So Malky wouldng have kept us up either

Sparky 43 minus 18 equals 25 not 28.

Thats not a handful and neither can they be classed as merely bonus points when they make up 41% of their tally.


I have explained how Wigan done a "Sunderland" 2 years ago but if you want to apply a different logic to suit your own agenda you crack on

Quite the opposite sparky, if everything went according to the guide book then the bookies would go bankrupt.

On paper there should be more chance, yes, in reality this is far from the case, hence it is almost impossible to make a decent profit punting in football.

f**k me, by your logic, just put the best team down at home to win the game, accy up 5 or 6 and bash the bookies every week.

In reality it dont work like that does it?

Not true actually. Bookies make loads of money by offering lower than market rates on short priced favourites that win by trading against their liability. A bookie always wins unless there odds are incorrect (and then they normally just palp the bet) which they are not so your theory is nonsense.

We are not talking horse racing here. We are talking a 3 way football market.
if all the bookies are offering lower than market odds then who do they trade the liability off against?
Especially on accys?

If everything went to the guidebook as your suggesting the bookies would be out of business and have no-one to trade off against

Betting exchanges.

They wouldnt exist if everything went to the guidebook

Sparky 43 minus 18 equals 25 not 28.

Thats not a handful and neither can they be classed as merely bonus points when they make up 41% of their tally.


I have explained how Wigan done a "Sunderland" 2 years ago but if you want to apply a different logic to suit your own agenda you crack on

43 minus 18 does equal 25 not 28 but if you actually look at the results for the season you will see they got 28 points against bottom 11 and 15 against top 9 as I have stated. This is only 35% and similar to Stoke or villa this season not Sunderland who got 55% of their points so far against top 9 which is a hugely rare occurrence that you claim Wigan have done many times.

Sparky 43 minus 18 equals 25 not 28.

Thats not a handful and neither can they be classed as merely bonus points when they make up 41% of their tally.


I have explained how Wigan done a "Sunderland" 2 years ago but if you want to apply a different logic to suit your own agenda you crack on

43 minus 18 does equal 25 not 28 but if you actually look at the results for the season you will see they got 28 points against bottom 11 and 15 against top 9 as I have stated. This is only 35% and similar to Stoke or villa this season not Sunderland who got 55% of their points so far against top 9 which is a hugely rare occurrence that you claim Wigan have done many times.

We are both wrong they took 24 v bottom half and 19 v top half. 44% of their total tally and not a mere handful
For f**k sake sparky if you are going to split the table in half at least split it at the right place 10 and 10 and not 9 and 11 : wouldnt have anything to do with the 4 points they picked up against 10th place west brom not suiting your agend a would it

Sparky 43 minus 18 equals 25 not 28.

Thats not a handful and neither can they be classed as merely bonus points when they make up 41% of their tally.


I have explained how Wigan done a "Sunderland" 2 years ago but if you want to apply a different logic to suit your own agenda you crack on

43 minus 18 does equal 25 not 28 but if you actually look at the results for the season you will see they got 28 points against bottom 11 and 15 against top 9 as I have stated. This is only 35% and similar to Stoke or villa this season not Sunderland who got 55% of their points so far against top 9 which is a hugely rare occurrence that you claim Wigan have done many times.

We are both wrong they took 24 v bottom half and 19 v top half. 44% of their total tally and not a mere handful
For f**k sake sparky if you are going to split the table in half at least split it at the right place 10 and 10 and not 9 and 11 : wouldnt have anything to do with the 4 points they picked up against 10th place west brom not suiting your agend a would it

Keep up CF47 that is exactly what I have been saying. They got 28 points from worst ten clubs as I said. I choose 10 because targeting 10 wins and 10 draws gets you to the magic 40 points mark, choosing the worst 9 would get you targeting a completely unmagical 36 points. There are 19 other teams in the league you can't split 19 into 10 and 10

Sparky 43 minus 18 equals 25 not 28.

Thats not a handful and neither can they be classed as merely bonus points when they make up 41% of their tally.


