34 points enough to stay up?

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,899]

1 minute ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

What???... I said that 29 pts would have been enough to stay up last season

Burnley would themselves have stayed up with only 29 pts.

I dont really see whats difficult to comprehend here

So 29 points would have kept Fulham up if you completely ignore what all the teams above them got? Great stuff. Because that's how the league works.

I'll end my part in this conversation as it's not going anywhere.

OTBC

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,805]

3 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Well done; we're making progress. Let's see if we can go a step further. So how many points would Fulham (18th) have needed to go above Burnley (17th) to displace them? I'll give you a clue. It's more than 29.

You can't ignore the 17th placed team's points total like it's irrelevant; it's the most relevant number in the relegation game.

OTBC

Are you insane?

The bottom 3 were

Fulham 28

WBA 26

Sheff Utd 23

Therefore the team finishing 4th bottom last season,which happened to be Burnley need 1 pt more than Fulham

The fact they actually got 10 more pts than they actually needed is irrelevant

Christ

[dylanisabaddog 5,031]

2 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I've seen this strange logic on here before and can't get my head round what the thinking is. Burnley finished in 17th with 39 points. 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37 and 38 wouldn't have been enough. BECAUSE BURNLEY HAD 39! It doesn't matter what 18th place had.

Anyway...

Disco's NCFC predication spreadsheet has us finishing with 31 points. 14 points from the last 14 games, pretty much matching what Smith has done since joining the club. It was the 5 points from the first 11 games that cost us. 

OTBC

Of course it matters!  Fulham in 18th place finished on 28 points. That meant that 29 points would have guaranteed 17th place and survival. 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,805]

There is obviously a caveat here in what the head to head results between burnley and fulham were that might have scewed the target slightly

But the thought that to survive you have to finish above the pts total of the team finishing 17th and not 18th is quite bizarre

Edited February 13, 2022 by GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,899]

2 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Of course it matters!  Fulham in 18th place finished on 28 points. That meant that 29 points would have guaranteed 17th place and survival. 

Hello Dylan. I understand the point (no pun intended) that is being made. But it completely ignores the reality of what actually happened in the league that year. Best we leave it at that. Agree to disagree!

OTBC

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,899]

3 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

There is obviously a caveat here in what the head to head results between burnley and fulham were that might have scewed the target slightly

But the thought that the to survive you have to finish above the pts total of the team finishing 17th and not 18th is quite bizarre

That's not what I said GJL - please don't misrepresent me. To stay up you need to be the 17th place team. For Fulham to do that they would have needed at least 39 points that year, not 29.

And that really is my final comment on the matter. Stuff to do. Agree to disagree! Tally Ho!

OTBC

 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,805]

3 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I've seen this strange logic on here before and can't get my head round what the thinking is. Burnley finished in 17th with 39 points. 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37 and 38 wouldn't have been enough. BECAUSE BURNLEY HAD 39! It doesn't matter what 18th place had.

Anyway...

Disco's NCFC predication spreadsheet has us finishing with 31 points. 14 points from the last 14 games, pretty much matching what Smith has done since joining the club. It was the 5 points from the first 11 games that cost us. 

OTBC

I'm obviously living in a parallel universe here where the rules of relegation have changed

To quote the above

"29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37 and 38 wouldn't have been enough"

Are you saying that Burnley would have gone done with any/all of those points totals, when Fulham, the team third the bottom finished with 28?

weird

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,805]

3 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

That's not what I said GJL - please don't misrepresent me. To stay up you need to be the 17th place team. For Fulham to do that they would have needed at least 39 points that year, not 29.

And that really is my final comment on the matter. Stuff to do. Agree to disagree! Tally Ho!

OTBC

 

Think youve either had a bump on the head or are still recovering from a heavy night

Fulham were the team that finished 3rd from bottom...not Burnley

Jesus christ

[Badger 2,413]

6 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

If we are going to survive it will be Brentford, Watford and Burnley that go down

Obviously, I still hope that we won't go down and have retained some hope 🤞

However, if we were to go down, I quite like the idea of it being us with Brentford and Watford. It has been increasingly difficult in recent years for promoted teams to stay up. All three being relegated at the same time might cause some form of reflection on premier League finances.

This is especially pertinent as there is a lot of pressure to modify parachute payments, which is likely to make it even harder for promoted teams.

 

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Well done; we're making progress. Let's see if we can go a step further. So how many points would Fulham (18th) have needed to go above Burnley (17th) to displace them? I'll give you a clue. It's more than 29.

You can't ignore the 17th placed team's points total like it's irrelevant; it's the most relevant number in the relegation game.

OTBC

The minimum number of points for the 17th placed team to stay up was 29, that they got more is irrelevent.

