Richard wood

[wilts rover]

I remember Dean Saunders practically building a new team, it clicked and we know how that season ended.

It can be done.

The concerns right now are real and pertinent.

We're nearly half way to the point when the table starts taking shape ( 10 games) and we're rock bottom of the football league.

Saunders saw us relegated in his first season with us. During the first 10 games of Saunders' second season we won 5, lost 3 and drew 2. I remember us losing at home to Crawley and people calling for his head!

And you're right...we know how that season ended. We need patience and not knee jerk reactions.

Erm, not sure if you meant to but thanks for reiterating my point !

We're not going to get anywhere near 17 points in the first 10 games, and we're in a lower division.

I'd say it's mcanns biggest test in his managerial career, I've got faith he can sort it, but it's going to be f**king tough.

He hasn’t reiterated your point.
We’ve another 6 games left yet before we’ve played 10.
You can’t write-off a season after 4 games, from the next 6 games we could easily end up with 11-12 points.
Which would mean we’ve been in great form for 6 games, and I imagine we’d be up around halfway.

We're 5 games in, with 1 point and a minus 8 goal difference.
Were rock bottom of the football league, our start has been an almighty disaster given most people's expectations this season.

You’re wasting your time. Dickos still thinks we are getting promoted

5 games into a 46 game season.
Beyond belief that people are writing the season off, absolutely bonkers.
Find something else to do with your Saturday afternoon

Last season Stockport got 9 points from their first 10 games and ended up in the playoffs, writing a season off as early as this is pathetic

Last season Rochdale got 5 points from their first 10 games and ended up relegated. Judging Rovers this season by how other teams performed last season is pointless.

[dickos1]

Well it’s not pointless.
It’s just pointing out that the league table is totally irrelevant after 5 games.
Stockport we’re one of the favourites for promotion last year same as us, the Rochdale comparison isn’t the same as they were one of the favourites to go down.

[BillyStubbsTears]

After 5 games last year, the bottom 3 were Rochdale, Crawley and Hartlepool.

Guess which three sides finished in the bottom three.

Dickos regularly ignores all evidence of what usually happens in football and talks about unusual counter examples.

That's fine. It's OK to be relentlessly optimistic. But then dont lambast anyone who takes a more balanced, measured approach.

[dickos1]

Jesus
My point is the league table means nothing after 5 games.
Where were we after 5 games last season, where did we end up?
Where were Stockport after 5 games last season, where did they end up.
Of course some people start poorly and maintain that form but plenty of sides every season have a bad or good start and end the season in opposite form.
It’s nothing ground breaking, I’m not stating something magical.
I’m just pointing out the league table after 5 games doesn’t mean that’s how it’s going to be for another 41 games, try and turn it into an argument if you like but it’s just a fact.
These Examples aren’t unusual counter examples, get a grip, they happen in every league every single season

[Chris Black come back]

It also ignores the fact that this isn’t just a poor start to this season. Paul Goodwin made point that we’ve lost 70 of our last 120 league games. This is a club that from top to bottom has if not got used to losing, then it is certainly no stranger. Grant is not just having to deal with a poor start to this season, he has a huge psychological shift to deliver. It’s not easy.

[RoversInSpain]

It also ignores the fact that this isn’t just a poor start to this season. Paul Goodwin made point that we’ve lost 70 of our last 120 league games. This is a club that from top to bottom has if not got used to losing, then it is certainly no stranger. Grant is not just having to deal with a poor start to this season, he has a huge psychological shift to deliver. It’s not easy.

Yes exactly this, we do still have quite a lot of players that are still with us and used to losing. Sadly in my mind until they’re all gone we won’t shake it off. Hopefully Grant is with us for a few years to replace the losers and to build a winning mentality. It’s going to take a while.