I have explained how Wigan done a "Sunderland" 2 years ago but if you want to apply a different logic to suit your own agenda you crack on

43 minus 18 does equal 25 not 28 but if you actually look at the results for the season you will see they got 28 points against bottom 11 and 15 against top 9 as I have stated. This is only 35% and similar to Stoke or villa this season not Sunderland who got 55% of their points so far against top 9 which is a hugely rare occurrence that you claim Wigan have done many times.

We are both wrong they took 24 v bottom half and 19 v top half. 44% of their total tally and not a mere handful
For f**k sake sparky if you are going to split the table in half at least split it at the right place 10 and 10 and not 9 and 11 : wouldnt have anything to do with the 4 points they picked up against 10th place west brom not suiting your agend a would it

You have spent most of the day still digging yourself into that hole you created earlier. I reckon if you had worked for euro tunnel then they would have competed the tunnel crossing in half the time.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Obviously no one could predict anything but going buy the position we were in with the results we had/better fixtures we were going to have you cant say we would of got relegated with him.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Obviously no one could predict anything but going buy the position we were in with the results we had/better fixtures we were going to have you cant say we would of got relegated with him.

Are you kidding me? You can't say? I wouldn't of seen us winning a game let alone staying up.

Sparky 43 minus 18 equals 25 not 28.

Thats not a handful and neither can they be classed as merely bonus points when they make up 41% of their tally.


I have explained how Wigan done a "Sunderland" 2 years ago but if you want to apply a different logic to suit your own agenda you crack on

43 minus 18 does equal 25 not 28 but if you actually look at the results for the season you will see they got 28 points against bottom 11 and 15 against top 9 as I have stated. This is only 35% and similar to Stoke or villa this season not Sunderland who got 55% of their points so far against top 9 which is a hugely rare occurrence that you claim Wigan have done many times.

We are both wrong they took 24 v bottom half and 19 v top half. 44% of their total tally and not a mere handful
For f**k sake sparky if you are going to split the table in half at least split it at the right place 10 and 10 and not 9 and 11 : wouldnt have anything to do with the 4 points they picked up against 10th place west brom not suiting your agend a would it

You have spent most of the day still digging yourself into that hole you created earlier. I reckon if you had worked for euro tunnel then they would have competed the tunnel crossing in half the time.

If I was digging and had a spade in my hand I would smash you over the head with it.

Malky had won 6 of his last 30 games in charge of CCFC, yet some are saying we would have suddenly gone on a winning spree in the second half of the season

Malky had won 6 of his last 30 games in charge of CCFC, yet some are saying we would have suddenly gone on a winning spree in the second half of the season

Craig you are not taking into account that regardless of form, quality of squad and where the fixtures land we would beat all teams in the bottom half at home no questions asked.

Malky had won 6 of his last 30 games in charge of CCFC, yet some are saying we would have suddenly gone on a winning spree in the second half of the season

Craig you are not taking into account that regardless of form, quality of squad and where the fixtures land we would beat all teams in the bottom half at home no questions asked.

how stupid of me, its plainly obvious thats what would have happened

f**k me this could go on and on. They both have to take a portion of the blame. Ole was here and took us down so obviously shoulders blame. But when all is said and done our players were not good enough and after spending the most money in our history, Malky needs to shoulder some blame also.

Sparky 43 minus 18 equals 25 not 28.

Thats not a handful and neither can they be classed as merely bonus points when they make up 41% of their tally.


I have explained how Wigan done a "Sunderland" 2 years ago but if you want to apply a different logic to suit your own agenda you crack on

43 minus 18 does equal 25 not 28 but if you actually look at the results for the season you will see they got 28 points against bottom 11 and 15 against top 9 as I have stated. This is only 35% and similar to Stoke or villa this season not Sunderland who got 55% of their points so far against top 9 which is a hugely rare occurrence that you claim Wigan have done many times.

