|
Post by jdl on Aug 11, 2019 10:15:05 GMT
Now nearly everyone has played at home, the attendance table is more meaningful - and ELEVEN NL sides have better home attendances than us. Add in the three NN sides with bigger gates, and we are down to 15th overall. Our worst position in years. Oddly, this isn't really because our attendance has slumped, it's actually held up pretty well, in most seasons 2,000+ would be a top 10 figure. But attendances across most of the NL divisions seem to have increased markedly this season - and not just because most of the clubs with good gates are ex-EFL. Eastleigh and Fylde, for instance got 2668 and 2443, and Working returned to the NL with an amazing home gate of nearly 4000. In the NN, York, Hereford and Chester all comfortably beat our gate. But at least we look good in the NS - where we are over 500 clear of the nearest rival (DH). (We haven't yet got figures for Braintree and Dartford, but hopefully those won't worry us.) Perhaps this is a good thing in a way, as it might finally help some of our fans to accept that, in national terms, we are not the big club they assume we are, and have no divine right to be in the NL, or even to do well in the NS. Zzzzzzz, bored already! How many of the national League clubs, that likely will have higher average gates than us this season, would average higher than us if they'd just had the season we'd had and we're playing in the South/north. In terms of potential attendance we are one of the top 10 non league sides (imho). Stop using stats to mis-lead unless you want a career in politics! ?? The stats say what they say. Difficult to argue with facts. With all the ex-EFL clubs now in non-league and others like Fylde and Eastleigh, buying their way to success, that's just the way it is. We're doing well just to be in the top 20. It's the nature of averages, that they don't change very quickly - the further into the season, the less effect the odd good gate has. This is basic maths. And with the large gap between us and the clubs immediately above us, I can't see us getting much higher, or possibly even catching up at all. And Aldershot are only just behind us, so if their season picks up, or if they get a good gate against Woking, for instance, we could easily drop to 16th. You can fantasise all you like about us being one of the big non-league clubs, but those days have gone. Even at our height in the NL, we never really came close to the sort of gates we'd need every game to get into the top ten today.
|
|
|
Post by royalstone on Aug 11, 2019 10:31:34 GMT
Zzzzzzz, bored already! How many of the national League clubs, that likely will have higher average gates than us this season, would average higher than us if they'd just had the season we'd had and we're playing in the South/north. In terms of potential attendance we are one of the top 10 non league sides (imho). Stop using stats to mis-lead unless you want a career in politics! ?? The stats say what they say. Difficult to argue with facts. With all the ex-EFL clubs now in non-league and others like Fylde and Eastleigh, buying their way to success, that's just the way it is. We're doing well just to be in the top 20. It's the nature of averages, that they don't change very quickly - the further into the season, the less effect the odd good gate has. This is basic maths. And with the large gap between us and the clubs immediately above us, I can't see us getting much higher, or possibly even catching up at all. And Aldershot are only just behind us, so if their season picks up, or if they get a good gate against Woking, for instance, we could easily drop to 16th. You can fantasise all you like about us being one of the big non-league clubs, but those days have gone. Even at our height in the NL, we never really came close to the sort of gates we'd need every game to get into the top ten today. Would Fylde, Eastleigh, Woking etc... average higher than us if they'd just had the season we've just endured ? Our height in the National League was a constant struggle for survival, I think you can count on one hand the amount of weeks we were in the top half. All hypothetical but if we were challenging at the top of the National we could probably expect to be averaging over 3000. I hope one day Maidstone United reaches its full potential and we'll find out who's right. I suspect you'd rather we were back in the Kent league. Edit:- I don't count playing league football 50 miles away from Maidstone as our full potential and before you start quoting attendances from the old Alliance league. All crowds were a lot lower in the eighties.
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Aug 11, 2019 10:35:22 GMT
"The stats say what they say. Difficult to argue with facts."
Complete garbage. Stats can pretty much say what you want them to say without any context.
The only thing you can take from your stats with any certainty is that we are 15th after one home game.
|
|
|
Post by sword65 on Aug 11, 2019 10:43:51 GMT
"The stats say what they say. Difficult to argue with facts." Complete garbage. Stats can pretty much say what you want them to say without any context. The only thing you can take from your stats with any certainty is that we are 15th after one home game. Plus technically you need at least 2 figures to work out an average therefore our one attendance cannot be described as an average.
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Aug 11, 2019 10:51:51 GMT
"The stats say what they say. Difficult to argue with facts." Complete garbage. Stats can pretty much say what you want them to say without any context. The only thing you can take from your stats with any certainty is that we are 15th after one home game. Plus technically you need at least 2 figures to work out an average therefore our one attendance cannot be described as an average. I almost 'liked' this post and if you'd said "our one attendance cannot correctly be described as an average." I would have done.
