Just to clear up the 'form' issue..

[ferrarilover]

Just to clear up the issue of form coming into these playoffs, please see below for the relevant ratings. For those who don't know, the Ferrarilover scale is a tool of my own invention, and it is a way of producing a mathematical relationship between games played, results and then relating that as a quantifiable and comparable figure. It is worked out using a basic formula to give weighting to the perceived quality of the opposition faced. It takes no account of variables, and deals in the bare, stripped down facts of the matter. So, excuses (so and so was out, the referee was against us etc) are meaningless and the playing field is level for everyone.
Across 10 games, the easiest run is rated at 28, the hardest is always 100, the average is 59.


Over the course of the last 10 matches of the season:

Cheltenham Played 10 Points 13 Opposition rating 69
Crewe Played 10 Points 20 Opposition rating 65
Southend Played 10 Points 19 Opposition rating 54
Torquay Played 10 Points 15 Opposition rating 64

We see that Southend are in worst form, given that they have had by far the easiest run in and Crewe are in best form. Us and Cheltenham are pretty much neck and neck, with us having taken slightly more points, from a slightly easier run in.

Over the course of the last 6 matches of the season:

Cheltenham Played 6 Points 12 Opposition rating 45
Crewe Played 6 Points 10 Opposition rating 68
Southend Played 6 Points 13 Opposition rating 43
Torquay Played 6 Points 6 Opposition rating 60

The easiest 6 game run is rated at 16, the hardest is always 100 and the average is 53.
We see that Torquay are by far the worst performers, but, that the difficulty of the run is much more variable (which is why 10 games is a more reliable indicator of genuine form). Crewe again come out on top here, having the hardest run in, but taking just one win less than Southend, who had the easiest run in.

What we do see is that the fixtures did not necessarily fall particularly kindly for us. At the end of a long season, with a tiny squad, I'd much rather have had Southend's fixtures than ours.

Anyway, I shall leave you all to ponder this. Do take the top table as a more accurate indication of genuine form, the bottom table is too variable to be genuinely statistically useful.

Matt.

[Dave]

So what your saying Matt, thanking Southend for pushing us into a double header with Cheltenham may be a mistake.

[Gullscorer]

'Perceived quality of the opposition faced' is where Ferrarilover falls down, as this depends upon the form of the opposition in any particular game or run of games as well as upon the subjective view of the perceiver, and, since it is almost impossible to determine a team's form from just one game, there being so many variables involved from game to game, and since the form of a team over a run of games, be it 6 games or 10 games, is what he is trying to determine, then Ferrarilover will find himself going round in circles as his subjectivity struggles to arrive at an answer via the prism of his perception. Better simply to add up the points gained by each team, and compare, while remembering that the more recent the games used in the calculation, then the more accurately will an assessment of recent form be arrived at, providing that a sufficient number of games is used; this is a question of balance: too many games will give a good indication of overall form, whilst too few games may produce a less accurate result. Historical analysis of such calculations shows the the ideal number of games to be used to determine recent form is six. So, using this method, we will see that Cheltenham's recent form has been twice as good as the Gulls'.
So there.. :na:

[usagullmichigan]

Ahh crap I have logged in to Mattsforum.com again.

[ferrarilover]

'Perceived quality of the opposition faced' is where Ferrarilover falls down, as this depends upon the form of the opposition in any particular game or run of games as well as upon the subjective view of the perceiver, and, since it is almost impossible to determine a team's form from just one game, there being so many variables involved from game to game, and since the form of a team over a run of games, be it 6 games or 10 games, is what he is trying to determine, then Ferrarilover will find himself going round in circles as his subjectivity struggles to arrive at an answer via the prism of his perception. Better simply to add up the points gained by each team, and compare, while remembering that the more recent the games used in the calculation, then the more accurately will an assessment of recent form be arrived at, providing that a sufficient number of games is used; this is a question of balance: too many games will give a good indication of overall form, whilst too few games may produce a less accurate result. Historical analysis of such calculations shows the the ideal number of games to be used to determine recent form is six. So, using this method, we will see that Cheltenham's recent form has been twice as good as the Gulls'.
So there.. :na:

So, team A plays the bottom 6 teams consecutively and gains 15 points. Team B plays the top 6 teams consecutively and gets 12 points. You're telling me that team A is in better form? It's all too simplistic. No, the Ferrarilover scale is not perfect, but then nor is Duckworth Lewis, but it's the best we presently have, so let's run with it.