We are both wrong they took 24 v bottom half and 19 v top half. 44% of their total tally and not a mere handful
For f**k sake sparky if you are going to split the table in half at least split it at the right place 10 and 10 and not 9 and 11 : wouldnt have anything to do with the 4 points they picked up against 10th place west brom not suiting your agend a would it

You have spent most of the day still digging yourself into that hole you created earlier. I reckon if you had worked for euro tunnel then they would have competed the tunnel crossing in half the time.

If I was digging and had a spade in my hand I would smash you over the head with it.

Not before you reached Australia

f**k me this could go on and on. They both have to take a portion of the blame. Ole was here and took us down so obviously shoulders blame. But when all is said and done our players were not good enough and after spending the most money in our history, Malky needs to shoulder some blame also.

More blame

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Obviously no one could predict anything but going buy the position we were in with the results we had/better fixtures we were going to have you cant say we would of got relegated with him.

Are you kidding me? You can't say? I wouldn't of seen us winning a game let alone staying up.

And what are you basing that on?

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

Yes I am sure we would have gone up to Liverpool and taken all 3 points

The players had the chance to stand up and be counted against Southampton knowing Malkys job was on the line and guess what. They barely tried. That tells you all you need to know what the players thought of Milky as they called him.

He had lost the dressing room.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

He had lost the players. If he hadn't they would have performed for him against Southampton. They were tired of the absolute shocking tactics he employed.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

it could be argued that (purely in terms of the fixture list) it was a good time to change the manager. Arsenal, Man City and Man United away all coming up, meant a likely period with little points but time enough for the new manager to get his feet under the table.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

Yes I am sure we would have gone up to Liverpool and taken all 3 points

The players had the chance to stand up and be counted against Southampton knowing Malkys job was on the line and guess what. They barely tried. That tells you all you need to know what the players thought of Milky as they called him.

He had lost the dressing room.

'Lost the dressing room'....



Haven't heard that one before how about it was a case of too many distractions and coming up against one of the form teams in the prem. Wouldn't matter who was in charge, any manager would have struggled to get a result.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

it could be argued that (purely in terms of the fixture list) it was a good time to change the manager. Arsenal, Man City and Man United away all coming up, meant a likely period with little points but time enough for the new manager to get his feet under the table.

With Sunderland at home and a shocking west ham who were getting smashed week in, week out coming up, really looked like a great time to have a transition at the club

Malky had won 6 of his last 30 games in charge of CCFC, yet some are saying we would have suddenly gone on a winning spree in the second half of the season

We had got results against every other bottom half team at home, we wouldn't have won all of them but in my view we would have easily won enough of them to stay up.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

it could be argued that (purely in terms of the fixture list) it was a good time to change the manager. Arsenal, Man City and Man United away all coming up, meant a likely period with little points but time enough for the new manager to get his feet under the table.

With Sunderland at home and a shocking west ham who were getting smashed week in, week out coming up, really looked like a great time to have a transition at the club

the Sunderland game had Malkys dirty prints all over it. First half we looked free of the shackles that he had put on us and played some of the best football we had all season. Second half was Malky Tactics, pure and simple.

Ill grant you the West Ham result, but looking at our recent woeful record against them and the fact they went on a brilliant run of games after ours then the result isnt all that surprising.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

it could be argued that (purely in terms of the fixture list) it was a good time to change the manager. Arsenal, Man City and Man United away all coming up, meant a likely period with little points but time enough for the new manager to get his feet under the table.

With Sunderland at home and a shocking west ham who were getting smashed week in, week out coming up, really looked like a great time to have a transition at the club

the Sunderland game had Malkys dirty prints all over it. First half we looked free of the shackles that he had put on us and played some of the best football we had all season. Second half was Malky Tactics, pure and simple.

Ill grant you the West Ham result, but looking at our recent woeful record against them and the fact they went on a brilliant run of games after ours then the result isnt all that surprising.

You can't blame Malky for the second half and not give him credit for the first half. Either all of it was his influence or none of it.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

it could be argued that (purely in terms of the fixture list) it was a good time to change the manager. Arsenal, Man City and Man United away all coming up, meant a likely period with little points but time enough for the new manager to get his feet under the table.