Good effort none the less
|
|
|
Post by sword65 on Aug 11, 2019 10:59:06 GMT
Plus technically you need at least 2 figures to work out an average therefore our one attendance cannot be described as an average. I almost 'liked' this post and if you'd said "our one attendance cannot correctly be described as an average." I would have done.
Good effort none the less
I did in fact put correctly but the spell checker incorrectly corrected my correctly and so correctly or incorrectly I removed the word from my post.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Aug 11, 2019 11:05:05 GMT
"The stats say what they say. Difficult to argue with facts." Complete garbage. Stats can pretty much say what you want them to say without any context. The only thing you can take from your stats with any certainty is that we are 15th after one home game. You can interpret stats as much as you like, but the stats themselves are just facts*, They don't lie. And this lot are rather difficult to 'interpret' anyway It's pretty clear what they say - we are 15th, and, given the gap above us, and the way averages work, we'd need some pretty spectacular gates at JWW for us to do much better than that. For instance, unless Chester's gates crash, we'd need over 150 extra fans at every home game for the rest of the season, just to get one place up the table. And over 250 each game to get to 13th (in previous seasons we have been 7th or 8th). Meanwhile, Aldershot need just 12 more at each game to catch up with us. (*Within the limits of football web sites!)
|
|
|
Post by royalstone on Aug 11, 2019 11:26:48 GMT
"The stats say what they say. Difficult to argue with facts." Complete garbage. Stats can pretty much say what you want them to say without any context. The only thing you can take from your stats with any certainty is that we are 15th after one home game. You can interpret stats as much as you like, but the stats themselves are just facts*, They don't lie. And this lot are rather difficult to 'interpret' anyway It's pretty clear what they say - we are 15th, and, given the gap above us, and the way averages work, we'd need some pretty spectacular gates at JWW for us to do much better than that. For instance, unless Chester's gates crash, we'd need over 150 extra fans at every home game for the rest of the season, just to get one place up the table. And over 250 each game to get to 13th (in previous seasons we have been 7th or 8th). Meanwhile, Aldershot need just 12 more at each game to catch up with us. (*Within the limits of football web sites!) "There are three types of lie. Lies, Damn lies and statistics" (Benjamin Disraeli)
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Aug 11, 2019 13:28:28 GMT
You can interpret stats as much as you like, but the stats themselves are just facts*, They don't lie. And this lot are rather difficult to 'interpret' anyway It's pretty clear what they say - we are 15th, and, given the gap above us, and the way averages work, we'd need some pretty spectacular gates at JWW for us to do much better than that. For instance, unless Chester's gates crash, we'd need over 150 extra fans at every home game for the rest of the season, just to get one place up the table. And over 250 each game to get to 13th (in previous seasons we have been 7th or 8th). Meanwhile, Aldershot need just 12 more at each game to catch up with us. (*Within the limits of football web sites!) "There are three types of lie. Lies, Damn lies and statistics" (Benjamin Disraeli) "The poster with no actual answer simple reaches for the first cliché quote he can find." (JDL)
|
|
|
Post by sword65 on Aug 11, 2019 15:45:17 GMT
"The stats say what they say. Difficult to argue with facts." Complete garbage. Stats can pretty much say what you want them to say without any context. The only thing you can take from your stats with any certainty is that we are 15th after one home game. You can interpret stats as much as you like, but the stats themselves are just facts*, They don't lie. And this lot are rather difficult to 'interpret' anyway It's pretty clear what they say - we are 15th, and, given the gap above us, and the way averages work, we'd need some pretty spectacular gates at JWW for us to do much better than that. For instance, unless Chester's gates crash, we'd need over 150 extra fans at every home game for the rest of the season, just to get one place up the table. And over 250 each game to get to 13th (in previous seasons we have been 7th or 8th). Meanwhile, Aldershot need just 12 more at each game to catch up with us. (*Within the limits of football web sites!) We must in fact be 16th as you forgot Morpeth town fc their gates are 18ft 7" high much higher than ours🤣
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Aug 11, 2019 16:50:17 GMT
Now nearly everyone has played at home, the attendance table is more meaningful - and ELEVEN NL sides have better home attendances than us. Add in the three NN sides with bigger gates, and we are down to 15th overall. Our worst position in years. Oddly, this isn't really because our attendance has slumped, it's actually held up pretty well, in most seasons 2,000+ would be a top 10 figure. But attendances across most of the NL divisions seem to have increased markedly this season - and not just because most of the clubs with good gates are ex-EFL. Eastleigh and Fylde, for instance got 2668 and 2443, and Working returned to the NL with an amazing home gate of nearly 4000. In the NN, York, Hereford and Chester all comfortably beat our gate. But at least we look good in the NS - where we are over 500 clear of the nearest rival (DH). (We haven't yet got figures for Braintree and Dartford, but hopefully those won't worry us.) Perhaps this is a good thing in a way, as it might finally help some of our fans to accept that, in national terms, we are not the big club they assume we are, and have no divine right to be in the NL, or even to do well in the NS. Is it?
