Discussion in 'The Hornets' Nest - Watford Chat' started by Sting, Aug 12, 2019.
So what are the signs to look out for then?
That was a year ago Mike. It's not as though a randon 4 good games over the season have been excluded. 35 games is a pretty good indicator of form. I doubt we will be able to match that 4 game winning run.
At the risk of sounding slightly autistic I've just done some sums. Since the start of 2015/16 we've played 152 EPL games and from those games we've taken 176 points. That's just over 1 point per game. So whatever random sample of results you choose to support the contention that we're not very good, the fact is our average points yield per 10 game sequence has remained pretty consistent for four seasons. Like everyone else we have good runs and losing streaks but overall our points gained column is steady. I don't see that anything has changed to warrant not expecting more of the same this year.
Yeah but that doesn't fit the narrative which has become very very familiar all of a sudden.
Could you go back to the 1980's and include the points totals when we were in the top flight, just to give the fullest picture possible?
Life is how you edit it.
Football didn't begin with the immediate pre Prem period.
So is 39.
Good point.....which is more than we'll get at Everton.
Give me half an hour...
A nailed on 44 points each season.
Who says the Prem isn't exciting?
I did a whole thread just after the FA Cup on it.
It’s just my opinion, it’s fine if folks don’t agree.
And May was 3 months ago, but that's not stopping people from using those games to make a point.
What's the statute of limitations on using the results of games to draw conclusions?
The honourable thing to do would be for Gino to offer our relegation now. Save everybody the embarrassment. We’ve already held the world record for lowest points total ever so we may as well set a new world record. Zero points.
Watford, and all associated with it, are just born losers,
Do you really think that including those 4 games during which we averaged 3 points a game, which bear no similarity with the ups and down since, which shocked the hell out of all of us, must be included because the 35 games since otherwise gives a misleading view ?
Correct. Much closer than 12 months ago eh ?
More representative to chop out the games we played after work winning the semi. All smaller teams lose those in anticipation of the final.
Anyway, much of what WFC do shocks the hell out of me.
You made the same cogent point but before me.
"Closer" is somewhat relative when you're talking about months versus more months.
As far as I'm concerned, neither is particularly relevant to today's form, especially when crossing seasons, spanning competitions and ignoring pre-season games.
Ok we disagree. Not much point debating any further. Either way, for whatever reason, we've been on a poor run for a long time and the first game this season has played out in line with how 18/19 ended rather than those results from a year ago when 18/19 started.
I'm also in this camp. I get why statisticians who deal solely in numbers are unconcerned by things like the end of a season, the summer break, various transfers and a handful of different clubs leaving/entering a league. 'X has played 250 games in a row' clearly isn't possible without doing that. But surely fans know those things are all major influences? Stitching together some sort of run of losses (or wins, as the case sometimes is) dating back into last season is pretty dubious. The season started last week. If we end up in the relegation mix after 10 games, it isn't going to be because someone at Premier League HQ is also tacking the results from the end of last season onto our total.
I don't there's anything dubious with reviewing a sequence of results together from last season and this. If you are going to ignore recent trends, you may as well ignore last week and think we'll batter Everton because we're in good form. You need to get your run of form from somewhere. I think it's a valid thing to do, to look back and see what the trend is. If we're on a losing run, and in our case a run of absolute thrashings, then you cannot bury your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening.
Going back 2 or 3 years could be seen as dubious, but right now, it's the same players (all bar Dawson), same coaching set up, so it's perfectly reasonable to reflect back on past results and use it as some sort of measure.
We have conceded 214 goals in our last 124 matches. That's an average of 1.7 goals per game!! An extraordinarily high total.
This underlines our problem. We are far too easy to score against. If teams keep getting cheap goals, and a lot of them are down to basic mistakes, then it stands to reason that we are going to be held back as a team.
Welbeck, Sarr, Deulofeu, Pereyra, Deeney and Gray. For a club like Watford, who operate on modest means, that's a terrific array of talent. That's top 10 for sure.
In midfield we have Doucoure, Capoue, Hughes, Cleverley, Quina, Chalobah, Dele-Bashiru. Again that's pretty strong and way better than most outside of the top six.
The defence though is a real problem. I'm not sure why this has been so neglected, when the evidence is there for all to see, and has been from virtually day one. As a defensive unit, I struggle to find a side with less effective players than us. Most clubs, even the promoted ones, have at least one player you could say is of good Premier League quality.
