• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Wycombe v Oxford kick off 1930 Sky sports football.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alisander thunders said:
Sadly Peterborough were too shit for the majority of the season, worse than Wycombe.

Maybe Tranmere would have survived, but maybe not.

But sadly, playing matches was not sustainable or safe - so maybe Peterborough and Tranmere should reflect on the 36 games that made them underperform.

It’s certainly not ‘unjust’, a season was played out to the letter of the rules in the most fair and proportionate way.
Click to expand...

Yet sustainable and safe for play-off games? What was the cut-off point?
 

Alisander thunders said:
Sadly Peterborough were too shit for the majority of the season, worse than Wycombe.

Maybe Tranmere would have survived, but maybe not.

But sadly, playing matches was not sustainable or safe - so maybe Peterborough and Tranmere should reflect on the 36 games that made them underperform.

It’s certainly not ‘unjust’, a season was played out to the letter of the rules in the most fair and proportionate way.
Click to expand...
Wycombe were only better than us and Peterborough based on the mathematical model which adjusted the table. Tranmere offered an alternative one based on feasible chances of certain outcomes.
 
Alisander thunders said:
They’re the rules though - shall we just ignore the rules and do it a different way? Isn’t that less fair, ignoring the rules?

Teams will vote in their favour, of course they will - but teams earned the right to do that based on their performances over 36 games.

It’s weird how only 4 underperforming teams were unhappy...
Click to expand...
It's not weird, it's obvious and I'm not mad or anything as I come to terms with the fact that we were shite and deserved nowt after we played our last game. But that doesn't take away from it being a ridiculous way to end the season as you are going to get the majority with nothing to play for wanting to end the season to save a bit of cash, that's obvious before you put it to the vote so there can only be a few clubs who'll feel hard done by.

How can it be right what happened Tranmere though? Points per game while not taking form into account is beyond ridiculous and unfair imo, Tranmere were going to stay up and they were totally fucked ower.
 
Last edited:
0321safc said:
Wycombe were only better than us and Peterborough based on the mathematical model which adjusted the table. Tranmere offered an alternative one based on feasible chances of certain outcomes.
Click to expand...

Correct. Wycombe were better based on mathematics and actual facts.

And not a crazy ‘chance’ scenario which tried to predict the future which was submitted by Tranmere (which would strangely benefit them...)
 
Alisander thunders said:
Deary me.

Maybe you need to watch some more Parkyball before you realise we’d have more likely finished 10th than in the playoffs.

It must be quite nice being this delusional, thinking everything is perfect at SAFC.
Click to expand...
Things aren’t perfect at SAFC. But you aren’t clairvoyant. We didn’t play Southend twice for example and 5 of the 6 teams above us did. 3 points off 2nd with the team in 2nd still to play and over a handful of games meant 2nd was retrievable. I’m 99% certain we would have bombed out of any extended play offs, but we should have been given a chance. The argument isn’t about us being definitely good enough to get promoted like you are framing it to score points, but whether we were good enough to be given a crack of the whip. We undoubtedly were.
 
Alisander thunders said:
Correct. Wycombe were better based on mathematics and actual facts.

And not a crazy ‘chance’ scenario which tried to predict the future which was submitted by Tranmere (which would strangely benefit them...)
Click to expand...
They could have lost both games in hand. One was against Coventry.
 
Scunny Dan said:
Just out of curiosity, why won't the mysterious 'Men In Black' at the EFL "let" Sunderland get promoted?
Click to expand...

Not sure maybe you should ask the one person on this thread who said it.........it’s a load of shite by the way we are doing a very good job of staying in this league ourselves so even if there was a big conspiracy (there isn’t by the way) the elf would be wasting their time.
 
With Luton Barnsley and prob Charlton coming down and with Portsmouth Ipswich Peterborough Fleetwood Blackpool Oxford still there and us with the same squad as last season (minus the keeper) it would take a brave man to fancy us for the playoffs next season !
 
SAFC 83 said:
It's not weird, it's obvious and I'm not mad or anything as I come to terms with the fact that we were shite and deserved nowt after we played our last game. But that doesn't take away from it being a ridiculous way to end the season as you are going to get the majority with nothing to play for wanting to end the season to save a bit of cash, that's obvious before you put it to the vote so there can only be a few clubs who'll feel hard done by.

How can it be right what happened Tranmere though? Points per game while not taking form into account is beyond ridiculous and unfair imo, Tranmere were going to stay and they were totally fucked ower.
Click to expand...

You cant say for certain Tranmere would stay up though. So it’s irrelevant.

They underperformed over 36 games and that is their problem. Maybe this will teach teams that it’s important to not rely on a miraculous or late escape and you need to try and perform well from day one.

My other post above also answers the crazy Tranmere model.
0321safc said:
They could have lost both games in hand. One was against Coventry.
Click to expand...

Would they? Says who?

They’ve just beat Oxford, they beat Fleetwood too.
Father Jack Hackett said:
I can work that out thank you. You're condescending fucker aren't you?
Click to expand...

If you can work it out then you shouldn’t ask the daft question then?...
 
Last edited:
one footed wonder said:
Not sure maybe you should ask the one person on this thread who said it.........it’s a load of shite by the way we are doing a very good job of staying in this league ourselves so even if there was a big conspiracy (there isn’t by the way) the elf would be wasting their time.
Click to expand...
The EFL do get a share of the play off gate receipts. They’d rather the 4 teams in the play offs next season were Sunderland, Portsmouth, Ipswich and Peterborough as opposed to Burton, Fleetwood, Accrington and Rochdale. It’s slightly tongue in cheek on my part but some of the decisions that have went against us have been shocking. All sport is corrupt to a degree. We’ve benefited from it in the past, look at the way Everton rolled over for us in 2016.
 
0321safc said:
Things aren’t perfect at SAFC. But you aren’t clairvoyant. We didn’t play Southend twice for example and 5 of the 6 teams above us did. 3 points off 2nd with the team in 2nd still to play and over a handful of games meant 2nd was retrievable. I’m 99% certain we would have bombed out of any extended play offs, but we should have been given a chance. The argument isn’t about us being definitely good enough to get promoted like you are framing it to score points, but whether we were good enough to be given a crack of the whip. We undoubtedly were.
Click to expand...

We were given 36 chances and underperformed.

As I said, it’s all ifs buts and maybes but when the actual facts are looked at - we weren’t good enough and only have ourselves to blame.
 
Alisander thunders said:
You cant say for certain Tranmere would stay up though. So it’s irrelevant.

They underperformed over 36 games and that is their problem. Maybe this will teach teams that it’s important to not rely on a miraculous or late escape and you need to try and perform well from day one.

My other post above also answers the crazy Tranmere model.


Would they? Says who?

They’ve just beat Oxford, they beat Fleetwood too.


If you can work it out then you shouldn’t ask the daft question then?...
Click to expand...

Who says it was a daft question?
 
Alisander thunders said:
Correct. Wycombe were better based on mathematics and actual facts.

And not a crazy ‘chance’ scenario which tried to predict the future which was submitted by Tranmere (which would strangely benefit them...)
Click to expand...
They've won the lottery, fair play to them. There's no way on this earth they would've finished in the play offs had the season finished, in fact they'd have more than likely finished about 11th or 12th.
 
Not being bad but it took a team with a f***ing BACKBONE.
Its a joke that lads couldn't step up to the mark.
It's f***ing SUNDERLAND ffs not Fleetwood. Get sold to someone that actually knows what they're doing for Chtist Sake. You are good fans that Wolves relate with
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top