Been thinking this for weeks - something around 34/35. Wouldn’t have enjoyed sitting on 35 waiting to find out though.
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.
If Swansea lose to Stoke & West Brom don't beat Palace 33 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.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.
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.
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).
It looks like you were wrong.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.
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.If Swansea lose to Stoke & West Brom don't beat Palace 33 points would have been enough.
If Swansea lose to Stoke & West Brom don't beat Palace 33 points would have been enough.
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.