SaintBobby

Here's the latest missive from my mathematical father: "I have a few disagreements with your calculations, but agree your £250 investment seems to be a good bet. If we still see Southampton's target as 20 points from last ten games, they are now well on track to achieve this. 14 points from the remaining 8 games only requires 4 wins, 2 draws, and 2 defeats. This seems very realistic - unless injuries become a problem (have they so far?). If you achieve this, the only two teams that statistically now stand any chance of catching you are Huddersfield and Peterborough. In my view Peterborough have the tougher run in - away games against three of the top eight teams (Huddersfield, Leyton Orient and Rochdale) as well as a home game against Bournemouth. In order to catch you on 85 points, they would need to win at least five of their final six games, and at least draw the remaining one. So I clearly see Huddersield as the bigger threat. They have a somewhat easier run in and only need 12 points from 6 games to get to 85 points. Much easier – 4 wins and 2 defeats will suffice. So, unless you know something I don’t, I see little justification for you putting Huddersfield finishing below Peterborough in the table. I feel a Peterborough win against Huddersfield on Saturday is in your best interests, a draw OK, but a Huddersfield win highly undesirable. A defeat for you against Leyton Orient could be taken in your stride, a draw would be fine, and a win would again shorten your odds of promotion further. So my revised probabilities of finishing second are now Southampton 75% Huddersfield 20% Peterborough 5% So, with the same ‘play off’ calculation, Southampton's probability of promotion today is 0.75 + 0.35 x 0.33 = 0.87 which equates to odds of about 1/6. So if you can get 1/4, it looks a good bet. Recalculations will be required on Saturday!"

Yeah, well, I wouldn't say any of those predictions are as "brave" as suggesting that Guly will be sold for £11m+

I think your predictions are pretty realistic. If they turn out to be right, we will (to all intents and purposes), be promoted at Plymouth. The last game of the season will be almost entriely irrelevant (if you're happy to discount the possibility of us losing 6-0 to walsall and Huddesrfield beating Brentford 8-0....or somethignn similarly mental)

It very probably is. Not certain, of course...but if we win 5 and lose 3 of our remaining 8 games, we are very, very likely to be promoted.

To assume that Huddersfield will win their next 6 games is one hell of an assumption! My suggested odds of 100/1 were slightly back-of-fag-packet, but won't be far off. It's definitely a long, long shot, and 50/1 at best. If you seriously think they will win every game - or even that it's a fairish chance - put £50 on them to beat Peterborough and then keep putting your winnings on Huddersfield for each of their next five games. If Huddersfield end up on 91 points, you'll end up with several thousand pounds in your back pocket (can't be @rsed to do the maths - but somewhere between 3K and 6K)

Being on an unknown part of the spectrum from automatic promotion guaranteed to automatic promotion being out of reach. HTH

Am pretty sure we'll be abck in stripes for the home kit. Possibility of sash and yellow/blue colours for away kit, perhaps?

Probably, just on balance, I wouldn't take it. My own view is that we should be enetring the last game in 2nd place - ahead on points. The variance is pretty huge though - one unlucky bounce or missed penalty could change the lot. Put another way, we are 2/7 to come second. I imagine we'd only be something like 1/2 or 2/5 to beat Walsall. I'd say those odds are about right, and so I'd prefer to be 2/7 over the 8 remianing games rather than 1/2 with one game left - although factoring in a possibel Huddersfield draw or defeat may make the odds near identical. Not much in it.

But that's an extraordinary innumerate way of looking at it. At the start of the season, you'd need 136 points to guarantee becoming champions - and, I think, 131 points to guarantee automatic promotion. You'd also need 70 points to guarantee you weren't relegated. But, clearly, these numbers fall almost as soon as the season starts. In reality, you're going to need c.90 points to win the league, c.48 points to stay up etc. The same thing happens over the last ten games. The number of points needed to guarantee a certain outcome will almost certainly be measurably higher than the number of points you need to achieve a certain outcome. I think I'm correct in saying (but haven't double checked the thread, so apols in advance if I'm wrong), that with ten games to go, your view was that we would need 28 points to achieve promotion and those who were saying it could be achieved with 20 points were "loons". Again, I'd need to double check, but I think your 28 points target was possibly even over and beyond what was needed to guarantee promotion. (just noted - you concede this above) It seems to me the "loons" (those who predicted 20 points needed with ten games left) remain well on course for being right. Your own 28 point prediction has, of course, been blown apart within just two games. I'll leave others to judge who is blessed with good numeracy skills and who isn't.

If you don't mind me asking, what have you been correct in the past about?

Seconded. No frills. But perfectly adequate.

Do I have this right? 1. You think we could probably sell Oxo for £10m 2. You think we could easily sell Guly in the future for more than Oxo 3. You therefore think we could easily sell Guly in the future for more than £10m Hmmm....I'm not sure I'm yet totally persuaded of point 1.....

That's a fair assessment. I've been more impressed with his "outfield" play this year than I was last year. It's too easy to just think of your best striker in "goals scored" terms, I guess. I just wonder though - does he have measurably more assists than last year? Also, has he had less opportunities from the penalty spot or from free kicks on the edge of the box compared to last term?

