Just how bad is our start?

[ferrarilover]

With all this nonsense about us being relegated already on the basis of 9 points from the first 10 games, I thought I'd have a look and see how that stacks up historically against teams who did, in fact, end up going down.

I should point out that I don't really think this is worthy of its own thread, but I couldn't see anywhere else appropriate that it might go. I should also say that, after a mere 10 games, the table doesn't necessarily reflect the true order of things. Nor does it take account of the relative level of performances offered by the teams involved. However, I can only work with what I've got (or can be bothered to find in a reasonable time on Google.)

2012/13
Aldershot went down having scored 8 points in their first 10 league games, Barnet with 2.

2011/12
Hereford - 6
Macclesfield - 11

2010/11
Lincoln - 8
Stockport - 11

2009/10
Grimsby - 10
Darlington - 2

2008/09
I wrote off this season, given all the nonsense involving Luton and others and their points deductions.

2007/08
Wrexham - 9
Mansfield - 4

2006/07
Torquay - 17
Boston - 7

So, we see that of 12 sides mentioned here, only four have scored more than 9 points in their first 10 games. Of those, each had significant troubles to contend with. Torquay had the Roberts scandal. Grimsby went 20th Sept 2009 - 5th March 2010 without winning a game, a sequence of 24 matches. Stockport became the first club ever to be relegated from tier 3 to tier 6 in one fell swoop, and they haven't looked like getting back up since, indicating a club rotten to the core and in dire need of starting again. Macclesfield were doing fine in 2011, but they didn't win a match between 1st Jan 2012 - the end of that season, a run of 25 matches.

So we see that our points total is indicative of a team which will not be relegated. We certainly aren't a club in the sorry state of Stockport or ourselves in 2006/07. Those who have seen all our games this season will certainly agree that we don't look anything like a side which will go half a season or more without winning a match.

As I say, this isn't proof positive, I'm not saying "we're too good to go down", but to those suggesting that we're already down and that the only answer is to sack Knill etc, I suggest that history, in this limited sense, is at least in our favour and that our start really isn't anything like as bad as it could have been.

Matt.

[popside bob]

We are not as bad as people think. I have been looking at the stats for our 12 games and we’ve had exactly the same amount of shots on target as the opposition 53-53. We have almost the same total shots as well 124-133. The only bad stat we have is goals for 11 against 19, 4 coming in the same game. We are not far away from being a good team. I think when we’re at full strength we will be fine.

[hector]

We are not as bad as people think. I have been looking at the stats for our 12 games and we’ve had exactly the same amount of shots on target as the opposition 53-53. We have almost the same total shots as well 124-133. The only bad stat we have is goals for 11 against 19, 4 coming in the same game. We are not far away from being a good team. I think when we’re at full strength we will be fine.

Yes, inconvenient statistic aren't they, goals? If only they didn't count and then Matt and the other deluded can say we are top of the league really.

[ferrarilover]

Blimey Bob, you've got more time on your hands than I have. Where did you find the shots stats? I've said for a while now that I reckon we concede goals from a higher percentage of shots on target faced than other sides and your post certainly hasn't made me believe otherwise. We've lost three games this season already where the opposition have scored with every shot on target they've had. We're a clinical finisher away from being a decent enough side, perhaps time to see if Benyon can add that element? Initially, I did think Hawley might be the man, but something with him just isn't right at present.

Matt.

[tomogull]

With all this nonsense about us being relegated already on the basis of 9 points from the first 10 games, I thought I'd have a look and see how that stacks up historically against teams who did, in fact, end up going down.

I should point out that I don't really think this is worthy of its own thread, but I couldn't see anywhere else appropriate that it might go. I should also say that, after a mere 10 games, the table doesn't necessarily reflect the true order of things. Nor does it take account of the relative level of performances offered by the teams involved. However, I can only work with what I've got (or can be bothered to find in a reasonable time on Google.)

2012/13
Aldershot went down having scored 8 points in their first 10 league games, Barnet with 2.

2011/12
Hereford - 6
Macclesfield - 11

2010/11
Lincoln - 8
Stockport - 11

2009/10
Grimsby - 10
Darlington - 2

2008/09
I wrote off this season, given all the nonsense involving Luton and others and their points deductions.

2007/08
Wrexham - 9
Mansfield - 4

2006/07
Torquay - 17
Boston - 7

So, we see that of 12 sides mentioned here, only four have scored more than 9 points in their first 10 games. Of those, each had significant troubles to contend with. Torquay had the Roberts scandal. Grimsby went 20th Sept 2009 - 5th March 2010 without winning a game, a sequence of 24 matches. Stockport became the first club ever to be relegated from tier 3 to tier 6 in one fell swoop, and they haven't looked like getting back up since, indicating a club rotten to the core and in dire need of starting again. Macclesfield were doing fine in 2011, but they didn't win a match between 1st Jan 2012 - the end of that season, a run of 25 matches.

So we see that our points total is indicative of a team which will not be relegated. We certainly aren't a club in the sorry state of Stockport or ourselves in 2006/07. Those who have seen all our games this season will certainly agree that we don't look anything like a side which will go half a season or more without winning a match.

As I say, this isn't proof positive, I'm not saying "we're too good to go down", but to those suggesting that we're already down and that the only answer is to sack Knill etc, I suggest that history, in this limited sense, is at least in our favour and that our start really isn't anything like as bad as it could have been.

Matt.

