To avoid bed wetting - the staying up tracker 36 - level - WE ARE STAYING UP

[drew]

I find this theory a little odd.

Let's say 37 is enough, I assume you're saying it'll be enough because of goal difference or at best 1 point.
Which means we'll be heading into games v palace, Spurs, Burnley (away), Utd and Liverpool, hoping we've already reached the magical 37 while desperately trying to work out what Stoke leading West Ham 3-1 halftime means.

Shirley 40 points is the accepted norm and does away with end of season nerves.

Why is it odd? You might as well just say that 45pts or 50pts mean you're safe. 2003 West Ham were relegated with 42pts

2012/13 37pts would see you safe.
2013/14 34pts etc
2014/15 36pts etc
2015/16 38pts etc
2016/17 35pts etc


At the end of the day, we just need to target as many as we can get but drawing games at home from winning positions is going to make it hard.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Where does the '40 points' thing come from? Is it just a historical view that people run with, or is there actually some maths behind it?

And how many times has the magical 40 points been needed to survive in the past, say, 15 years?

Edit: I see Drew has partially answered my last question. Not quick enough to respond!

 

[Nathan]

Where does the '40 points' thing come from? Is it just a historical view that people run with, or is there actually some maths behind it?

And how many times has the magical 40 points been needed to survive in the past, say, 15 years?

Edit: I see Drew has partially answered my last question. Not quick enough to respond!

Interesting article about it in the telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...e-how-many-points-do-you-need-to-stay-up.html

'The first thing you’ll notice is that the “magic 40-point mark” – holy grail of managers from Sam Allardyce to Roberto Martinez – is actually an illusion. Over the last 19 seasons, 40 points is usually more than enough for survival. Last season, West Ham finished with 40 points and finished 13th.'

 

[Bold Seagull]

Interesting article about it in the telegraph...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...e-how-many-points-do-you-need-to-stay-up.html

'The first thing you’ll notice is that the “magic 40-point mark” – holy grail of managers from Sam Allardyce to Roberto Martinez – is actually an illusion. Over the last 19 seasons, 40 points is usually more than enough for survival. Last season, West Ham finished with 40 points and finished 13th.'

I think it is a hangover from the Football League 22 team Division One days when 40 points was always your target, and actually survival was often more than that.

Over those 19 seasons where only once was 40 not enough, there have been plenty of occasions when 36 or below has been enough.

The reason West Ham got stung in 2003 was that Sunderland and West Brom were so poor, they only got 10 wins and 45 points between them, meaning they gave a lot of other sides a lot of points - the pair of them lost 51 games!

It is worth remembering though that Birmingham and Blackpool BOTH got relegated in 2011 with 39 points each. There are some similarities too with the bottom half all racking up a reasonable number of wins with no real whipping boy that season.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Where does the '40 points' thing come from? Is it just a historical view that people run with, or is there actually some maths behind it?

And how many times has the magical 40 points been needed to survive in the past, say, 15 years?

Edit: I see Drew has partially answered my last question. Not quick enough to respond!

I’ve just gone back 10 years and at 22 games into the season. I did this quickly but counted 5 teams with 23 or more points going down, out of the 30 relegated. All were on 23 except Blackburn who managed to go down despite have 28 points at this point. So less than 20% chance of being relegated based on that. All to play for

 

[Machiavelli]

I find this theory a little odd.

Let's say 37 is enough, I assume you're saying it'll be enough because of goal difference or at best 1 point.
Which means we'll be heading into games v palace, Spurs, Burnley (away), Utd and Liverpool, hoping we've already reached the magical 37 while desperately trying to work out what Stoke leading West Ham 3-1 halftime means.

Shirley 40 points is the accepted norm and does away with end of season nerves.

I'd rather get enough points to stay up, rather than enough points to satisfy your nerves, and I think 36 will be sufficient. If I'm right in this, only 13 more to go. I really think we need 9 or 10 from our next six games though, which will be a tall order.

 

[A1X]

While it's a target, I think it's been fetishised by many into too much of a thing. The real target is 17th place, anything above that is gravy.

 

[Stat Brother]

I admire all you 'cutitfinerers' (I bet you're all only children who are late for every appointment) but I know I can't cope with a sub 40 total.

Also bearing in mind NSC can't cope with the excellent football we've watched, so far this season, we run the risk of breaking t'internet if it all comes down to goal difference.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I find this theory a little odd.

Let's say 37 is enough, I assume you're saying it'll be enough because of goal difference or at best 1 point.
Which means we'll be heading into games v palace, Spurs, Burnley (away), Utd and Liverpool, hoping we've already reached the magical 37 while desperately trying to work out what Stoke leading West Ham 3-1 halftime means.

Shirley 40 points is the accepted norm and does away with end of season nerves.