As for you, yankeedoodledandy :whip:

Matt.

[ferrarilover]

So what your saying Matt, thanking Southend for pushing us into a double header with Cheltenham may be a mistake.

In fairness, judging from what I've seen of them this season (our game at Plainmoor and at Plymouth), I'd rather play Southend anyway. Not sure, having seen them at Plainmoor, where people are getting this notion that they're any good? They came for a point and were absolutely delighted to have got it. Wasted time from the very first whistle. Their big, ugly centre forward was completely ineffective once he got his panties in a bunch (identical at Plymouth and cost them the game in the end) and he really should have gone off for what he did to JOastler, coupled with his other misdemeanours. Would absolutely love it if we made the final and it was against them rather than Crewe, I'd be more confident of beating them than I was of us beating Stevenage (which we really would have done if we'd bothered getting off the bus that stupid day!)

Matt.

[usagullmichigan]

So, team A plays the bottom 6 teams consecutively and gains 15 points. Team B plays the top 6 teams consecutively and gets 12 points. You're telling me that team A is in better form? It's all too simplistic. No, the Ferrarilover scale is not perfect, but then nor is Duckworth Lewis, but it's the best we presently have, so let's run with it.

As for you, yankeedoodledandy :whip:

Matt.

Be gentle :devil:

[ferrarilover]

Certainly not.

Matt.

[usagullmichigan]

Seems like we need a after hours watershed lol.

[Northumbergull]

I've been saying for years that, apart from it being a marathon not a sprint, a lot depends on two things, as far as the fixture list goes:

1. At any point in the season, you might play a team in form and on a run. Even the crappest teams put a run together sometime. If you happen to play them then, you're screwed!

2. The run-in IS important, especially at this level with, as others have mentioned, the size of squads re injuries/suspensions et al. Unlike in the higher leagues, if you have a hard run-in, you're gonna struggle, relatively speaking.

But, we get second chances these days, what with the play-offs 'n' all. I used to hate them, as an old fogey. But, after all these years, I think they're a good thing for many reasons.

At least we're not talking rugby, a game I gave up on years ago, where, even if you have dominated a game, you can lose out to the wibble-wobble of the so-called 'ball'! Imagine how bad you'd feel if you were one kick away from going up, only for the ball to bounce wildly off to one side!

Cheers

Bruce

[popside_yidlad]

I've been saying for years that, apart from it being a marathon not a sprint, a lot depends on two things, as far as the fixture list goes:

1. At any point in the season, you might play a team in form and on a run. Even the crappest teams put a run together sometime. If you happen to play them then, you're screwed!

2. The run-in IS important, especially at this level with, as others have mentioned, the size of squads re injuries/suspensions et al. Unlike in the higher leagues, if you have a hard run-in, you're gonna struggle, relatively speaking.

But, we get second chances these days, what with the play-offs 'n' all. I used to hate them, as an old fogey. But, after all these years, I think they're a good thing for many reasons.

At least we're not talking rugby, a game I gave up on years ago, where, even if you have dominated a game, you can lose out to the wibble-wobble of the so-called 'ball'! Imagine how bad you'd feel if you were one kick away from going up, only for the ball to bounce wildly off to one side!

Cheers

Bruce

Not being funny but your bounce of a ball reasoning for rugby is complete rubbish. It happens very rarely now, the skills of even amateur stand-offs means that the control is great. I would suggest that the quality of referees in rugby is alot higher and get more discussions correct. I would say thats a much greater variable and could have a bigger impact on results.

One thing thats ridiculous about rugby in this country is that you could win the league by a distance win only a minor shield then have to be in a play-off for the main title. Which you could of course lose. One example of this is a couple of years ago gloucester won league by 20ish points then lost to wasps in the final.

[Northumbergull]

Pop

What I'm talking about re rugby is where the ball is pumped up field with everybody chasing after it. Then, it's 50:50 whether it's gonna bounce into the forward's arms or shoot out of play! Games are won and lost on that bounce!

Sure, in football there is also the chance of a dodgy bounce, but nowhere near as much. Imagine, if each time you passed or crossed a ball it was in the lap of the gods whether the ball would bounce straight enough to get through. Nothing to do with the state of the pitch, everything to do with the shape of the ball!