[scawsby steve]

It also ignores the fact that this isn’t just a poor start to this season. Paul Goodwin made point that we’ve lost 70 of our last 120 league games. This is a club that from top to bottom has if not got used to losing, then it is certainly no stranger. Grant is not just having to deal with a poor start to this season, he has a huge psychological shift to deliver. It’s not easy.

Yes exactly this, we do still have quite a lot of players that are still with us and used to losing. Sadly in my mind until they’re all gone we won’t shake it off. Hopefully Grant is with us for a few years to replace the losers and to build a winning mentality. It’s going to take a while.

We haven't got time on our side though. If we lose the floating fans this season, we might never get them back again, especially with the crap league we're in.

Then there's Terry. He'll be 81 next year, and is involved in lots of charities. He won't be with us forever, and when he leaves, unless there's a takeover, we'll be back to the self-sustainable model which is efficient for balancing the books, but pretty ineffective for quality recruitment.

We need to improve quickly over the next few months.

[pib]

After 5 games last year, the bottom 3 were Rochdale, Crawley and Hartlepool.

Guess which three sides finished in the bottom three.

Dickos regularly ignores all evidence of what usually happens in football and talks about unusual counter examples.

That's fine. It's OK to be relentlessly optimistic. But then dont lambast anyone who takes a more balanced, measured approach.

Bit of a stretch to say this example is what "usually" happens in football, if that's what you're implying.

In 2021/22 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Sutton, Oldham and Bristol Rovers.
Oldham went down, Sutton finished 8th, and Bristol Rovers won automatic promotion.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2020/21 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Oldham, Southend and Mansfield*
Southend went down, Oldham finished 18th, Mansfield finished 16th.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.
*Taken Grimsby out of the equation as they'd only played 3 when everyone else had played 5 (presumably due to COVID), and they won games 4 & 5.

I've excluded 2019/20 as this season was decided on PPG.

In 2018/19 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Notts County, Macclesfield and Morecambe.
Notts County went down, Macclesfield finished 22nd and survived, Morecambe finished 18th.
2/3 finished in the bottom 3 (3rd bottom being irrelevant in this point as it meant survival)

In 2017/18 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Forest Green, Port Vale and Cheltenham.
Forest Green finished 21st, Port Vale finished 20th and Cheltenham finished 17th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2016/17 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Cambridge, Exeter and Stevenage.
Cambridge finished 11th, Exeter finished 5th (play-offs) and Stevenage finished 10th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

You get my drift.

[McCammon egg n chips]

This is massively off topic now, but essentially the above shows usually one side in the bottom 3 after 5 games will get relegated.

It doesn't make for great reading.

[pib]

This is massively off topic now, but essentially the above shows usually one side in the bottom 3 after 5 games will get relegated.

It doesn't make for great reading.

Well it shows that it happened in 3 out of the last 5 "completed" seasons, yes.

And it shows that statistically quite a significant proportion of teams in the bottom 3 after 5 games end up somewhere in the bottom 1/3 of the table.

And it also shows that it's possible to recover from a start this poor, albeit statistically unlikely (slightly lower than a 1 in 3 chance in this set of historical statistics), and still finish in the top 10.

What it doesn't show is that it's the norm for the bottom 3 after 5 games to finish as the bottom 3.

And it does kind of support dickos' point, providing I understand that point correctly, that history shows that it is more than possible to be in the bottom 3 at this stage and not end up in the bottom 3 or in any real danger of relegation.

[dickos1]

This is massively off topic now, but essentially the above shows usually one side in the bottom 3 after 5 games will get relegated.

It doesn't make for great reading.

It shows a lot more teams finish higher up the table than remain in the bottom 3

[Bentley Bullet]

This is massively off topic now, but essentially the above shows usually one side in the bottom 3 after 5 games will get relegated.

It doesn't make for great reading.

It also shows that usually two sides in the bottom 3 after 5 games won't be relegated.

[ForsolongaRover]

If you have a bad start it is immediately apparent in your league position and being complacent about it is pretty well indefensible. There is also time to do something about it via the transfer market before the window closes. There is also what might optimistically be seen as the Rovers situation where a newly-assembled squad improves with time.