Most - but not all - Match Day 2 fixtures (ie midweek last week) were with the club's 'next nearest opponents' if you exclude their Xmas /New Year fixtures.
Whilst I accept being midweek and in the holiday period may have a negative impact most games being geographically close, the weather being acceptable and it being school holidays (and thus not a school night) will have a positive impact and thus its not a surprise to me that those who were at home for these games may well have seen an attendance 'bump' as opposed to those at home on the opening Saturday.
Any sensible statistician would be expected to say that the sample is far too small at this stage to make any sort of meaningful statements - but since when has that stopped some people here?
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Aug 11, 2019 17:15:20 GMT
Now nearly everyone has played at home, the attendance table is more meaningful - and ELEVEN NL sides have better home attendances than us. Add in the three NN sides with bigger gates, and we are down to 15th overall. Our worst position in years. Oddly, this isn't really because our attendance has slumped, it's actually held up pretty well, in most seasons 2,000+ would be a top 10 figure. But attendances across most of the NL divisions seem to have increased markedly this season - and not just because most of the clubs with good gates are ex-EFL. Eastleigh and Fylde, for instance got 2668 and 2443, and Working returned to the NL with an amazing home gate of nearly 4000. In the NN, York, Hereford and Chester all comfortably beat our gate. But at least we look good in the NS - where we are over 500 clear of the nearest rival (DH). (We haven't yet got figures for Braintree and Dartford, but hopefully those won't worry us.) Perhaps this is a good thing in a way, as it might finally help some of our fans to accept that, in national terms, we are not the big club they assume we are, and have no divine right to be in the NL, or even to do well in the NS. Is it?
Most - but not all - Match Day 2 fixtures (ie midweek last week) were with the club's 'next nearest opponents' if you exclude their Xmas /New Year fixtures.
Whilst I accept being midweek and in the holiday period may have a negative impact most games being geographically close, the weather being acceptable and it being school holidays (and thus not a school night) will have a positive impact and thus its not a surprise to me that those who were at home for these games may well have seen an attendance 'bump' as opposed to those at home on the opening Saturday.
Any sensible statistician would be expected to say that the sample is far too small at this stage to make any sort of meaningful statements - but since when has that stopped some people here?
Agreed. And normally, I would have waited for 10 or so games. But, based on the experience of previous seasons, the final figures won't be far off these. But my original posts wasn't really about predicting our gates or position, it was to highlight the high attendances in the NL this year (rather than what attendance we might or might not get). Whereas before we have been used to being 7th or 8th, this season it looks likely that the combination of so many ex-EFL sides and the new Sugar Daddy clubs will push us some way down the table.
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Aug 11, 2019 17:37:02 GMT
Is it?
Most - but not all - Match Day 2 fixtures (ie midweek last week) were with the club's 'next nearest opponents' if you exclude their Xmas /New Year fixtures.
Whilst I accept being midweek and in the holiday period may have a negative impact most games being geographically close, the weather being acceptable and it being school holidays (and thus not a school night) will have a positive impact and thus its not a surprise to me that those who were at home for these games may well have seen an attendance 'bump' as opposed to those at home on the opening Saturday.
Any sensible statistician would be expected to say that the sample is far too small at this stage to make any sort of meaningful statements - but since when has that stopped some people here?
Agreed. And normally, I would have waited for 10 or so games. But, based on the experience of previous seasons, the final figures won't be far off these. But my original posts wasn't really about predicting our gates or position, it was to highlight the high attendances in the NL this year (rather than what attendance we might or might not get). Whereas before we have been used to being 7th or 8th, this season it looks likely that the combination of so many ex-EFL sides and the new Sugar Daddy clubs will push us some way down the table. So, now I'm confused.
You agreed my post which basically said your points weren't yet proved and then, having done so, you repeat your original conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by sword65 on Aug 11, 2019 18:53:23 GMT
Agreed. And normally, I would have waited for 10 or so games. But, based on the experience of previous seasons, the final figures won't be far off these. But my original posts wasn't really about predicting our gates or position, it was to highlight the high attendances in the NL this year (rather than what attendance we might or might not get). Whereas before we have been used to being 7th or 8th, this season it looks likely that the combination of so many ex-EFL sides and the new Sugar Daddy clubs will push us some way down the table. So, now I'm confused.
You agreed my post which basically said your points weren't yet proved and then, having done so, you repeat your original conclusions.
It's all that f**king goulash, it's gone to his brain and not his stomach
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 19:15:02 GMT
After about 8 games (so 4 home games for most teams), let's have another look. The stats might mean a bit more by then.
|
|