With Sunderland at home and a shocking west ham who were getting smashed week in, week out coming up, really looked like a great time to have a transition at the club

the Sunderland game had Malkys dirty prints all over it. First half we looked free of the shackles that he had put on us and played some of the best football we had all season. Second half was Malky Tactics, pure and simple.

Ill grant you the West Ham result, but looking at our recent woeful record against them and the fact they went on a brilliant run of games after ours then the result isnt all that surprising.

You can't blame Malky for the second half and not give him credit for the first half. Either all of it was his influence or none of it.

yes you can, the first half was unlike anything we had seen under Malky in the Prem, we actually passed the ball and created chances.

Second half was a mess, brought on by negative Subs (Malkys assistant)

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

it could be argued that (purely in terms of the fixture list) it was a good time to change the manager. Arsenal, Man City and Man United away all coming up, meant a likely period with little points but time enough for the new manager to get his feet under the table.

With Sunderland at home and a shocking west ham who were getting smashed week in, week out coming up, really looked like a great time to have a transition at the club

the Sunderland game had Malkys dirty prints all over it. First half we looked free of the shackles that he had put on us and played some of the best football we had all season. Second half was Malky Tactics, pure and simple.

Ill grant you the West Ham result, but looking at our recent woeful record against them and the fact they went on a brilliant run of games after ours then the result isnt all that surprising.

Free of shackles? Id say we played better than that up at fulham but thats just opinion, but its harsh to say he put shackles on us. Plus you simply cant blame the second half on him and say the first half was because he wasn't there.

Fe they went on a great run, but that's because they exploited our situation where we had no direction because of the transition of managers meaning we had contrasting tactics. This kick started their run, in a normal situation with a settled squad and manager we would of most likely have one.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

it could be argued that (purely in terms of the fixture list) it was a good time to change the manager. Arsenal, Man City and Man United away all coming up, meant a likely period with little points but time enough for the new manager to get his feet under the table.

With Sunderland at home and a shocking west ham who were getting smashed week in, week out coming up, really looked like a great time to have a transition at the club

the Sunderland game had Malkys dirty prints all over it. First half we looked free of the shackles that he had put on us and played some of the best football we had all season. Second half was Malky Tactics, pure and simple.

Ill grant you the West Ham result, but looking at our recent woeful record against them and the fact they went on a brilliant run of games after ours then the result isnt all that surprising.

Free of shackles? Id say we played better than that up at fulham but thats just opinion, but its harsh to say he put shackles on us. Plus you simply cant blame the second half on him and say the first half was because he wasn't there.

Fe they went on a great run, but that's because they exploited our situation where we had no direction because of the transition of managers meaning we had contrasting tactics. This kick started their run, in a normal situation with a settled squad and manager we would of most likely have one.

says who though? apart from his very first game in charge, our record against West Ham under malky was beyond terrible.

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

it could be argued that (purely in terms of the fixture list) it was a good time to change the manager. Arsenal, Man City and Man United away all coming up, meant a likely period with little points but time enough for the new manager to get his feet under the table.

With Sunderland at home and a shocking west ham who were getting smashed week in, week out coming up, really looked like a great time to have a transition at the club

the Sunderland game had Malkys dirty prints all over it. First half we looked free of the shackles that he had put on us and played some of the best football we had all season. Second half was Malky Tactics, pure and simple.

Ill grant you the West Ham result, but looking at our recent woeful record against them and the fact they went on a brilliant run of games after ours then the result isnt all that surprising.

You can't blame Malky for the second half and not give him credit for the first half. Either all of it was his influence or none of it.

yes you can, the first half was unlike anything we had seen under Malky in the Prem, we actually passed the ball and created chances.

Second half was a mess, brought on by negative Subs (Malkys assistant)

Nonsense, we even scored one of our two goals in the second half!

Kerslake was naive with the subs and we lost our nerve as a result. But a man of Malky's experience would have not been that naive.