The less media attention the better to be honest. It puts us under less pressure and lets us go about our wining as usual but when we beat Huddersfield I can't wait for the smugness to be wiped from Claridge's face.
TBH this is one game I didn't really want to see on FLS...sounded like one to chalk up 3 luckyish points and move on. But what IS it with Claridge? Was his mum frightened by a Haddock when he was in the womb?
does huddersfield run really matter? nottingham's run gave them the division 1 title and hudders have got 2nd in the third tier and play off heartbreak. it's not half as creditable as notts run of even arsenal's. hope we demolish them next week and they all shut up and be content with 2nd as that's all they will ever get.
Not too bothered about lack of coverage of our game , the ball spent long periods of time in the air and wasn't pretty to watch at times , also just means we get on with it and put pressure on Huddersfield.
Huddersfield can stay unbeaten for the rest of the season for all i care ..... as long as we finish above them.
Even if it had been us who had gone on a long unbeaten run , comparing 3rd tier football with Brian Cloughs record is ridiculous.
I have a couple of things to say about all of this, which I'd love to put to a media pundit, Huddersfield fan (or Forest fan, come to it), and that is..........
Did you know that Forest only won half of their 42 games in their "invincible" run (drawing the other 21 games) - hardly invincible, is it ?? I'd wager that this season we will win more than 21 games and draw less than 21 games and end up with more than (21 x 3 = 63 + 21x 1 = 21) 84 points..........so is this better or wotse ??? I know which i'd prefer.
You could go a whole season unbeaten, but if you didn't win any either and draw all 46 games 0-0 you would get relegated, so, I ask again........would you then be called "invincible" ?? I doubt it.
SO............it doesn't matter how many games you lose, it the number of games you win that matter - currently we have won more than anyone else in this division, we are top by 5 points and by most peoples standards we are the best team in the league. END OF.
SO............it doesn't matter how many games you lose, it the number of games you win that matter - currently we have won more than anyone else in this division, we are top by 5 points and by most peoples standards we are the best team in the league. END OF.
What you need to remember is that in 1977 and '78 you got just two points for a win. With that in mind if you drew every game you wouldn't be relegated. In 1978 Birminghim finished 11th (out of 22) with 42 points and a negative goal difference. However, this ignores that fact that Forest didn't draw all 42 games, which makes their achievement very impressive in my book. I can't be bothered to look it up but I suspect that it is very rare, if it's ever happened, that a team be relegated with the same number of points as games played with two points for a win. You can't compare the motivation in results with the different point systems, and I suspect that Forest would have won more games if it was necessary as a draw was half a win then and now it's a third of a win.
In 2003/04 Arsenal didn't draw all 38 games, they won 26 and drew 12. Also if you'd managed to draw every game that season (even with three points for a win) you would have finished 4th from bottom and not been relegated.
However in answer to your question which would is better, I would think winning the Championship is better than winning the third division, and if you applied the same points system (i.e. 2 points for a win) you'd have to win a game for every two you lose, rather than for every three you lose or you wouldn't get you more points that Forest managed in 1978 - and they played four games less.
My main point is................you can go a whole season without losing, but if you only win a couple of those 46, 42 or 38 games (pick a league/year - your choice) and draw the rest then that is hardly a sign of a good team, is it ??
So I ask again............what is better w40, d 5, L1 or w 5, d 41 L 0 ????????
My main point is................you can go a whole season without losing, but if you only win a couple of those 46, 42 or 38 games (pick a league/year - your choice) and draw the rest then that is hardly a sign of a good team, is it ??
So I ask again............what is better w40, d 5, L1 or w 5, d 41 L 0 ????????
Obviously the former, and both look like the records of teams that are way above average for their division, however as likely as it is for a team to w40, d5 and lose just 1 (on the basis that there will always be a one off game that tests a run) the difference in terms of points is 1 from a win of w40 d6 l0, yet it means so, so much more to go a whole season unbeaten - in my view. That is what makes the difference between a great team and an outstandingly historic team.
I think you also miss the point that a team that fails to lose in 46 is incredibly unlikely to draw 41 of them If they are too good to be beaten for 46 games they are likely to win a lot more of them, just because of the statistical margin of error that happens in sport.
How wonderful that Huddersfield were given 10 minutes or so. It will make it so much sweeter when Claridge has to say something about us when we beat Huddersfield next week.
Anyway the football league show also featured from the Championship Sam, Shelvey, Bailey, Hudson, Richardson, many of whom contributed positively to their teams performances, not forgetting Mc Carthy, Gray, Varney Racon and Wright who also play in the Championship.
10 players, just lacking a keeper!