I was just looking at the table ... if you have got 18 points after 20 games then its unlikely that you will score 22 points in next 18 games .... however what we do know is nothing is predictable and the current state of the table is not a straight line indicator of performance . Personally i want to see around 45 points because that will mean we are very safe and I will have watched us win a few games.

There are 4 home games we need to win in 2018, there were 5 and we drew the first one. We need to take 3 points off Huddersfield, West Ham, Swansea and Leicester at home and nick draws at Southhampton, WBA and possibly Stoke. That's not impossible nor is getting a point at home against a top 6 team.

Its all about personal opinions.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I admire all you 'cutitfinerers' (I bet you're all only children who are late for every appointment) but I know I can't cope with a sub 40 total.

Also bearing in mind NSC can't cope with the excellent football we've watched, so far this season, we run the risk of breaking t'internet if it all comes down to goal difference.

Nope youngest of 7 and always early......I understand where you are coming from and if it helps its 40 points but don't look at @Rugrats table.....

 

[Giraffe]

I think realistically 37-38 should be enough but as others have said no one is looking like they will be falling adrift. Palace did for a while, then Swansea, but they have picked up a little. Even if one goes, I can still see it being a straight fight of ten teams for two places. That could edge the target for survival much higher than previous years.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I might do the same soon! 50% wrong and hopefully further incorrects will go our way. I've got Swansea and WBA being cut adrift (relatively) but it really does show just how important our next game is. Surely we won't adopt a "mustn't lose" approach

View attachment 92463

This one is worrying....

 

[BUTTERBALL]

Very realistic, would expect us to out perform that but i'd take it right now.

 

[e77]

40 points is your gold standard for staying up. From where we are now I would be disappointed if we didn't reach that to allow us to not being in a dog fight in the last couple of weeks of the season.

 

[Rugrat]

Very realistic, would expect us to out perform that but i'd take it right now.

At this stage of season I'd expect a +/- 3-4 point swing (upsets/mistakes) across the board, I'm thinking 37 would be a decent target.

Hoping that CH is targeting our next 3 away games. As much as we might 'regret' the home games v Everton, Burnley and B'Muff these next 3 aways are likely to be the season defining ones from here forwards

 

[drew]

I was just looking at the table ... if you have got 18 points after 20 games then its unlikely that you will score 22 points in next 18 games .... however what we do know is nothing is predictable and the current state of the table is not a straight line indicator of performance . Personally i want to see around 45 points because that will mean we are very safe and I will have watched us win a few games.

There are 4 home games we need to win in 2018, there were 5 and we drew the first one. We need to take 3 points off Huddersfield, West Ham, Swansea and Leicester at home and nick draws at Southhampton, WBA and possibly Stoke. That's not impossible nor is getting a point at home against a top 6 team.

Its all about personal opinions.

Not sure you can honestly think we'll get 3pts at home to Leicester. They are far different from their early season form. You're right that we need to take three points off the others but we haven't achieved that against Everton, Stoke, Soton and Muff, all teams that were at the time we played them, in the mix.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Not sure you can honestly think we'll get 3pts at home to Leicester. They are far different from their early season form. You're right that we need to take three points off the others but we haven't achieved that against Everton, Stoke, Soton and Muff, all teams that were at the time we played them, in the mix.

Depends on which Fox turns up - the one that goes away to Southampton and wins 4-1 or the one the following week gets beaten at home by Palace 3-0.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Depends on which Fox turns up - the one that goes away to Southampton and wins 4-1 or the one the following week gets beaten at home by Palace 3-0.

and that sums it up nicely - all these teams are capable of beating or loosing to the other and it will come down to strength of mind, luck ( bounce of ball/ref decisions), injuries and if anyone buys an absolute game changer in January.

 

[Audax]

The way I look at it, right now we're looking pretty stable in that mid-table area. But it's so congested, the bottom third of the table are only a few points back (depending on results of the games in hand) and we could easily find ourselves in that bottom 5 group within a couple of weeks.

Four of our next 5 are against teams either currently in the immediate relegation fight, or within our "zone" of the table: West Brom, Southampton, West Ham, Stoke. We need points from those four games, and in particular the three in bold are potential (cliche alert) 6-pointers.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The way I look at it, right now we're looking pretty stable in that mid-table area. But it's so congested, the bottom third of the table are only a few points back (depending on results of the games in hand) and we could easily find ourselves in that bottom 5 group within a couple of weeks.

Four of our next 5 are against teams either currently in the immediate relegation fight, or within our "zone" of the table: West Brom, Southampton, West Ham, Stoke. We need points from those four games, and in particular the three in bold are potential (cliche alert) 6-pointers.

Why isn't Southampton in bold? They haven't won in 8 games. If you have Stoke in bold not sure why you think Southampton are in a different position?