[BillyStubbsTears]

After 5 games last year, the bottom 3 were Rochdale, Crawley and Hartlepool.

Guess which three sides finished in the bottom three.

Dickos regularly ignores all evidence of what usually happens in football and talks about unusual counter examples.

That's fine. It's OK to be relentlessly optimistic. But then dont lambast anyone who takes a more balanced, measured approach.

Bit of a stretch to say this example is what "usually" happens in football, if that's what you're implying.

In 2021/22 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Sutton, Oldham and Bristol Rovers.
Oldham went down, Sutton finished 8th, and Bristol Rovers won automatic promotion.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2020/21 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Oldham, Southend and Mansfield*
Southend went down, Oldham finished 18th, Mansfield finished 16th.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.
*Taken Grimsby out of the equation as they'd only played 3 when everyone else had played 5 (presumably due to COVID), and they won games 4 & 5.

I've excluded 2019/20 as this season was decided on PPG.

In 2018/19 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Notts County, Macclesfield and Morecambe.
Notts County went down, Macclesfield finished 22nd and survived, Morecambe finished 18th.
2/3 finished in the bottom 3 (3rd bottom being irrelevant in this point as it meant survival)

In 2017/18 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Forest Green, Port Vale and Cheltenham.
Forest Green finished 21st, Port Vale finished 20th and Cheltenham finished 17th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2016/17 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Cambridge, Exeter and Stevenage.
Cambridge finished 11th, Exeter finished 5th (play-offs) and Stevenage finished 10th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

You get my drift.

To be fair, it would be truly extraordinary if the sides in the bottom 3 after 5 games frequently were in the bottom 3 after 46 games.

The real question is: do sides that start off the season badly often find their feet and do well overall? Dickos is suggesting that there's nothing to be gained by looking at the table this early, and if that were true, you'd expect the answer to that question to be "yes".

In fact, in the past 10 seasons at this level, only three sides have been in the bottom 4 after 5 games and finished in the top 7 (Exeter  in 2016/17, Stockport last year, Bristol Rovers 21/22). The evidence strongly points to the conclusion that teams that start off the season badly do so because they are really not very good. There IS the odd example of a team being the exception to that rule, but you wouldn't be advised to lump money on it happening.

We MIGHT be that rare exception this year. But I've honestly seen nothing in any of our league matches so far to make me think that is likely.

EDIT. Data corrected - I was looking at wrong tables for some seasons. Conclusion is the same.

EDIT 2: D'oh. I typed "after 10 games" when I meant 5. For clarity, the data does correspond to the bottom four after 5 games.

[drfchound]

You have moved the goalposts though bst.
You are now talking about the bottom four after ten games when everyone else is talking about the bottom three after just five games.

[pib]

After 5 games last year, the bottom 3 were Rochdale, Crawley and Hartlepool.

Guess which three sides finished in the bottom three.

Dickos regularly ignores all evidence of what usually happens in football and talks about unusual counter examples.

That's fine. It's OK to be relentlessly optimistic. But then dont lambast anyone who takes a more balanced, measured approach.

Bit of a stretch to say this example is what "usually" happens in football, if that's what you're implying.

In 2021/22 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Sutton, Oldham and Bristol Rovers.
Oldham went down, Sutton finished 8th, and Bristol Rovers won automatic promotion.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2020/21 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Oldham, Southend and Mansfield*
Southend went down, Oldham finished 18th, Mansfield finished 16th.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.
*Taken Grimsby out of the equation as they'd only played 3 when everyone else had played 5 (presumably due to COVID), and they won games 4 & 5.

I've excluded 2019/20 as this season was decided on PPG.