[KernowCanary 214]

4 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

When I last checked you had to finish above 3 teams to avoid relegation not 4?

The last time you had to do that was back in 1995 and the league had 22 teams. Oh, and we were one of those four.

[Branston 56]

It's not about when you play - it is who you play . Matches against City and Liverpool would be a stretch for any team - especially at the bottom . A quick glance next Saturday shows difficult games for all the bottom six . Even when City were punishing us yesterday nobody's head dropped . Kept fighting to the end against probably the best team in Europe if not the world . There's a long way to go . Some posters should lift their heads up as well .

[hogesar 9,776]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

The minimum number of points for the 17th placed team to stay up was 29, that they got more is irrelevent.

I cant believe this is still being discussed 😅

[City 2nd 191]

17 hours ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

What a little ray of sunshine you are...........

More a realist!

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,805]

4 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I cant believe this is still being discussed 😅

It warrants further discussion for me, as there is a poster on this thread who believes you need more points than the team that finishes 4th from bottom rather than the 3rd bottom to stay up....and I'd like to hear the justification for that

Edited February 13, 2022 by GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary

[dylanisabaddog 5,031]

3 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Hello Dylan. I understand the point (no pun intended) that is being made. But it completely ignores the reality of what actually happened in the league that year. Best we leave it at that. Agree to disagree!

OTBC

You can have an opinion but you can't change the facts. Burnley would have survived on 29 points. It really is that simple. To survive you either need one more point than the team in 18th place or the same number of points with a better goal difference. 

You seem to be completely outnumbered which I'm afraid is because you're wrong. It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree. It's a matter of facts. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by dylanisabaddog

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

18 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I think we can stay ahead of Watford and Burnley. I'm struggling to see a third team. Brentford are the most likely, I think.

I think we should be celebrating the fact we are still having this conversation. We have done so well to drag ourselves back into something like contention.

 

I'd be very nervous if I were a Brentford or Leeds support. So right now I'd say there are 5 in the mix.

[dylanisabaddog 5,031]

It's worth noting that it takes more points than ever to win the league or finish in the top 4 and less points than ever to stay up. That is because the gap between the top of the division and the bottom is bigger than ever before. A good example is yesterday when I thought we played OK but got absolutely stuffed by probably the best team in the world. 

There are only so many points available. When the top teams are close to 100 points it's obvious that the bottom teams will get less. Simple mathematics, the more you need to win it the less you need to stay up. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,573]

27 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

It warrants further discussion for me, as there is a poster on this thread who believes you need more points than the team that finishes 4th from bottom rather than the 3rd bottom to stay up....and I'd like to hear the justification for that

I'll have a go.

The fact that it's not quite as simple as you make out can be proven by answering the question: "If Fulham had got 29 points would they have stayed up?" To which the answer is obviously no. 

Equally of course, you could ask the question "If Burnley had got 29 points, would they have stayed up?" To which the answer is obviously yes. (Obviously for the sake of the argument I'm assuming the other teams' points wouldn't have changed).

So it's not a case of you or Dale being wrong: you're just looking at it from slightly different perspectives. Personally I think Dale's is slightly more realistic from an NCFC point of view since we are currently in the bottom three. If we're still in the bottom three going into the final game of the season we'll need one more point than the team in 17th place to stay up... 

In other words, we're currently in Fulham's position at the moment, not (last year's) Burnley's. The number of points our rivals for 17th get is highly relevant, because we're trying to get more than them.

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,573]

24 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Burnley would have survived on 29 points.

But Fulham wouldn't

[Robert N. LiM 4,573]

10 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It's worth noting that it takes more points than ever to win the league or finish in the top 4 and less points than ever to stay up. That is because the gap between the top of the division and the bottom is bigger than ever before. A good example is yesterday when I thought we played OK but got absolutely stuffed by probably the best team in the world. 

This is absolutely true. It's also true that one of the reasons the bottom three got so few points last season is because those just above them got more. (The same could easily happen this season...)

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,805]

19 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I'll have a go.

The fact that it's not quite as simple as you make out can be proven by answering the question: "If Fulham had got 29 points would they have stayed up?" To which the answer is obviously no. 

Equally of course, you could ask the question "If Burnley had got 29 points, would they have stayed up?" To which the answer is obviously yes. (Obviously for the sake of the argument I'm assuming the other teams' points wouldn't have changed).

So it's not a case of you or Dale being wrong: you're just looking at it from slightly different perspectives. Personally I think Dale's is slightly more realistic from an NCFC point of view since we are currently in the bottom three. If we're still in the bottom three going into the final game of the season we'll need one more point than the team in 17th place to stay up... 

In other words, we're currently in Fulham's position at the moment, not (last year's) Burnley's. The number of points our rivals for 17th get is highly relevant, because we're trying to get more than them.