I think, on balance, you're right. The only issue is that Huddersfield have a much more difficult final six games. So, although the "spot price" is that it looks like they are the bigger threat to 2nd place, were Posh to win o9n Saturday, it puts them firmly back in play. So, my instinct was to be a coward and hope for a draw. Overall, though, a Posh win puts our destiny so firmly in our own hands that I think you're right.

It's offering a better rate of return than my savings account at Barclays, which I think pays about 0.2% a month. If I make a 25% return in a month, I'm happy. I'd say our chances or promotion are now about 1/6, so 1/4 is a very attractive bet. I snapped up all the available bets at 1.33 and lower. The money isn't locked on betfair, of course, as you can lay it off at any time.

That's staggeringly bad. I think we'd probably have taken c.1,500 tonight to the Valley even if we were mid-table with nothing to play for.

I'm actually treating this game as a bonus game. Think we could well win, but I wouldn't be miserable with a point. If we have players who are marginal on fitness (Lallana? Harding?), I'd probably rest them.

I wasn't able to go at at the last minute. The impression from the commentary was that Lambert was having a poor-ish game, so interesting to hear different feedback from those who were there. Although I wouldn't compare Rickie to Le God, I'd say our present no.7 does seem to have the ability to make an impact at a few crucial moments even if he's not outstanding for the full 90. The Mk Dons game was testament to this. On injuries....have we really been particularly unlucky? I'd say our record this season on players crocked is about average....

Should add that I've just put £100 on at 1.25 (same as 1/4) on betfair on Saints being promoted. This is a very attractive bet and some money is still available at those odds. Snap them up.

We now need about 14 points from our remaining eight games. It would be staggering if we needed more than this. And utterly staggering if we needed much more. How anyone could have reached the conclusion that we needed 28 points from our last ten games bewilders me. It's just basic innumeracy. Even now, the mathematically certain "ask" has fallen to 26 (of which we have collected six), and this certain threshold falls further as and when Huddersfield drop more points. The odds, by the way, of Huddersfield winning all their remaining 6 games is approximately 100/1. Not impossible, but deeply, deeply unlikely. The further they fall from this, the easier our target. We shouldn't completely lose sight of Posh. If they win all their remaining games (probably about 80/1) we would still need 17 points - maybe 18 - to stay ahead of them. But the very strong likelihood now is that 14 points will do it. 15 or 16 will make it a near certainty. 17+ and a miracle would be needed to stop us. This is reflected in the available odds from any bookmaker.

we were mathematically safe some time ago I think...some of the bottom four need to play each other, don't they? not that relegation was looming large in my list of fears...

This.

Seriously? You based your view of our first half performance on a ten word text message from a friend???? Gees.....

Sorry to dissent. I thought we were pretty good for the first 60 minutes. Not great. Not inspiring. But if you'd shown me the first 60 minutes on video and then said "we've deleted the footage of any goals", I would have reasonably guessed we were a goal or two ahead. I simply can't get my head around some poster(s) saying the first half display was amongst the worst he's ever seen us play. It's not even the worst I've seen us play in the last 14 days. I guess there's always a tendency to hyperbolise amongst fans. I'm prone to it too. I've probably watched about 400 Saints games in person and maybe another 50+ on TV. But I still find myself saying "that was the dullest game ever" or "that was the unluckiest defeat ever" or "that was the most pitiful surrender ever" or "that was the most amazing comeback ever". The truth is that we exaggerate in the moment (this is captured better on SWF than at a live game because there's an audit trail). The game on Saturday was probably in the top 10% of Saints games I've seen for entertainment. But it wasn't even the best comeback I've seen.

A lot depends on our ambitions and the five year plan. I think the present squad is probably good enough to come mid-table in the NPC. Say, about 12th-14th. I think the issues are as follows: 1. Do we lose AOC anyway? If so, we're going to be £5m+ richer, but definitely need some serious investment on the wings. If not, then AOC as RM and Adam as LM seems to me to be a better pair of 1st choice wide players than we are likely to be able to afford/attract. 2. Central defence. We almost certainly need a serious investment in partnering Fonte. 3. Can Lambert cut it in the NPC? I think this is a huge issue, but one that's tough to answer. I'm actually a bit more confident of Barnard in the NPC than Lambert. Am not saying ditch Rickie. Not at all. But if he's not going to be the main man, we may need to at least think about a £1m-£2m striker. What worries me is that I'm not sure there's a middle road here. We either need to have him as the striker we're hoping to get 20+ goals from or get someone else in. Him being okayish and getting 10-12 goals would mean we were slightly hamstrung. 4. Central midfield. This is probably where I'd make the biggest investment. I like Morgan a lot, but wonder whether he will emerge as a superb rather than merely technically impressive player. If he can, we need to find him a partner he can work with. I'm not anti-Hammond or Chaplow, but not inspired by them either. I'd probably give them bothy a 7/10 in League One and maybe a 6/10 in the Championship. To invest in a player who is an 8.5 or 9 in the NPC in central midfield and can act as the engine room would be a huge boost. 5. Is there a goalkeeper issue? I think not. Kelvin as no.1 and easing in Bart as his replacement seems more than fine to me. But I do think this is a debatable area. 6. Are Harding and Butterfield good enough? In my view "yes", but I probably want better cover for Harding (neither Dickson nor a recalled Mills cut the mustard for me). I'm yet to be persuaded by Richardson as cover at RB, but am willing to give him more time.