What points total constitutes progress this season?

[Ric Flair]

21 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

We didn't have a  consistent defence last year.That is a significant upgrade..

All the squad have been tried and tested....real strengths and weakness discovered.

some players might need longer to develope,some will be given time then it depends if they can respond,others will find themselves without a number!!

so something to play for....

 

If we got less points as last year,but kept all our good players and built around them,I'd take 10th and 2-4 points less!!!

But why not be greedy and have it all...That above plus 8-7th with +points than last season!!!

 

We've improved our defence significantly but lost a source of around 20-25 goals which about evens itself out. There is no way I'd accept less points than last season as that would see us return less than 16 points in the final 17 games which would see this place in disarray. A lot of fans want him gone already, relegation form once again would have this place resembling a loony bin.

[FoxFossil]

19 minutes ago, PhillippaT said:

Can Puel progress the points and position the Premier League provides, compared to our previous annual points and position, or will Puel potentially pick problematic plans and players performing poorly, plummeting the club towards the precipice?

This is taking the P.

[Trav Le Bleu]

7 hours ago, Babylon said:

One more point than last season.

It's not even that though is it? We could get more points and lose more games (by drawing less). We could also finish lower in the league with more points or higher in the league with less points?

 

It's not really about points. It's not about anything remotely like that. 

 

So how do you measure it? How do you measure pride? How do you measure ability? How do you measure commitment? How do you measure potential? You don't. If you could, football would be like the old 80s computer game, Football Manager (the Kevin Toms one), where everything was given a numerical value, added together, and the team with the highest number won the match.

 

Thank goodness football isn't actually like that (and anyone who thinks it is... )

 

Football is about performance, feeling, intuition, perception and other things that can't be assigned constant values. Any speculation about anything that can be taken from comparisons of these values when under different circumstances (different teams at different times of the year in a different order) will tell you nothing of worth.

 

It might make for a diverting thread, but ultimately, there will be no great revelations or insights. The only way that will happen is let time do its job.

 

And even then, it won't be the points that tell you if we're making progress or not.

 

 

 

[zealot]

Whatever it takes to be 7th or above. Points irrelevant...

[fuchsntf]

45 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We've improved our defence significantly but lost a source of around 20-25 goals which about evens itself out. There is no way I'd accept less points than last season as that would see us return less than 16 points in the final 17 games which would see this place in disarray. A lot of fans want him gone already, relegation form once again would have this place resembling a loony bin.

Yeh...too true.!..We Puel supporters have a hard life...sitting on the fence gives one a sore posteria!! 

[Babylon]

50 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

It's not even that though is it? We could get more points and lose more games (by drawing less). We could also finish lower in the league with more points or higher in the league with less points?

 

It's not really about points. It's not about anything remotely like that. 

 

So how do you measure it? How do you measure pride? How do you measure ability? How do you measure commitment? How do you measure potential? You don't. If you could, football would be like the old 80s computer game, Football Manager (the Kevin Toms one), where everything was given a numerical value, added together, and the team with the highest number won the match.

 

Thank goodness football isn't actually like that (and anyone who thinks it is... )

 

Football is about performance, feeling, intuition, perception and other things that can't be assigned constant values. Any speculation about anything that can be taken from comparisons of these values when under different circumstances (different teams at different times of the year in a different order) will tell you nothing of worth.

 

It might make for a diverting thread, but ultimately, there will be no great revelations or insights. The only way that will happen is let time do its job.

 

And even then, it won't be the points that tell you if we're making progress or not.

 

 

 

Confucius says... 

[fuchsntf]

11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Confucius says... 

Shit!!!  I understood what he said..

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Confucius says... 

Man with itchy bum wake up with smelly finger?

[Guest]

18 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Sick & tired of all the childish nonsense I keep reading, so I've gone for a poll that uses a potential points total as a barometer here. 

 

Pick your total and please give your considered reasons - let's see if we can avoid destructive non-arguments...'yeah but style of play' opinions are of course taken as read, I think/hope we can all agree we'd like to see lots of goals and liquid football in a perfect world.

Maybe a points poll is just as childish. 

 

I don't see how points total can indicate progression.

[HighPeakFox]

9 hours ago, FIF said:

Maybe a points poll is just as childish. 

 

I don't see how points total can indicate progression.

What an odd thing to suggest. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I would say I was being very simplistic rather than childish(and deliberately so), as I wanted to do a poll with closed answers to avoid the inevitable hateful stuff if I'd asked an open question on the same subject, without using points as a metric.

 

I would also agree that it is a limited metric, but given that that is how league positions are determined, it doesn't seem unreasonable to gauge opinion that way. 

[filbertway]

On 08/01/2019 at 14:15, AKCJ said:

7th is progress IMO.

 

We should have finished 8th last season, we should be finishing 7th this season.

Would you say our squad is objectively better than Everton, West Ham and Wolves then?

 

Big shout.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

What an odd thing to suggest. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I would say I was being very simplistic rather than childish(and deliberately so), as I wanted to do a poll with closed answers to avoid the inevitable hateful stuff if I'd asked an open question on the same subject, without using points as a metric.

 

I would also agree that it is a limited metric, but given that that is how league positions are determined, it doesn't seem unreasonable to gauge opinion that way. 

Yes, your suggestion was rather odd.

 

As if the number of points indicates progression. Your justification merely obfuscates the matter as even though points determine league position, the number of points this year probably don't indicate the same position as last year. If you want to talk about league position why not ask which league position constitues progress this year.

