Points required

[Martinmalta]

Everyone is mentioning a 37-40 points survival target. For us, its at least 15 points more and most of us lost their believe of surviving. However, looking at the likes of Villa, Hull and Sunderland, they're only 3 points to 4 points ahead of us. My believe is that this season, survival will be achieved on a less number of points, unless there is some resurgent performances and results for the three teams mentioned. That's my worry. Knowing the R's, I expect that everything that could wrong, will go wrong!

[CroydonCaptainJack]

33 I reckon

[dsqpr]

33 I reckon

I think that would be a record.

Teams at the bottom always seem to pick up the pace near the end of the season. Which pretty much means that if you have a difficult run-in you are going down, like Norwich last season.

[stanistheman]

1 more point or a better goal difference than the team in 18th place if even.

[Kit]

35 for me !

[surrey_hoop]

I think that would be a record.

Teams at the bottom always seem to pick up the pace near the end of the season. Which pretty much means that if you have a difficult run-in you are going down, like Norwich last season.

30 points and a goal difference better than -40 would've been enough to stay up in 09/10. I think that's the record.

[12321]

If our form thus far persists i.e. 22 points from 28 games, we will gain another 8 points from our remaining 10 games, giving us a grand total of 30 points. That may be enough but I very much doubt it, seeing that Villa are only 5 shy of that figure already.

[dsqpr]

30 points and a goal difference better than -40 would've been enough to stay up in 09/10. I think that's the record.

This is always an interesting question: was the number of points needed to stay up the number of the best relegated team or the worst non-relegated team. In 09/10 I see the bottom 4 was:
West Ham - 35
Burnley - 30
Hull - 30
Portsmouth - 19

But 30 points did not keep Burnley up! And neither would 34 points have kept them up. They needed 35.
However, 30 points could have seen West Ham stay up (with an appropriate goal difference).

If you are in the bottom 3, as we are, the number of points required to stay up is the number that the team in 17th place gets.

On balance, I think it is fair to say that the record is the lowest number of points ever gained by a team that stayed up.

[CroydonCaptainJack]

This is always an interesting question: was the number of points needed to stay up the number of the best relegated team or the worst non-relegated team. In 09/10 I see the bottom 4 was:
West Ham - 35
Burnley - 30
Hull - 30
Portsmouth - 19

But 30 points did not keep Burnley up! And neither would 34 points have kept them up. They needed 35.
However, 30 points could have seen West Ham stay up (with an appropriate goal difference).

If you are in the bottom 3, as we are, the number of points required to stay up is the number that the team in 17th place gets.

On balance, I think it is fair to say that the record is the lowest number of points ever gained by a team that stayed up.

In your example 31 would be the number of points to be safe or 30 and a better goal difference than Burnley

[dsqpr]

In your example 31 would be the number of points to be safe or 30 and a better goal difference than Burnley

So, if Burnley had got one more point would they have stayed up? Or if Hull or Portsmouth had got 31 points, would they have stayed up? Clearly, for those teams 31 points would not have been enough.

The smallest number of points ever gained by a team that was not relegated is a matter of fact. The game you are playing above is a matter of conjecture.

[West London is Rss]

Gona need 32 IMO. Which aint gona happen... Moral low. No playing style still. Injuries.. No pace to get us up the pitch on away games.. Anything else......

No chance mate.

[CroydonCaptainJack]

So, if Burnley had got one more point would they have stayed up? Or if Hull or Portsmouth had got 31 points, would they have stayed up? Clearly, for those teams 31 points would not have been enough.

The smallest number of points ever gained by a team that was not relegated is a matter of fact. The game you are playing above is a matter of conjecture.

Well West Ham would have still stayed up on 31 points that is how I am viewing it.

[dsqpr]

Well West Ham would have still stayed up on 31 points that is how I am viewing it.

Yes, I understand. Same for all the teams above West Ham. But I think that in order to make the general statement "31 points would have been enough to stay up", it needs to apply to all teams. If we finish 18th on 30 points and the 17th team has 35 points, what will we say to somebody who says "31 points would have been enough to stay up in 2015"?!