|
land_of_bo
|
 |
« on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 09:16:48 » |
|
OK, plastic fans bllah blah blah....
With 82 points, and 6 home games left, in the form they are in, does anyone else think our record of 102 points is in danger?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
McLovin
|
|
« Reply #1 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 09:20:38 » |
|
Didn't Sunderland beat our record a few years back?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
land_of_bo
|
|
« Reply #2 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 09:21:05 » |
|
I thought they got 101?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
McLovin
|
|
« Reply #3 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 09:23:19 » |
|
I don't know, i was just throwing it out there!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SwindonTartanArmy
Go Team GB!
 Offline
Posts: 2917
London Scottish - More History than Franchise!
|
|
« Reply #4 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 10:18:30 » |
|
im sure someone broke our record recently  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Vi er best i verden! Vi er best i verden! Vi har slått England 2-1 i fotball!! Det er aldeles utrolig! Vi har slått England! England, kjempers fødeland. Lord Nelson, Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee, Henry Cooper, Lady Diana--vi har slått dem alle sammen. Vi har slått dem alle sammen. Maggie Thatcher can you hear me?
Your boys took a hell of a beating!"
|
|
|
OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR
- FACT!
Offline
Posts: 15115
|
|
« Reply #5 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 10:28:46 » |
|
Our 'record' of 102 points was always a bit dodgy because Lincoln City would have got more than that in 74-75 season (I think) but there were only two points for a win back then.
None the less, we were the first team to accumulate that many points in a season. I do think it has been surpassed once or twice since then.
Whatever the record is now, I am sure Reading will smash it into a thousand pieces though.
Unless they take their foot off the gas once promotion is guaranteed, which can't be too far off now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
land_of_bo
|
|
« Reply #6 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:00:40 » |
|
Our 'record' of 102 points was always a bit dodgy because Lincoln City would have got more than that in 74-75 season (I think) but there were only two points for a win back then. So what? That means we held the record number of points when it was 3 points for a win, they must have had the record for when it was 2 points for a win. 2 different records. I just did some research and Sunderland did manage 105 points in 98/99 - fuckers! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #7 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:06:55 » |
|
Didn't Sunderland beat our record a few years back? yes when peter reid was in charge. they won the old div 1 (before it became the championship) with 105 points. still they also beat our record of the worst points tally ever recorded in the premiership so it evens out  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
land_of_bo
|
|
« Reply #8 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:07:42 » |
|
Didn't Sunderland beat our record a few years back? yes when peter reid was in charge. they won the old div 1 (before it became the championship) with 105 points. still they also beat our record of the worst points tally ever recorded in the premiership so it evens out And they'll beat their record again this year  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #9 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:10:53 » |
|
probably  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR
- FACT!
Offline
Posts: 15115
|
|
« Reply #10 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:19:54 » |
|
Our 'record' of 102 points was always a bit dodgy because Lincoln City would have got more than that in 74-75 season (I think) but there were only two points for a win back then. So what? That means we held the record number of points when it was 3 points for a win, they must have had the record for when it was 2 points for a win. 2 different records. I just did some research and Sunderland did manage 105 points in 98/99 - fuckers! What do you mean 'so what'? It's not a an even playing field! Which is the best record: Ours? P: 46 W: 32 D: 6 L: 8 F: 82 A: 43 +39 PTS: 102 Or theirs? P: 46 W: 31 D: 11 L: 4 F: 107 A:37 +73 PTS: 104 (if it was three points for a win) That is why the record was always slightly dodgy. But let's just ignore that shall we? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #11 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:20:56 » |
|
yeah |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tails
Offline
Posts: 10197
Git facked
|
|
« Reply #12 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 12:07:19 » |
|
Didn't Notts County or Fulham get 102 aswell?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Spud
|
|
« Reply #13 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 12:08:30 » |
|
Grrrrrrrrrrr i fucking hate Reading and their plastic fans!.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
land_of_bo
|
|
« Reply #14 on: Saturday, February 11, 2006, 13:10:57 » |
|
Our 'record' of 102 points was always a bit dodgy because Lincoln City would have got more than that in 74-75 season (I think) but there were only two points for a win back then. So what? That means we held the record number of points when it was 3 points for a win, they must have had the record for when it was 2 points for a win. 2 different records. I just did some research and Sunderland did manage 105 points in 98/99 - fuckers! What do you mean 'so what'? It's not a an even playing field! Which is the best record: Ours? P: 46 W: 32 D: 6 L: 8 F: 82 A: 43 +39 PTS: 102 Or theirs? P: 46 W: 31 D: 11 L: 4 F: 107 A:37 +73 PTS: 104 (if it was three points for a win) That is why the record was always slightly dodgy. But let's just ignore that shall we? I meant the record was for the record number of points...they had the record for when it was 2 points a win, we had it for when it was 3 points a win. It doesn't mae our record dodgy just because the points system was changed, it make is 2 seperate records. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