Which, if any, would you swap for what we have now?
Really has surprised me how well Frazer has done for us this season. Last year he was mainly 2nd choice due to Butterfield having a good season but with Butterfield starting this season injured, Frazer took his chance and has impressed in the majority of games he's played.
His crossing a little off sometimes, but he gets forward well and offers good support to the midfield.
Watched it this morning. If I was a Huddersfield fan, I would have been a bit hacked off about how much of the coverage was about Forest! Our time will come. Be patient.
you lot should stop getting your knickers in a twist, the reason we dont get coverage is because we are in a shit league if we get promoted we will get more coverage.
you lot should stop getting your knickers in a twist, the reason we dont get coverage is because we are in a shit league if we get promoted we will get more coverage we have ONE AIM.
For those saying we're getting as much coverage as any other team, that might be true but this time last year they couldn't get enough of Poyet and his team of bandits and were falling over themselves about their 'assault' on the title. Claridge is an utter tool but I can't help having just a tiny bit of man love for him for the late winner in the playoffs
you lot should stop getting your knickers in a twist, the reason we dont get coverage is because we are in a shit league if we get promoted we will get more coverage we have ONE AIM.
Forest's record although set in the First Division was really a Premiership record. So how can Uddersfield beat a PL record in League 1. Plus they lost the play off final, that was against opposition from the Football League so why doesn't that count. Getting on my tits with everyone pissing themselves over how brilliant they are. Yeah right. How come they are still stuck in League One then, how come they are five points behind the leaders. God I hope we beat them next Monday.
But they are not unbeaten in the league they lost the playoff that was a league fixture
You get 3 points for a win in a league fixture.
Statistically, it is easier to go on long unbeaten runs in the top flight. Before Huddersfield went on their run, the top 4 longest runs were Arsenal 49, top flight, Forest 42, top flight, Chelsea 40, top flight, l**ds 38, top flight.
Ok, we might not have the players of the great Arsenal and Forest sides, but to go 43 unbeaten leagues games in any proffesional sport is quite an achievment.
Is Goals Express on Sky really any better? The edits are always tighter than the BBC's because of time constraints and the need to accommodate the silly game-show presentation. So you need to watch the BBC programme to see the build-up and, as on Saturday, two other attacks (one from each club) that didn't end in goals. Sky do have the advantage of showing the goals first, but that's about it.
I'm not really interested in what Claridge thinks anyway.
Comments
I have a couple of things to say about all of this, which I'd love to put to a media pundit, Huddersfield fan (or Forest fan, come to it), and that is..........
Did you know that Forest only won half of their 42 games in their "invincible" run (drawing the other 21 games) - hardly invincible, is it ?? I'd wager that this season we will win more than 21 games and draw less than 21 games and end up with more than (21 x 3 = 63 + 21x 1 = 21) 84 points..........so is this better or wotse ??? I know which i'd prefer.
You could go a whole season unbeaten, but if you didn't win any either and draw all 46 games 0-0 you would get relegated, so, I ask again........would you then be called "invincible" ?? I doubt it.
SO............it doesn't matter how many games you lose, it the number of games you win that matter - currently we have won more than anyone else in this division, we are top by 5 points and by most peoples standards we are the best team in the league. END OF.
Shelvey could compete for a spot.
what a load of old guff !! lol
My main point is................you can go a whole season without losing, but if you only win a couple of those 46, 42 or 38 games (pick a league/year - your choice) and draw the rest then that is hardly a sign of a good team, is it ??
So I ask again............what is better w40, d 5, L1 or w 5, d 41 L 0 ????????
His crossing a little off sometimes, but he gets forward well and offers good support to the midfield.
this, NSS is right ONE AIM
45 Minutes in - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017pjxv/The_Football_League_Show_2011_2012_19_11_2011/
Forest's record although set in the First Division was really a Premiership record. So how can Uddersfield beat a PL record in League 1. Plus they lost the play off final, that was against opposition from the Football League so why doesn't that count. Getting on my tits with everyone pissing themselves over how brilliant they are. Yeah right. How come they are still stuck in League One then, how come they are five points behind the leaders. God I hope we beat them next Monday.
http://thetopofthetops.spreadshirt.co.uk/
You get 3 points for a win in a league fixture.
Statistically, it is easier to go on long unbeaten runs in the top flight. Before Huddersfield went on their run, the top 4 longest runs were Arsenal 49, top flight, Forest 42, top flight, Chelsea 40, top flight, l**ds 38, top flight.
Ok, we might not have the players of the great Arsenal and Forest sides, but to go 43 unbeaten leagues games in any proffesional sport is quite an achievment.