has "fallen off a cliff" and "multiple teams around us" are picking up (more) points. We aren't doomed, but we are in deep, deep trouble, and we aren't showing signs of getting out of it.
Four effing home wins in thirteen and a half months, that HAS to improve. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Because it doesn't suit your narrative, or your belief? What an absolutely stupid response. Why look at the last 10 for example? The last 3 are more relevant than the last 10. The last 10 (league games) takes us back well into December, before the window even opened (for us and for our rivals). I'm way more interested in what's happened recently than back 10 games or so ago. And yes, I do understand sample sizes, most probably WAY more than you do as it happens. I won't bore you with why, but believe me.
Im not sure 3 is a good form guide. 3 is small enough to take into account injuries, opposition, referee and even luck. Walter won 3 games in a row to prove anything is possible! I agree that our recent form needs to improve and quickly and has been disappointing, but I’d much rather look at 6 for a good judgement as to how things are going in the division.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying all things being equal (including normal sampling theory / practice ). However, there's plenty of arguments to support why our last 3 are more relevant in this case than, say, the last 6 or 10, which are also just plucked out of the air as far as sample size goes. We haven't faced material new injuries, we've had very mixed opposition (1 from each 1/3rd of the table), the ref's haven't to my mind particularly over favoured us or the opposition, and regarding luck, you could argue that we've actually rode our luck (thinking particularly Saturday). The last 3 are what they are, simple as. The FACT remains that nobody has done worse (bar irrelevant Boro), and at this stage, given our precarious position, that has to be worrying. Hopefully we see a marked upturn, starting Saturday, but as I keep asking, why should we expect it? Where will the needed goals come from?
I actually agree with you on the last 3 for us. But I don’t know enough about the status of the rest of the division to know if 3 is accurate for them - that was more my point. It’s possible that Plymouth had a bit of luck to win back to back - I’ve no idea. That’s why I’d prefer 6.
we aint going down it may well be close, we will get enough wins, i fully believe that but if the doom and gloom makes you happy, carry on also saying we've done worse in the last 3 games is such a ridiculous sample size luton and derby are serious gash, but oh they picked up 1 more point than us... in 3 games.. we are going dooooown
So you don't understand what sample size means. That's OK. I provided both last 10 and last 6. Funnily both tell a reasonably similar story. In fact our form is better over the last 6 than last 10.
Plymouth got a very fortunate penalty to help them beat wba. They had a very good win against Millwall, and lost comfortably to Blackburn. That tells us absolutely nothing insightful. There's a reason form typically looks at the last 5, it just doesn't suit GFAWs narrative to do so.
I was certainly hoping for better form under Selles, and he is up against better tacticians than in L1. And to be fair, we've not really seen big incremental improvements. However, I do think we have enough in the building to score enough against the teams at the bottom end of the table now. It's getting harder to call it, and time may be against us, but I certainly think there are reasons to remain positive.
I think it's easy to forget just how bad we were before he came in. We're significantly better than we were.
At least teams know that they have to weather an early storm at the MKM now, even the Norwich manager highlighted it before the match. We just need to find a way of making that last a lot longer, or score a hatful in the first third of the game!
Possibly, but we do have better players too. Losing Belloumi and Millar should not be underestimated.
Agreed. It's bonkers. Plus presumably the player has a say? I'm sure if we go down, Puerta won't want to join us full-time even if there is an obligation to buy, and similarly if he's not played he's not going to want to join us either. So play him.
Try the last 1. Point a game probably keeps us up. Trust you to select the only sample size that befits your pathological gloom and misery. For someone purporting to understand sampling, well this one doesn't get past the methodological justification due to a blatant and inherent bias. You're just selecting a sample to support your own subjective and preconceived conclusion. Or in laymens terms, you're putting the cart before the horse.