In 2018/19 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Notts County, Macclesfield and Morecambe.
Notts County went down, Macclesfield finished 22nd and survived, Morecambe finished 18th.
2/3 finished in the bottom 3 (3rd bottom being irrelevant in this point as it meant survival)

In 2017/18 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Forest Green, Port Vale and Cheltenham.
Forest Green finished 21st, Port Vale finished 20th and Cheltenham finished 17th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2016/17 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Cambridge, Exeter and Stevenage.
Cambridge finished 11th, Exeter finished 5th (play-offs) and Stevenage finished 10th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

You get my drift.

To be fair, it would be truly extraordinary if the sides in the bottom 3 after 5 games frequently were in the bottom 3 after 46 games.

The real question is: do sides that start off the season badly often find their feet and do well overall? Dickos is suggesting that there's nothing to be gained by looking at the table this early, and if that were true, you'd expect the answer to that question to be "yes".

In fact, in the past 10 seasons at this level, only three sides have been in the bottom 4 after 10 games and finished in the top 7 (Exeter  in 2016/17, Stockport last year, Bristol Rovers 21/22). The evidence strongly points to the conclusion that teams that start off the season badly do so because they are really not very good. There IS the odd example of a team being the exception to that rule, but you wouldn't be advised to lump money on it happening.

We MIGHT be that rare exception this year. But I've honestly seen nothing in any of our league matches so far to make me think that is likely.

EDIT. Data corrected - I was looking at wrong tables for some seasons. Conclusion is the same.

If we're in the bottom 3 after 10 games then yes, let's have this discussion and probably draw these conclusions.

I think we're talking about something different here now, but I think what you posted initially about last year's bottom 3 was an "unusual counter example" of the sort you accused dickos of making.

Plus (please correct me if wrong) but I don't think Dickos (or any others) in this thread have actually said they think we're odds-on to make the top 7 after our poor start (which is the barometer of improvement you are using here), just that there is an OK chance that our league position will improve.

[BillyStubbsTears]

After 5 games last year, the bottom 3 were Rochdale, Crawley and Hartlepool.

Guess which three sides finished in the bottom three.

Dickos regularly ignores all evidence of what usually happens in football and talks about unusual counter examples.

That's fine. It's OK to be relentlessly optimistic. But then dont lambast anyone who takes a more balanced, measured approach.

Bit of a stretch to say this example is what "usually" happens in football, if that's what you're implying.

In 2021/22 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Sutton, Oldham and Bristol Rovers.
Oldham went down, Sutton finished 8th, and Bristol Rovers won automatic promotion.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2020/21 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Oldham, Southend and Mansfield*
Southend went down, Oldham finished 18th, Mansfield finished 16th.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.
*Taken Grimsby out of the equation as they'd only played 3 when everyone else had played 5 (presumably due to COVID), and they won games 4 & 5.

I've excluded 2019/20 as this season was decided on PPG.

In 2018/19 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Notts County, Macclesfield and Morecambe.
Notts County went down, Macclesfield finished 22nd and survived, Morecambe finished 18th.
2/3 finished in the bottom 3 (3rd bottom being irrelevant in this point as it meant survival)

In 2017/18 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Forest Green, Port Vale and Cheltenham.
Forest Green finished 21st, Port Vale finished 20th and Cheltenham finished 17th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2016/17 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Cambridge, Exeter and Stevenage.
Cambridge finished 11th, Exeter finished 5th (play-offs) and Stevenage finished 10th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

You get my drift.

To be fair, it would be truly extraordinary if the sides in the bottom 3 after 5 games frequently were in the bottom 3 after 46 games.

The real question is: do sides that start off the season badly often find their feet and do well overall? Dickos is suggesting that there's nothing to be gained by looking at the table this early, and if that were true, you'd expect the answer to that question to be "yes".

In fact, in the past 10 seasons at this level, only three sides have been in the bottom 4 after 10 games and finished in the top 7 (Exeter  in 2016/17, Stockport last year, Bristol Rovers 21/22). The evidence strongly points to the conclusion that teams that start off the season badly do so because they are really not very good. There IS the odd example of a team being the exception to that rule, but you wouldn't be advised to lump money on it happening.

