Who wants a few US Presidential election charts? I can hardly hear you there at the back, but I'll take that as a yes!
The polls were off in 2016.
In the 12 states that are in play in the US in 2020, 5 ended up with Trump as winner despite the forecast pointing to Clinton:
In 2020 those same 12 states look a lot more likely to be going for the Democrats and Biden than they did in 2016 for Clinton:
Among the 39 states and districts not listed Biden has 216 electoral votes and needs another 54 to win.
Trump has 127 and needs another 143 to win.
If we assume that the polls are as off as they were in 2016, and subtract that from the 2020 forecast, 3 states become toss-ups: Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida and Georgia:
If all those 4 states, and Texas, Iowa, Ohio and North Carolina as well, are all won by Trump, he wins with 280 Electoral Votes, ten more than needed.
If Biden wins just one of Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida and Georgia, however, he wins 270 or more Electoral Votes and the election.
If Florida does go for Biden he'd need just another 35 Electoral Votes to win the election. Any three of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona would do.
In other words, if Trump lost Florida he would have to win two of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan to win the election.
So pay attention to Florida on election night (early Wednesday morning)! It's probably the first and best indication of the winner we'll get.
Suffice to say the ball game would change dramatically if Biden pulls off an upset and wins one of Ohio, Texas, Georgia or North Carolina.
Texas and Florida for Biden would be game over Trump as would Florida and two of North Carolina, Georgia and Ohio for Biden.
I really hope we use a similar ploy to when Luongo played a Libero role, as three centre backs can leave us too depleted further up the pitch against Wycombe's 4-2-3-1. The reason 3-5-2 went out of vogue in the early 2000s was precisely because teams turned to lone front men.
Three defenders in a line against one striker means space elsewhere for the attacking team.
So unless we tep it up, we'll be heavily outnumbered when we're on the ball, if Wycombe pad central areas like they did in their successful game against Watford:
Some interesting discussion (if you're a footy data 🤓 like me at least!) Thursday on the use of Expected Goals (xG), which Reading's wild start to the season has brought a spotlight on.
That's the data I've used in the rest of the tweet thread.
A word of caution, of course, that xG and non-shot xG data aggregated at match level *can* be misleading:
In a probalistic sense, ie. "how likely is the win?", it's better to have one shot all game that is 0.5 xG, a 50% probability of a goal, than 20 shots that are 0.025 xG each
#swfc are the bookies' second favourites for relegation behind only Wycombe (oddschecker.com/football/engli…), because of our 12 points deduction (pending appeal (yeah, not really)).
How high is the mountain we have to climb in historical terms then?
I've been as critical as anyone of the (lack of) leadership at our club, but there HAVE been steps made to change things (albeit too small)
[2/?]
1) We have a recruitment setup, the two people brought in by Bruce, that works in tandem with the infamous "transfer committee" (which is now apparently just Paixao) and our manager.