Whitey Grandad

If you were really into the Dutch Thing then it would be 'groene haring' with a shot of Gin to follow.

There was nothing unlucky about the red cards, they were all deserved and could probably be attributed to youthful inexperience. The dodgiest penalties that I have seen were by Wotton and McGoldrick. We've discussed this elsewhere, but luck only applies in the short term. The more games that you play, the more you get what you deserve.

http://www.jrcompton.com/photos/The_Birds/J/March-07/JR61052-dead-duck-fl.jpg

To be fair, I though that we started their first game in charge very brightly and were desperately unlucky to lose. (there's that word again)

Apart from anything else, we all knew it wouldn't last, didn't we?

From reading the second one it is pretty clear to me that this was a temporary appointment. There are phrases like 'earned the right to continue in their caretaker roles' and 'will not rush the appointment'. The bit about 'serious ambitions to make the play-offs' does look a bit rash, though. :roll:

Surely nobody though that they were a permanent fixture?

Does that mean that we change managers about 3 times more than the average?

What percentage of those were Saints' ?

Then there's hope for one of us, maybe?

Isn't it in all 4 divisions?

Oh, if only...

Status Quo: 'Down down, deeper and down'

Unless they play each other?

Very succintly put.

I think it just means... we aren't very good...

Sorry, I should have said 'one goal for every 6 chances. Some people talk about 'luck' when what we are really discussing is 'probability'. Basically, luck only applies in the short term. Over more than a few games, and certainly over a season, luck doesn't apply and you get what you deserve.

Sorry, that should have read 'one goal for every 6 chances' Well spotted, and thanks for reading it. I shall correct it now!

I think that what we are saying is: We need quality, not quantity.

Ah, but they had a big points deduction! ...oh

The Poisson distribution describes 'a large number of events, each with a small probability of success' and is a limiting case of the binomial distribution. Every time that you smoke a cigarette you have a very small but finite chance of starting a cancer so if you smoke for long enough you will die. Another examples is the number of deaths from horsekicks in the Prussian army, many soldiers were kicked but only a few died. So if you look at the probabilities of a team getting 0,1,2,3 goals and so-on in a game the pattern is a Poisson distribution. For goals in a football match the accepted ratio is one goal for every six chances but this is an average across the leagues and Saints are less than average. My view is that our lot are not hitting the ball hard enough, or accurately enough. I have a 50-year old coaching book that says 'always shoot hard and low on sight of goal'. Perhaps I should lend it to our lads (if they can read, that is).:smt048

But not in the long run. It's called 'the central limit theorem'. There's a very good chapter by M. J. Moroney in 'Facts from Figures' called 'goals, floods and horse kicks' about the Poisson distribution, and as we all know, all distributions tend toward the Gaussian (or 'Normal') distribution no matter what the shape of the underlying distribution as the number of samples increases. Basically, the more shots on goal that you have, the more goals you score. Simple really, isn't it?

Perhaps they should aim for the goal instead of the posts.

There are pizze and there are the things that you get from Pizza Hut. There's a big difference between the two.

Take your pick: Rasiak / John / Dyer