 

However the fundamental problem with your question is not the poorly chosen metric but the lack of a definition of progress. What is progress when related to your question? Is it finishing higher? Is it playing better? Is it the integration of new team members? or the improvement of individuals or the "new" team that didn't exist last season? Is it the search for a new way of playing? a new formation? Is it more enjoyable football? More attacking football, more defensive football? Should I go on?

 

Your question just seems to be a waste of time. A waste of space. The fulfillment of a personal need. Maybe it was another way to get into a Puel debate, I really don't know.

 

If you prefer the poll to be called simplistic instead of childish I'll give you that point, happily.

 

To me it is simply a very strange and unanswerable question.

 

I'll go with Douglas Adams and say 42.

[AKCJ]

20 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Would you say our squad is objectively better than Everton, West Ham and Wolves then?

 

Big shout.

Definitley.

 

Of those only Everton's is close.

[STUHILL]

24 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Would you say our squad is objectively better than Everton, West Ham and Wolves then?

 

Big shout.

I think the starting 11 we can put out with players like Vardy, Maguire, Ricardo, Chilwell etc is currently stronger than West Ham and Wolves, although I have us just behind Everton on paper. I admit though that it is a close run thing between us 4. 

 

I think 8th is on par with the starting 11 we can put out, baring injuries to key players like Vardy and co. If we finish there of even 7th, Puel has done well but it is what I expect from this team on paper.

[HighPeakFox]

55 minutes ago, FIF said:

Yes, your suggestion was rather odd.

 

As if the number of points indicates progression. Your justification merely obfuscates the matter as even though points determine league position, the number of points this year probably don't indicate the same position as last year. If you want to talk about league position why not ask which league position constitues progress this year.

 

However the fundamental problem with your question is not the poorly chosen metric but the lack of a definition of progress. What is progress when related to your question? Is it finishing higher? Is it playing better? Is it the integration of new team members? or the improvement of individuals or the "new" team that didn't exist last season? Is it the search for a new way of playing? a new formation? Is it more enjoyable football? More attacking football, more defensive football? Should I go on?

 

Your question just seems to be a waste of time. A waste of space. The fulfillment of a personal need. Maybe it was another way to get into a Puel debate, I really don't know.

 

If you prefer the poll to be called simplistic instead of childish I'll give you that point, happily.

 

To me it is simply a very strange and unanswerable question.

 

I'll go with Douglas Adams and say 42.

You are nothing if not unnecessarily argumentative, FIF. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

You are nothing if not unnecessarily argumentative, FIF. 

But far less often than I used to be.

 

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, FIF said:

But far less often than I used to be.

 

I'm pleased to hear that. We generally get on, please don't waste your limited posts on someone like me.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I'm pleased to hear that. We generally get on, please don't waste your limited posts on someone like me.

You are an inelligent man. They're never wasted on you.

 

I thought you'd see the humour. Failed again - that's my real problem.

[HighPeakFox]

18 minutes ago, FIF said:

You are an inelligent man. They're never wasted on you.

 

I thought you'd see the humour. Failed again - that's my real problem.

The 42 bit, yes. The rest seems a bit - well - unnecessary. People can decide if using points is trite or inadequate if they so wish, and there is space for people to speak their minds about what truly constitutes progress, it really isn't my place to dictate that. I hoped it would be a starting point for a reasonable conversation, and by and large, it has succeeded in that aim.

Edited 9 January 2019 by HighPeakFox

[Mike Oxlong]

2 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

You are nothing if not unnecessarily argumentative, FIF. 

Nice use of idiom 

[murphy]

We interrupt this thread for an important news flash.

 

If you watch celebrity antique road trip on BBC 1 now, I'm on it.  I'm the handsome chap buying some spoons from Bananarama.

 

 

As you were.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, murphy said:

We interrupt this thread for an important news flash.

 

If you watch celebrity antique road trip on BBC 1 now, I'm on it.  I'm the handsome chap buying some spoons from Bananarama.

 

 

As you were.

The fella with the short back and sides wearing a blue t-shirt with a picture of a huskey on it?

[murphy]

1 minute ago, Izzy said:

The fella with the short back and sides wearing a blue t-shirt with a picture of a huskey on it?

Yeah.  Like I said.  The handsome chap...

 

(Maybe that was a bit of a stretch).

 

Short back and sides?  Cheeky sod.  I'll have you know I cut my own hair with clippers.  

 

I was a bit disappointed that I didn't feature more.  I did a lot of stategic lurking to get camera time and plenty of chat with the auctioneer which was all edited out.  I only bought those bloomin spoons to get on telly.

[Izzy]

11 minutes ago, murphy said:

Yeah.  Like I said.  The handsome chap...

 

(Maybe that was a bit of a stretch).

 

Short back and sides?  Cheeky sod.  I'll have you know I cut my own hair with clippers.  

 

I was a bit disappointed that I didn't feature more.  I did a lot of stategic lurking to get camera time and plenty of chat with the auctioneer which was all edited out.  I only bought those bloomin spoons to get on telly.

And you got ripped off by a fiver 

 

At least you saw Bananarama though and that's worth at least a fiver  (although they're more like Patsy and Eddy from Ab Fab these days )

Edited 9 January 2019 by Izzy

[murphy]

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

And you got ripped off by a fiver 

 

At least you saw Bananarama though and that's worth at least a fiver  (although they're more like Patsy and Eddy from Ab Fab these days )

Ah, but I sold them for £95 

 

I got the girls' autographs and sold them with the spoons too.  Bananarama provenance!

 

 

 

 

err... but anyway, I reckon 55 points would be a good target for progress.