If Roy had taken over when we sacked FM

[The Old Count]

Where do you think we would have finished?

I reckon we would have made the playoffs - even with this squad.

[JackyFulham90]

He may have got us near the play offs as we are decent going forward we just concede too many. If we sort out defence & get good quality holding midfielder then we will have a decent

[MJG]

No chance for playoffs after first seven games,  do the maths.

[LBNo11]

...how well we would have done under Mr Hodgson would have also depended on him bringing Ray Lewington back to Fulham...

[Lighthouse]

If we had had Roy back with Ray. Had we invested in January. Then I don't think there would be any doubt we would have finished about 12th.

If fans still believe this squad was good enough to be anything but average at best. Then sadness and disappointment will be with you all your days.

[YankeeJim]

Our biggest single problem this past season was slipping goals in dead ball situations. I can't fathom Roy not coming up with a fix for that.

[BigbadBillyMcKinley]

Plenty of "Ifs" "but" and "maybes" from the last few seasons.

[nose]

If roy would have come back and spent money in january...... maybe top 6 but I doubt it
i am not sure he would be able to get us promoted either...that is a special skill.

[Burt]

Roy's strengths were that he knew how to sort out a team from the back first, and in making sure there were clear tactics and everyone knew what their role was.

Given the disastrous start to our season, and given it would have taken him another 7-10 matches for his plans to start to come to fruition, I doubt he would have got us to the playoffs.

[Wimbledon_White]

We'd have needed to pick up 27 points right? 9 extra wins.
Given where we were at the time of Felix's exit, to get the 9 extra wins would have been tantamount to promotion form from day one. Unlikely.

[MJG]

Seriously I don't get the mind block some of you have at how many points were needed to get sixth place after that seven game start and one point.

We would have  needed 77 from 39 games. The same points per game as Bournemouth got,  actually we would have had to have done better than them just to reach 6th place. That's a 90.8pt season. We were never ever going to do that no matter who was manager.

[Lighthouse]

Seriously I don't get the mind block some of you have at how many points were needed to get sixth place after that seven game start and one point.

We would have  needed 77 from 39 games. The same points per game as Bournemouth got,  actually we would have had to have done better than them just to reach 6th place. That's a 90.8pt season. We were never ever going to do that no matter who was manager.

Once again you keep repeating facts as if they are facts. It simply isn't going to work against the well laid out arguments of 'a better manager would have seen us promoted'.

[MJG]

Your right of course

[fulhamben]

Seriously I don't get the mind block some of you have at how many points were needed to get sixth place after that seven game start and one point.

We would have  needed 77 from 39 games. The same points per game as Bournemouth got,  actually we would have had to have done better than them just to reach 6th place. That's a 90.8pt season. We were never ever going to do that no matter who was manager.

would it have been though, if we were winning more and taking points off of the better teams, then they could arguably all be 6 points worse of ( or minus the points they got off of us) so the figures are slightly wrong that you have come up with. Either way we would have done better with a change of manager

[alfie]

There is of course no guarantee that Roy would have succeeded, when he was here last time he had the right players at the right time, personally I never thought he would set the world alight, I never did like his style of football. In saying that he gave us some pride and almost got the trophy.

[Arthur]

Seriously I don't get the mind block some of you have at how many points were needed to get sixth place after that seven game start and one point.

We would have  needed 77 from 39 games.

While, at first sight, this appears to be a factual statement, I proffer that it is not.

What you have overlooked is that, if we win instead of lose, not only is our points tally higher by three, but our opponent's is lower by three.

Thus, had we (and this is hypothetical, I accept) beaten Ipswich and Brentford at home and won away at Wolves, all of these teams would (all else being equal) have finished the season with 75 points rather than 78.

After defeat in Kit's opening match as caretaker manager, we then had a run, up to Christmas, of 14 games from which we amassed 27 points: winning 8, drawing 3 and losing 3. At the time, an 8-3-3 record was a good enough run of form - yet not so good as to be unsustainable - over a long enough spell of games for me to consider that we could continue to return such a points yield until the end of the season.

Had we done so, we would have finished the campaign on 74 points; tantalisingly short of reaching the play-offs, but near enough, MJG, to dispute the certainty with which you assert that...

We were never ever going to do that no matter who was manager.

[Logicalman]

Seriously I don't get the mind block some of you have at how many points were needed to get sixth place after that seven game start and one point.

We would have  needed 77 from 39 games. The same points per game as Bournemouth got,  actually we would have had to have done better than them just to reach 6th place. That's a 90.8pt season. We were never ever going to do that no matter who was manager.

would it have been though, if we were winning more and taking points off of the better teams, then they could arguably all be 6 points worse of ( or minus the points they got off of us) so the figures are slightly wrong that you have come up with. Either way we would have done better with a change of manager

Prove it!

[MJG]

But still not over the line even if we had replicated that 14 game run throughout the 38 games.  The line was always going to be hard to cross and even in that run we were far from convincing.

It's all hypothetical anyway, but to go from bottom with one point in eight to a team getting 75 from 38 was pretty much impossible and I doubt anything like that has ever happened.

[Arthur]

The line was always going to be hard to cross and even in that run we were far from convincing.

Indeed. I merely wanted to draw to your attention that it was not a case of my having a 'mind block'.

[fulhamben]

Seriously I don't get the mind block some of you have at how many points were needed to get sixth place after that seven game start and one point.

We would have  needed 77 from 39 games. The same points per game as Bournemouth got,  actually we would have had to have done better than them just to reach 6th place. That's a 90.8pt season. We were never ever going to do that no matter who was manager.

would it have been though, if we were winning more and taking points off of the better teams, then they could arguably all be 6 points worse of ( or minus the points they got off of us) so the figures are slightly wrong that you have come up with. Either way we would have done better with a change of manager

Prove it!

dont need to, think it was plain to see for everyone, how bad we were under kit