 

I was assuming (perhaps unreasonably) that when discussing what points total is required to survive, it was taken as read that we were talking what pts total is required to finish 4th from bottom (i.e survival)...not a points total that would  still see you finish in the bottom 3 ...i.e Fulham last season

Edited February 13, 2022 by GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary

[chicken 2,656]

Yup, there is a bit of silliness here really.

Usually the amount of points for survival is considered to be a point higher than the team that finished 3rd from bottom.

DDJ is taking the approach that to finish 4th from bottom, any other team would have needed to overtake Burnley on 38.

In some ways both have logic. 29 points wouldn't have been enough for Fulham, but would have been enough for Burnley. Most people look at it from the perspective of Burnley as they finished 17th and the total they needed to do so was 29. Realistically, that is the most logical response/conclusion as the question isn't what any of the bottom three teams needed to do to survive, but what the team finishing 17th needed to survive.

Therefore the conclusion is the team finishing in 17th needed just 29points to stay up, if they got more, great. But the minimum amount at the end of play was 29.

Arguing what Fulham needed is silly. We're talking from hindsight, knowing what the final points totals are and what the team finishing in 17th needed. That was Burnley - not Fulham.

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

8 hours ago, BigFish said:

The minimum number of points for the 17th placed team to stay up was 29, that they got more is irrelevent.

I'm baffled as to why this pointless argument is still going on - what you say is true but what is equally true is that the actual number of points required to avoid relegation last yeat was 39 (plus a superior goal difference).

Surely the actual minimum is more relevant than a hypothetical minimum which never actually existed?

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,805]

7 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I'm baffled as to why this pointless argument is still going on - what you say is true but what is equally true is that the actual number of points required to avoid relegation last yeat was 39 (plus a superior goal difference).

Surely the actual minimum is more relevant than a hypothetical minimum which never actually existed?

39 points werent required to avoid relegation

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

17 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

39 points werent required to avoid relegation

Exactly, simple as....

[BigFish 1,988]

11 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I'm baffled as to why this pointless argument is still going on - what you say is true but what is equally true is that the actual number of points required to avoid relegation last yeat was 39 (plus a superior goal difference).

Surely the actual minimum is more relevant than a hypothetical minimum which never actually existed?

It still goes on because there are posters, like yourself, who are unable to comprehend that to avoid relegation you need to finish about the team in 18th place, not the team in 17th. The actual minimum was 29.

[paddycanary 539]

I'm a bit confused by the confusion here! It doesn't seem that difficult, surely?

You have to finish above the team in 18th. If we had been in the Prem last year (say in place of Burnley for this discussion as they finished 17th), with all things being the same then 28 points and a better goal difference than Fulham would get the job done. 29+ points even better. You don't need to finish above the team in 17th.

It reminds me of the old question about what position you move into in a race if you overtake the person in 3rd! 

 

[Essjayess 307]

Lets face it,  the theme of this topic, which repeats itself often, is pointless (pardon the pun).  We all know  its not over until the maths say its over, but realistically it was over after 10 games, City were so far behind to catch up to 17th.

Year in year out the Prem relegators and Champs promoters solidify and strengthen more certain scenarios that have become standard.  The yo-yo clubs, WBA, Fulham City and Watford to slightly lesser extent..

Then the clubs who spend some successive seasons in the Prem and then relegate and dont come back up for either mid term or very long term such as Stoke in recent years and Sunderland a bit longer even. Heck, think of how long it took Leeds even to return to the top tier. Burnley are now the latest to have spent a good few seasons at top tier but ultimately drop again in all likelihood.

After 10 games my only thought for this season was to hopefully at least beat the 21 points of 2 seasons ago and possibly at least not finish 20th....and for a time those 2 things looked  a long ways off even..now we have a competitive chance of doing so...but 17th?.....pipedream.

Some say its the hope that kills you...but not me, i just enjoy the ride and wait to see what the Deano era brings us. I enjoyed the Farke era very much, if Deano brings the same or even more then its all good.

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

Not factoring in GD ... here's the minimum points that would have been required for 18th over the last 10 seasons from 2020-2021 to 2011-2012: 29, 35, 35, 34, 35, 38, 36, 34, 37, 37. That's a mean of exactly 35.0. And 33.6 in the last 5 seasons and 36.4 in the 5 before that. The 10 seasons comprising 2010-2011 to 2001-2002 before that? A mean of 36.5 from these minimum point totals: 40, 31, 35, 37, 39, 35, 34, 34, 43, 37.

 

So ... taking out last season not that much has changed despite the perception that the top teams are much better than before. Could 34 do it? Sure ... in 6 of the last 20 seasons it would have been enough. Will it? Who knows. I think Norwich will be much closer than in 2019-2020.