We MIGHT be that rare exception this year. But I've honestly seen nothing in any of our league matches so far to make me think that is likely.

EDIT. Data corrected - I was looking at wrong tables for some seasons. Conclusion is the same.

If we're in the bottom 3 after 10 games then yes, let's have this discussion and probably draw these conclusions.

I think we're talking about something different here now, but I think what you posted initially about last year's bottom 3 was an "unusual counter example" of the sort you accused dickos of making.

Plus (please correct me if wrong) but I don't think Dickos (or any others) in this thread have actually said they think we're odds-on to make the top 7 after our poor start (which is the barometer of improvement you are using here), just that there is an OK chance that our league position will improve.

Pib. See above. That "10 games" was a typo by me. The data is actually about teams in the bottom 4 after 5 games. Apologies for the confusion.

And I know no-one is saying we are odds on to finish highly. Dickos is consistently saying though that the table after 5 games means nothing.

I disagree.

The great majority of sides in the bottom 4 after 5 games have poor seasons. Over the past 10 years, there have been 40 sides in the bottom 4 after 5 games; their average end of season position has been 18th.

100% have not finished in the top 3 at the end of the season
92.5% have not finished in the top 7.
90% have not finished in the top 10.
77.5% have not finished in the top half.

That tells me that the bottom of the table after 5 games says rather a lot.

I fervently hope that we break the usual rule this year.

[Alan Southstand]

Carry on like we are and it wouldn’t surprise me to see GM either walking or being sacked.

If he stays, the only thing that could see us not relegated, is a good January ‘window’.

[McCammon egg n chips]

If you have a bad start it is immediately apparent in your league position and being complacent about it is pretty well indefensible. There is also time to do something about it via the transfer market before the window closes. There is also what might optimistically be seen as the Rovers situation where a newly-assembled squad improves with time.

This is 100% it.

We're bottom of the football league and desperately need a win. And looking at the games ahead it's really difficult to see where it's coming from. Honestly is worrying.

[Chris Black come back]

Thankfully only the bottom 2 go down from League Two, so we only need to find 2 other sides worse than us. There are several candidates. Although as it stands the position of safety is 3x more points than we currently have.

[scawsby steve]

So in what, according to the board, is supposed to be a promotion push season, people are now taking solace in the fact that we probably won't be relegated.

Jesus wept. Bye bye floating fans.

[dickos1]

After 5 games last year, the bottom 3 were Rochdale, Crawley and Hartlepool.

Guess which three sides finished in the bottom three.

Dickos regularly ignores all evidence of what usually happens in football and talks about unusual counter examples.

That's fine. It's OK to be relentlessly optimistic. But then dont lambast anyone who takes a more balanced, measured approach.

Bit of a stretch to say this example is what "usually" happens in football, if that's what you're implying.

In 2021/22 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Sutton, Oldham and Bristol Rovers.
Oldham went down, Sutton finished 8th, and Bristol Rovers won automatic promotion.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2020/21 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Oldham, Southend and Mansfield*
Southend went down, Oldham finished 18th, Mansfield finished 16th.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.
*Taken Grimsby out of the equation as they'd only played 3 when everyone else had played 5 (presumably due to COVID), and they won games 4 & 5.

I've excluded 2019/20 as this season was decided on PPG.

In 2018/19 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Notts County, Macclesfield and Morecambe.
Notts County went down, Macclesfield finished 22nd and survived, Morecambe finished 18th.
2/3 finished in the bottom 3 (3rd bottom being irrelevant in this point as it meant survival)

In 2017/18 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Forest Green, Port Vale and Cheltenham.
Forest Green finished 21st, Port Vale finished 20th and Cheltenham finished 17th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2016/17 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Cambridge, Exeter and Stevenage.
Cambridge finished 11th, Exeter finished 5th (play-offs) and Stevenage finished 10th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

You get my drift.