Hang on, Matt - you've got me scratching my head. I am confident that we won't be dragged into a relegation struggle this season but I'm not so bliddy confident after reading your interesting research. What you have proved is that you can prove anything with statistics. What your stats show is that in five of the six seasons you have quoted, after 10 games the team relegated in 23rd place has had 9 or more points. Only last season did Aldershot have less - 8 points (although they finished bottom and Barnet rallied to 23rd place). Matt, I've said it before - politics beckons for you !

[ferrarilover]

Haha, I did admit in the OP that the stats here were largely meaningless, but it was just nice to see that our start really needn't be terminal. There were fairly extreme circumstances involved in all those who went down with more than the magic 9 points.

That said, if it shows anything, it shows the damage which can be done by off field turmoil. To have a thoroughly healthy 17 points after 10 games and STILL get relegated bottom of the division is really quite spectacular.

Matt.

[Lloyder5]

Of course it doesn't prove or predict anything. But I saw it as an attempt to suggest to some of our more negative friends they can haul the white flag down, find some testicles (our women supporters tend to be a bit more positive, I've noticed) and dig in for the fight!

[Dave]

Consistency comes from having team stability, so far due to illness, injuries and now call ups Alan Knill has not been able to pick what must of us would deem the best 11, also means as yet we have not had a period of games with anything like a settled team.

No body is pretending our start has been a good one, far from it, the positive however; there are still 36 games to play and plenty of time to fix things. Stick with it.

[tomogull]

Consistency comes from having team stability, so far due to illness, injuries and now call ups Alan Knill has not been able to pick what must of us would deem the best 11, also means as yet we have not had a period of games with anything like a settled team.

No body is pretending our start has been a good one, far from it, the positive however; there are still 36 games to play and plenty of time to fix things. Stick with it.

I admire your positivity Forever and yes, we do have to remain positive. I think we will be okay although not finishing in the top half of the table as I thought we would at the start of the season. You talk about team stability/illness etc and yes, it is a factor. But look a few miles up the road - Exeter have had injury problems since day 1 and where are they in the league? It's more than team stability. Ten games in, I have two major concerns - (1) Alan Knill's seeming inability to change things around when the game plan isn't working (i.e. no Plan B) and (2) Lack of team spirit/working for each other - I don't quite know how to put it into words, but something is lacking. I was reading a bit yesterday written by Harry Redknapp about last season at QPR. He said "It doesn't matter how good a player is technically, without desire, he is nothing". Maybe that's what I'm seeing this season - no desire. But we will remain positive and hope this mythical corner we're going to turn will arrive soon

[brucie]

All the statistics in the world mean nothing really. Over the first ten games Knill had a stronger squad to pick from than he has now. That may not be his fault of course - he cannot help injuries.
Of course we may win loads of games in the next ten and there won't be a problem.
However with the absence of key players that seems pretty unlikely.
Noone can argue that the team is weaker than it was in the first ten games - you only have to look at the central defence for starters.
So will we get more than nine points in the next ten games? - I personally don't think we will, we have no money and are dependant on nineteen year old inexperienced loan signings to get us out of the mire.

[brucie]

Tomogull makes an excellent point. We got hammered at Fleetwood and much was made of what a great side they were blah blah blah and how we could not be expected to compete with them.
A couple of weeks later Exeter went up there - couldn't fill their subs bench due to injuries and won.
They had as many players missing as we will have on Saturday and beat a better team than Wycombe.
It is exactly right - there is something lacking somewhere it is an altogether fair point.

[tomogull]

Tomogull makes an excellent point. We got hammered at Fleetwood and much was made of what a great side they were blah blah blah and how we could not be expected to compete with them.
A couple of weeks later Exeter went up there - couldn't fill their subs bench due to injuries and won.
They had as many players missing as we will have on Saturday and beat a better team than Wycombe.
It is exactly right - there is something lacking somewhere it is an altogether fair point.

I've just remembered - Andy summed it up perfectly in one of his posts - a lack of 'oomph'. That's what's missing.

[wodger of awabia]

All the statistics in the world mean nothing really. Over the first ten games Knill had a stronger squad to pick from than he has now. That may not be his fault of course - he cannot help injuries.
Of course we may win loads of games in the next ten and there won't be a problem.
However with the absence of key players that seems pretty unlikely.
Noone can argue that the team is weaker than it was in the first ten games - you only have to look at the central defence for starters.
So will we get more than nine points in the next ten games? - I personally don't think we will, we have no money and are dependant on nineteen year old inexperienced loan signings to get us out of the mire.

Don't know but I would guess that we will only get 3 points in Oct. ( a win against Mansfield ), if this is the case then we will most likely be in one of the relegation places at the end of the month.Of course because this is football we might win all of the rest of our Oct. games with Benyon ending the month as the leagues top scorer.........sh#t I forgot Knill does not play him, he signed him to warm the bench with his arse!

[Lloyder5]

I do agree that 'oomph' needs to be found somewhere. It may come from our 19 year old loanee defender, when I saw him play he looked pretty good, but that is probably too much to ask, but combined with Pearce's physicality, his obvious skills will add to the team. It may come from us supporters getting behind the team or senior players 'sorting' out any differences and grinding out results. Or it may come from working out how to use Azeez's pace and power more consistently throughout the game, which our sniffer, Benyon could benefit from. Who knows, but there is capacity for change.

[PhilGull]

Consistency comes from having team stability, so far due to illness, injuries and now call ups Alan Knill has not been able to pick what must of us would deem the best 11, also means as yet we have not had a period of games with anything like a settled team.

No body is pretending our start has been a good one, far from it, the positive however; there are still 36 games to play and plenty of time to fix things. Stick with it.

With the exception of Pokey up until the last couple of games AK has picked his favoured 11 in every game. This is what has caused so much of the displeasure aimed at him.