SaintBobby

If we somehow get 2 wins and 18 draws, that would put us on 39 points. Easily enough, surely!? (Didn't we stay up last season on 33...with a 3 point buffer in the end?)

And we will end up on 75 points. I'd suggest basing a projection on a team's last two games is very rash. Basing a projection on their last 19 games is somewhat sounder....(although not foolproof)

Not only have I read the title. I was even able to write it. It's a headline. A provocation. It ends in a question mark (that's the "?" sign, in case you didn't know, btw). If you are able to read - which is rather doubtful - you will have noticed that it contains content such as "ok, these are extreme numbers"...."no one would want to cut it this close"...."or assume it will be this close". You seem to have derived from this that my suggestion to the Chairman is that we should only target winning two more games this season. You are glad the Chairman won't be "taking (my) view". I can only conclude that you are seriously mentally retarded and have an ability to process words and information that is measurably worse than that of my 4 year old niece. Perhaps even closer to the intellectual level of my cat (he is a bright cat, to be fair)

You are clearly a cretin, who can barely read or process information. 1. I didn't say our target should be to try and win only 2 games, just that it was just about possible that it would be enough to stay up - at a stretch. 2. No team has ever stayed in the Premier League with 25 points. I think it may have happened with 30. My point was the bottom few teams are especially poor this season. 3. This is happening on planet Earth. I am sorry for your educational retardation. You clearly have an IQ of about 60 or below. Bless.

Good stat. So, that's about 3 or 4 more points each (9.8 divided by 3)....that would put the bar at c27 points.

Haven't run the numbers on that tbh, but I'm still willing to say you're wrong - even though I'm guessing a bit. There was the old "bottom at Xmas = relegation" rule (broken by WBA when we went down in 2005, I think) Obviously, if you have zero points after 19 games, things can't get worse, getting one draw and 18 defeats is an improvement! But I'd never heard the idea that the weaker teams get better in the second half of the season. If that's true, it implies that the top teams get worse. Possible, I guess. But have never seen any actual evidence for it.

The bottom end of the league is so dire this season, that you may only need scraps to stay up. For everyone other than ourselves and West Ham, the season is halfway through. If the three bottom teams replicate their performances in the second half of the season over the next 19 matches, they will end up as follows: 18th Burnley 24 pts, GD -48 19th Fulham 22 pts GD -52 20th Huddersfield 20 pts GD -44 If that were to happen, Saints would stay up if our next twenty games result in 2 wins, 3 draws and 15 defeats...as long as we don't worsen our goal difference by more than 34. Ok, these are extreme numbers. And no one would want to cut it as close as this (or assume that it will be this close), but the hurdle to stay up could be pathetically low. And that's the limit of my ambitions just for now!

Halfway through the season and it looks possible that as few as 24 points might be enough to stay up. Crazy. In reality, I expect it to be more like 30 points, but the entirely made up "40 points for safety" cliche is surely total nonsense this year? (and is nonsense most years tbh)

Amazing stat from Jeff Stelling on Sky....higher attendance at Sunderland v Bradford that as Tottenham v Bournemouth....

I guess we want Palace to beat Cardiff? Or are we optimistic enough to be looking to catch Palace rather than merely stay ahead of Cardiff?

We are about 9/1 to be relegated too. You are right that if we beat Man City we are more likely to finish in the top half. But that's reflected in the odds. Beating Arsenal and Huddersfield saw our relegation odds shift from 3/1 to 9/1, so - if you knew in advance we were going to win those games you could have trebled your money. The bookies think it's an 80% chance that we finish somewhere between 11th and 17th. That sounds about right to me.

This. His movement was also vital for an assist in an earlier game (was it that he dropped back and then slotted it to Armstrong?) Seems to find space in the box, just by shifting a yard or two.

In fairly recent years, although not the last few, the Skates. The 4-1 and 2-2 still annoy me. Should have won both.

I kind of assumed it was a bit more imaginative than just replacing one tiny segment....alas no.

What’s the lyrics to the Hasenhüttl/Last Xmas song?

Phew. A wave of optimism at last. Just need to keep this run going as long as possible. God knows when we last won 3 in a row?

Phew. A wave of optimism at last. Just need to keep this run going as long as possible. God knows when we last won 3 in a row?

Sounds a bit like the reintroduction of the late, unlamented, Intertoto Cup.

Same as last year, give or take a tiny %

Game over

Grrrrr

Is it likely to be on Tue 28th?

I always find it odd that when "underpaid and vital" jobs are listed, it always tends to be nurses and firemen, never sewage workers. But surely, having decent sanitation and a clean water supply is pretty damned vital? As others have said, salaries don't hinge merely on how "important" we consider a job to be, but crucially on how many people are able to carry out the task. If there are many millions of people who can, in theory, become nurses, this will mean nursing salaries aren't particularly high. Brain surgeons and top-flight footballers will be paid more - very few people are able to carry out the tasks needed for the job. If we started paying nurses £1mpa, we would - unsurprisingly - get way, way more applications to be a nurse than we need. The current system (basically letting the market sets wages) means people are incentivised to go and take jobs which are appropriate to their skills and where their unique skills are most highly valued by others.

This is total nonsense, really. It assumes attendance at home games only affects income. In fact, if your attendance is zero for every match, this is likely to be reflective of a wider problem. I'm pretty sure that if our average attendance last season was zero, we would have been relegated. That would have cost Saints tens of millions.

Not buying the "big 6-small 14" concept myself. 1. You have the tedious beast that is Everton. They are as close to a nailed on 7th every season as you could get. They are in the "probably get Europa League, definitely won't gte relegated" category. 2. I think Leicester are probably in that range too. Am not saying it's them and Everton in the top 8 as a nailed on guarantee, but I'd be surprised if they are in a relegation scrap.. 3. Something you can't see coming always upsets the established order. Obviously, Leicester winning the league at 5,000/1 was the extreme end. But something weird always happens. Burnley coming 7th last season and getting into Europe was hardly a mainstream prediction. Also, sometimes one of the big 6 implode - didnt Chelski finish tenth the season after they won the league (behind us?)