To be fair, it would be truly extraordinary if the sides in the bottom 3 after 5 games frequently were in the bottom 3 after 46 games.

The real question is: do sides that start off the season badly often find their feet and do well overall? Dickos is suggesting that there's nothing to be gained by looking at the table this early, and if that were true, you'd expect the answer to that question to be "yes".

In fact, in the past 10 seasons at this level, only three sides have been in the bottom 4 after 10 games and finished in the top 7 (Exeter  in 2016/17, Stockport last year, Bristol Rovers 21/22). The evidence strongly points to the conclusion that teams that start off the season badly do so because they are really not very good. There IS the odd example of a team being the exception to that rule, but you wouldn't be advised to lump money on it happening.

We MIGHT be that rare exception this year. But I've honestly seen nothing in any of our league matches so far to make me think that is likely.

EDIT. Data corrected - I was looking at wrong tables for some seasons. Conclusion is the same.

If we're in the bottom 3 after 10 games then yes, let's have this discussion and probably draw these conclusions.

I think we're talking about something different here now, but I think what you posted initially about last year's bottom 3 was an "unusual counter example" of the sort you accused dickos of making.

Plus (please correct me if wrong) but I don't think Dickos (or any others) in this thread have actually said they think we're odds-on to make the top 7 after our poor start (which is the barometer of improvement you are using here), just that there is an OK chance that our league position will improve.

Pib. See above. That "10 games" was a typo by me. The data is actually about teams in the bottom 4 after 5 games. Apologies for the confusion.

And I know no-one is saying we are odds on to finish highly. Dickos is consistently saying though that the table after 5 games means nothing.

I disagree.

The great majority of sides in the bottom 4 after 5 games have poor seasons. Over the past 10 years, there have been 40 sides in the bottom 4 after 5 games; their average end of season position has been 18th.

100% have not finished in the top 3 at the end of the season
92.5% have not finished in the top 7.
90% have not finished in the top 10.
77.5% have not finished in the top half.

That tells me that the bottom of the table after 5 games says rather a lot.

I fervently hope that we break the usual rule this year.

Billy you've just said no side in the last 10 years have been in the bottom 4 after 5 games and then gone onto finish in the top 3.
Bristol rovers did exactly that the season before last. So I’m afraid your stats are wrong

[BillyStubbsTears]

After 5 games last year, the bottom 3 were Rochdale, Crawley and Hartlepool.

Guess which three sides finished in the bottom three.

Dickos regularly ignores all evidence of what usually happens in football and talks about unusual counter examples.

That's fine. It's OK to be relentlessly optimistic. But then dont lambast anyone who takes a more balanced, measured approach.

Bit of a stretch to say this example is what "usually" happens in football, if that's what you're implying.

In 2021/22 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Sutton, Oldham and Bristol Rovers.
Oldham went down, Sutton finished 8th, and Bristol Rovers won automatic promotion.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2020/21 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Oldham, Southend and Mansfield*
Southend went down, Oldham finished 18th, Mansfield finished 16th.
1/3 finished in the bottom 3.
*Taken Grimsby out of the equation as they'd only played 3 when everyone else had played 5 (presumably due to COVID), and they won games 4 & 5.

I've excluded 2019/20 as this season was decided on PPG.

In 2018/19 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Notts County, Macclesfield and Morecambe.
Notts County went down, Macclesfield finished 22nd and survived, Morecambe finished 18th.
2/3 finished in the bottom 3 (3rd bottom being irrelevant in this point as it meant survival)

In 2017/18 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Forest Green, Port Vale and Cheltenham.
Forest Green finished 21st, Port Vale finished 20th and Cheltenham finished 17th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

In 2016/17 the bottom 3 after 5 games were Cambridge, Exeter and Stevenage.
Cambridge finished 11th, Exeter finished 5th (play-offs) and Stevenage finished 10th.
0/3 finished in the bottom 3.

You get my drift.