Okay, rugby is basically a passing to hands game but, nevertheless, I've seen endless examples, from my son's junior team to internationals, where a team has worked hard to progress a ball forward only for a bounce to waste all the effort. What grates is when the team that has been playing crap then gets a good bounce and scores a try.

In football, of course, we talk of either being favoured with, or not, the luck surrounding so-called 50:50 balls. But, primarily, this is regarding the likes of where a scramble bounces off somebody's knees etc. It's got nothing to do with the shape of the ball being used. My son got so hacked off with seeing his team's efforts come to nothing that he packed in rugby altogether, which was a shame as, broadly-speaking, he was a good player but he felt the game was as much about luck as skill, more so luck at times.

There are enough things in football that can frustrate us, over which we have little or no control, especially as fans on the terraces. Watching athletes stand with their hands on their hips as yet another ball, perhaps delivered with precision, bounces away from them as a result of its shape became, for me and my son, more like watching It's a Knockout than sport.

Cheers

Bruce

[Glostergull]

Just to clear up the issue of form coming into these playoffs, please see below for the relevant ratings. For those who don't know, the Ferrarilover scale is a tool of my own invention, and it is a way of producing a mathematical relationship between games played, results and then relating that as a quantifiable and comparable figure. It is worked out using a basic formula to give weighting to the perceived quality of the opposition faced. It takes no account of variables, and deals in the bare, stripped down facts of the matter. So, excuses (so and so was out, the referee was against us etc) are meaningless and the playing field is level for everyone.
Across 10 games, the easiest run is rated at 28, the hardest is always 100, the average is 59.


Over the course of the last 10 matches of the season:

Cheltenham Played 10 Points 13 Opposition rating 69
Crewe Played 10 Points 20 Opposition rating 65
Southend Played 10 Points 19 Opposition rating 54
Torquay Played 10 Points 15 Opposition rating 64

We see that Southend are in worst form, given that they have had by far the easiest run in and Crewe are in best form. Us and Cheltenham are pretty much neck and neck, with us having taken slightly more points, from a slightly easier run in.

Over the course of the last 6 matches of the season:

Cheltenham Played 6 Points 12 Opposition rating 45
Crewe Played 6 Points 10 Opposition rating 68
Southend Played 6 Points 13 Opposition rating 43
Torquay Played 6 Points 6 Opposition rating 60

The easiest 6 game run is rated at 16, the hardest is always 100 and the average is 53.
We see that Torquay are by far the worst performers, but, that the difficulty of the run is much more variable (which is why 10 games is a more reliable indicator of genuine form). Crewe again come out on top here, having the hardest run in, but taking just one win less than Southend, who had the easiest run in.

What we do see is that the fixtures did not necessarily fall particularly kindly for us. At the end of a long season, with a tiny squad, I'd much rather have had Southend's fixtures than ours.

Anyway, I shall leave you all to ponder this. Do take the top table as a more accurate indication of genuine form, the bottom table is too variable to be genuinely statistically useful.

Matt.

It's all crap. Nothing mathmaticaly can gauge what we are likely to do on the day. You would have to have a cray to compute what we would do with factors such as size of club. Budget. standard of training.quality of Sandwiches And so many other factors it is virtualy impossible to figure out who will do what. The you get something like a player sent off for a rash challenge and even that goes out the window.
I say multiply the results over the season. Divide by the number of points. add a sandwich. minus the drink. Multiply by the square root of the tangent of Old Trafford. Divide again by an old bicycle found in the canal and take away Jeff Stelling, and you will probably come to much the same conclusion. well you will if the answer is in Watercress.
See it's easy if you try.
Come what may, the result will be the result but it won't be guessed by math.

[popside_yidlad]

Right but seriously its not as big an issue as you seem to think anymore. Take it from someone that has played rugby for 9 years now. Firstly union and now league.

I would say the far greater variable is the quality of refereeing. Which affects FAR more situations than the bounce of a ball. For which rugby has the upper hand by a mile. So much so that when a ref makes mistakes in rugby its a surprise in football its part of the course. Dont get me started on the difference in game and man management

[Northumbergull]

Gloster -

Pop

I agree wholeheartedly re the standard of refereeing in both games. Quite why there is this difference is something that I've never understood in all my half century on the planet.

Enjoy your rugby.

Cheers

Bruce