I thought this was worthy of a topic in its own right. This info is repeated on another thread as a comment.

OUR FORM under Feeney (League games only):

PLAYED..............................22
WON.....................................6
DRAWN................................5
LOST....................................11
Goals FOR...........................16
Goals AGAINST....................25
Goal DIFF.............................(-9)
POINTS................................23

Points per game = 1.045 = pts for a full season: 48 (This would see us finish 21st, 9 pts clear of relegation if it were based on THIS season's form)

Win percentage = 27.2%

Percentage of available points
collected................................23 pts from a possible 66 = 34.8%

Longest winning run...................2 games
Longest losing run......................6 games
Clean sheets...............................5
Highest winning margin...............3 goals
Highest losing margin.................3 goals

So, statistically speaking, had Warren Feeney been in charge for a whole season, we'd have probably stayed up, with room to spare.

Has any team stayed up on 39 points, seams a bit low?

daftasfxxx wrote:Has any team stayed up on 39 points, seams a bit low?

We'd have had 48 pts over the full season, based on his form.

This season, as it stands, 44* pts are required to stay up without needing Goal Diff to come into play.

EDIT: * changed to 44 when the final scores of today's games are known

daftasfxxx wrote:Has any team stayed up on 39 points, seams a bit low?

We stayed up under him with 43 and were 9 clear so we could have survived on 35,amazingly.

What your crude statistical analysis fails to take into account is the cumulative effect of losing games. Anyone who had the misfortune to attend any of the games under Feeney would tell you is that we were a poor side that was getting poorer from match to match. There is no way we would have done anything under Feeney other than finish bottom by a considerable margin.

I would interested in seeing what your statistics say about the other two terrible managers we've endured in recent seasons - Butcher and Westley. Which one comes out worse under your microscope?

wattsville_boy wrote:What your crude statistical analysis fails to take into account is the cumulative effect of losing games. Anyone who had the misfortune to attend any of the games under Feeney would tell you is that we were a poor side that was getting poorer from match to match. There is no way we would have done anything under Feeney other than finish bottom by a considerable margin.

I would interested in seeing what your statistics say about the other two terrible managers we've endured in recent seasons - Butcher and Westley. Which one comes out worse under your microscope?

Well some time ago, I did a topic called, 'The Westley era in numbers'....just summarising his tenure.