To be fair, it would be truly extraordinary if the sides in the bottom 3 after 5 games frequently were in the bottom 3 after 46 games.

The real question is: do sides that start off the season badly often find their feet and do well overall? Dickos is suggesting that there's nothing to be gained by looking at the table this early, and if that were true, you'd expect the answer to that question to be "yes".

In fact, in the past 10 seasons at this level, only three sides have been in the bottom 4 after 10 games and finished in the top 7 (Exeter  in 2016/17, Stockport last year, Bristol Rovers 21/22). The evidence strongly points to the conclusion that teams that start off the season badly do so because they are really not very good. There IS the odd example of a team being the exception to that rule, but you wouldn't be advised to lump money on it happening.

We MIGHT be that rare exception this year. But I've honestly seen nothing in any of our league matches so far to make me think that is likely.

EDIT. Data corrected - I was looking at wrong tables for some seasons. Conclusion is the same.

If we're in the bottom 3 after 10 games then yes, let's have this discussion and probably draw these conclusions.

I think we're talking about something different here now, but I think what you posted initially about last year's bottom 3 was an "unusual counter example" of the sort you accused dickos of making.

Plus (please correct me if wrong) but I don't think Dickos (or any others) in this thread have actually said they think we're odds-on to make the top 7 after our poor start (which is the barometer of improvement you are using here), just that there is an OK chance that our league position will improve.

Pib. See above. That "10 games" was a typo by me. The data is actually about teams in the bottom 4 after 5 games. Apologies for the confusion.

And I know no-one is saying we are odds on to finish highly. Dickos is consistently saying though that the table after 5 games means nothing.

I disagree.

The great majority of sides in the bottom 4 after 5 games have poor seasons. Over the past 10 years, there have been 40 sides in the bottom 4 after 5 games; their average end of season position has been 18th.

100% have not finished in the top 3 at the end of the season
92.5% have not finished in the top 7.
90% have not finished in the top 10.
77.5% have not finished in the top half.

That tells me that the bottom of the table after 5 games says rather a lot.

I fervently hope that we break the usual rule this year.

Billy you've just said no side in the last 10 years have been in the bottom 4 after 5 games and then gone onto finish in the top 3.
Bristol rovers did exactly that the season before last. So I’m afraid your stats are wrong

Yep. Mistake by me. Apologies.

97.5% haven't made the top 3.

 Doesn't change the basic argument. The great majority of sides in the bottom 4 after 5 games are there because they are not very good for the whole season.

[dickos1]

Over the last 5 seasons there have been 4 sides that have gone from the bottom 3 after 5 games to finishing the season in the top 10. That’s 4 sides out of 15.
That’s enough evidence to show the season isn’t over after 5 games, which was my only point.
I never suggested most sides did this, I simply stated that it’s nonsense to write a season off after 5 games, as there are sides every year in every league that end the season at the opposite end of the table to where they are after 5 games.
We also proved it last season

[Chris Black come back]

Being third bottom is irrelevant. The only metric is being in the bottom two. Only the bottom two get relegated. Whatever the relevance of this debate anyway, the metric that should be used is which sides are in bottom two not bottom three.

[Alan Southstand]

What has all the above got to do with Richard Wood (the title of the thread, lest we all forget). Don’t get me wrong, it’s interesting but completely in the wrong place!

[andy didcott]

Was gonna say the same last night, I came on here to read about Richard wood and thought sod it and when on to YouTube instead. By the way he had a good game t’other day.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Totally criticised him after his last home performance but he was excellent today.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Excellent today, as we're all the defenders. Ironside was clearly MoM, but I thought Bailey was outstanding too.

[Drover]

I do wonder if,our defence is better when Wood and Olowu are NOT in the same side,our defense seems to be better when only one or the other are in,or Maybe they just taking longer to get it together.Either way,we are hopefully turning the corner.Im much happier with our last 3 performances than four out of five of the performances previous,despite similar results.