[Albion] 34 points probably will be enough

[colinz]

If Swansea lose to Stoke & West Brom don't beat Palace 33 points would have been enough.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Been thinking this for weeks - something around 34/35. Wouldn’t have enjoyed sitting on 35 waiting to find out though.

Exactly, I think I said 35, but when you make a prediction you are making that minimum going to the wire seat of your pants what is enough points. You don’t want it, but equally when you get there with 5 or 6 games to spare, regardless of opposition you’ve got some confidence to get some surprise results which we did. Doesn’t bare thinking about being on 35 going into Sunday though...

 

[Mo Gosfield]

I predicted (pre-season) we would go down on the last day on GD with 36 points. It looked like that all season. I thought it would be close right up to the final day between 5 to 8 clubs.

The draw against Spurs and win v Man U made all the difference.

True.
I was seriously worried that we would not get a point from our last 5 games and be stuck on 35. I thought we had messed it up v Leics and Hudds and could pay the price. I had other fans ( non BHA ) telling me that we would get more points and I kept pointing out who we had left to play. I know I was overly cautious and if I have learnt one lesson to take forward, it is that we should just treat each game on its merit and disregard a feeling of inferiority against the big boys. We have looked them all in the eye this season and we can go again with renewed confidence.

 

[Norman Potting]

Hindsight is an exact science.

 

[nicko31]

If Swansea lose to Stoke & West Brom don't beat Palace 33 points would have been enough.

Another reason to feel elated when we beat Arsenal

 

[GT49er]

We certainly weren't safe on March 4th. after beating Arsenal. Anything could have happened, subsequent results since turned out differently, and we could be planning our Championship campaign now. Same after getting to 36 points against Spurs - we weren't safe then either. Nearly safe - maybe, potentially safe - that too, but 100% not actually safe.

If (and thank heavens we're not) we were on 34 points now, we would not be safe. We might potentially be safe on Sunday night with 34 points if Swansea fail to win, but we wouldn't be safe now - just as we weren't safe after beating Arsenal.
Anyone patting themselves on the back for proclaiming weeks ago that we were safe is delusional - when they said it, it simply wasn't true. We became safe after beating United - at every single minute of the season up to that point we were not.

 

[Triggaaar]

After everything. If Stoke beat Swansea on Sunday , and they might well do so, then Albion would have been safe as long ago as March 4th when the whistle went on our home victory v Arsenal.
34 points would have been enough.

No, because Swansea are now basically relegated (barring crazy GD swing), so they have nothing to play for. If we had 34 or 35 points now, we'd be shitting ourselves and expect to get relegated.

 

[Sheebo]

After everything. If Stoke beat Swansea on Sunday , and they might well do so, then Albion would have been safe as long ago as March 4th when the whistle went on our home victory v Arsenal.
34 points would have been enough.

If Swans win the likely cut off then is 36 given Albion's superior GD. In which case we have been safe since the draw v Spurs on April 17th when we secured our 36th point.

Yet another 'black and white' blinkered NSC view. It's like those saying 'If Murray had scored that pen we'd have beaten Burnley / Leicester. GOALS CHANGE GAMES - POINTS CHANGE GAMES. I bet the mentality of Swans would have changed for Sunday's game if they just needed to win to stay up. Different things (like what there is to play for) would affect performances. You cannot say we'd have beaten Man Utd if we were on 34 points still - there may have been more nerves. Football just simply isn't as black and white as you have made out with this post.

 

[Sheebo]

I guess the truest part of the above is the word 'if'.....

Forecasting is just a bit of fun, but the logic flaw in these threads is thinking the only outcome that could have happened is the one that did, and forgetting that for human activities knowledge of the past also motivates future behaviour.

So, if 34 had actually been enough teams would have aimed for that, or adjusted their motivations to their required target. But in reality in a competitive league and any team below 17th would always look to raise their efforts.

Look at the current table: of the current top ten teams only 2 won their last match, and for the bottom teams just 2 lost their last match and 7 won (some teams playing other teams in their half). This quirk could be due to the main prizes at the top having been decided, influencing motivation, and random chance - ie me being selective with the choice of stats.

I imagine the sensible thing Hughton will have done is pick a target with a margin of error built in, and budget the efforts match by match (or batches of matches) on the way to that. 40 seems a good number.

I imagine trends are only seem meaningful in aggregate, as the odd quirky outcomes are more memorable. I recall the trend for 17th has been 38 generally means safety and 37 is usually good enough (and that could apply this year discounting the variable of goal dif).

Ah - just read back through the thread and you've basically said the same as myself, just a lot more eloquently - thanks

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This season, some fans had the same problem as last year. They underestimate what the Albion can do, and overestimate what the teams around us can do.

Chris Hughton has been here for 3.5 year and we've never lost three league games in succession. Yes, we've had draws so gone on a winless run, but we always seem to get something in a 3-4 game run. Football is unpredictable which is why it's fun.

 

[Triggaaar]

Been thinking this for weeks - something around 34/35. Wouldn’t have enjoyed sitting on 35 waiting to find out though.

It looks like you were wrong.

 

[dazzer6666]

It looks like you were wrong.

Nothing new there.........

 

[Triggaaar]

If Swansea lose to Stoke & West Brom don't beat Palace 33 points would have been enough.

No, because if we only had 33 then those games would play out differently. We're not going to find out what would have happened had we only got 33 - 35 points.

 

[hoveboyslim]

If Swansea lose to Stoke & West Brom don't beat Palace 33 points would have been enough.

You can't project that. Both teams are already relegated (Swansea effectively), so no longer have anything to play for.

 

[chaileyjem]

Yet another 'black and white' blinkered NSC view. It's like those saying 'If Murray had scored that pen we'd have beaten Burnley / Leicester. GOALS CHANGE GAMES - POINTS CHANGE GAMES. I bet the mentality of Swans would have changed for Sunday's game if they just needed to win to stay up. Different things (like what there is to play for) would affect performances. You cannot say we'd have beaten Man Utd if we were on 34 points still - there may have been more nerves. Football just simply isn't as black and white as you have made out with this post.

Of course and i agree. It was my way of making this point. - the multiple "are we safe ? " type threads in the last few months as Thunderbolt stresses as well above overestimated Albion's rivals ability to pick up points (largely - they didn't despite all the gnashing) and our ability to preserve our status and pick up points in unlikely places (largely - we did despite all the fretting).