I just don't see how it can be a 'recent trend' if the last game in the sequence before last Saturday was 12 weeks earlier. If you're patient, the run of form you're looking to establish will become apparent after 5 or 6 games. There's no need to dip back into last season.
And we might have the same players, coach etc. But Brighton didn't. They have a coach with a totally different style and approach and brought players off the bench who weren't available them last season. The equation has changed over the 12 weeks off.
I'm not burying my head at all. I just recognise that when it comes to deciding the things that actually matter - like, how the Premier League determines league positions - events from last season don't count.
You forgot Ken Sema
what's the point in comparing this season with last? The main point is that all our players - especially the defence and goalie - are older and shytter than last season and some of them are clearly past the age of no return: foster, holebas, deeney (body of a 37 year old) etc etc.
We're doomed because we have freshened up an ageing squad with a relegation-specialist defender, a sick note, and an unproven kid.
If you're using the argument of time, I don't think a few months in between really makes too much difference in our particular case. A league is run over 9 months and it all counts from August to May. You may as well discount Saturday, as it was a few days ago now.
You cannot factor in the opposition, as that is a variable you cannot control.
The reason I say it is a valid comparison to use, is because so very little has changed at Watford in terms of players that took the field on Saturday. Had we been Villa, and the entire team was changed over the summer, then yes, form from last season would be totally irrelevant. But we have the same side (apart from Dawson), playing a Premier League standard opponent. We've not gone up or down a league and didn't have a load of new players to integrate.
Well, you reminded me again......damn you.
You obviously disagree with Gino then. He has fired coaches over the summer as he's worried about the exiting form from once season running into the starting form of the following season. That is why QSF and Mazza were dispensed with. You need to tell him not to worry and that the summer break means that everyone starts with a clean sheet and the form of the last 10-15 games of the prior season are now irrelevant and have no bearing on anything going forward. I'm not sure you'll convince him...or far less importantly, me .
Agreed. The morale of the players and confidence in the coach will be affected by how they have played over the last 10-15 games, not the fact they won 4 games in a row a year ago or that they've had a nice summer holiday. If we'd finished last season on a high, any early defeat or two would be just brushed off. The fact that we ended last season on a downer means that the defeat on Saturday is less easy to just dismiss mentally as "one of those things". There have been too many "of those things" in the last dozen or so games.
That's the second time you've said that and it's still complete ballocks and totally irrelevant to the points I've made.
I understand how that conveniently makes your argument stronger but I'm afraid it's also complete ballocks. No one says you have to control that variable. You just have to recognise it exists and account for it before rushing to judgement.
Let's face facts. People only ever stitch together results over separate seasons when they have an agenda. Either they want to show how bad the manager/a team is or how great they are. If the form is just middling you never ever see fans do it.
And if you think Gino's sat there taking such a simplistic approach to understanding where we're at, I'm not even going to attempt to convince you otherwise
HB1 suggested we are a 40+ points a season club. His stats 38 from 35 is just over 41. Lloyd's counter argument is we have achieved 176 from 152. That equates to 44 points per season. So this whole argument has developed over 3 points - one win in a season. I think we all accept last season's 50 points was us at or near our best. After Saturday I am not confident that is us this season and expect us to revert more to type (which I think was roughly HB1's argument in the first place).
If we can repeat a four win run at some stage - hopefully sooner rather than later - then maybe we can have another good season. At the moment my bet is not on that. I think we will struggle unless the new signings come in quickly and well - and we stop thinking Deeney is a magician.
So if a team were to lose their last 10 games in a season in a row, but avoid any damage to their season as a whole and stay up - and the chairman thinks I will stick with the manager - but then start the following season with 5 losses and a draw for instance - and the tactics remain the same...are you suggesting the 10 games lost in the previous season are irrelevant and should be discounted when looking at the poor start?
I think the reality is that their is truth in both sides of looking at it. But I don’t agree that a poor finish to a season should be forgotten about if the form and same mistakes seemingly carry over.
When form is middling we tend not to look back as it does not tell us much - it is only on good and bad runs that we look for trends to help understand it. At the start of a season it is only possible to look at a trend by going back to the last one. I suspect that after Christmas we will not need to look at the last 5 games from last year because we will have sufficient from this year to judge.
I think the results and form over the last 15 or so games is exactly the starting point he uses to assess where we are at. I don't think he "zero's the clock" at the time of the summer break or takes into account results from 12 months ago. If you do, that's fine, we're both guessing.