Firstly, I don't necessarily think we would have gone down, but there is no doubt in my mind that we would be feeling far more uncomfortable about our prospects of remaining in the league now if we hadn't have acted after the Southampton defeat. Yes ideally, we'd like a top European name whose won loads, but with us sat in 17th, that wasn't likely and we failed in our pursuit of Silva, so Allardyce was a credible candidate in the circumstances.
Your period of games is very biased towards the point you're trying to make as well, to claim we weren't in any sort of trouble. Firstly you used our last 8 games when our form is poor and we've conceded loads, which doesn't account for Allardyce's early period where he sorted out our defensive woes. You then decide only domestic games count in your 8 before he arrived so you can remove the embarrassing 5-1 and 3-0 demolitions in Europe.
Our 8 most recent games includes a run of fixtures against Arsenal (6th), Tottenham (5th), Liverpool (3rd) and Man United (2nd), whilst in the 8 fixtures you've chosen only include Chelsea and Arsenal. I'd also like to point out that no we're not 'still getting battered', apart from against the top 6 which happened before he came in. I won't deny our performances against Arsenal and Spurs weren't disgraceful but they were before he came in where we lost 3-0 at home to Spurs and 5-2 to Arsenal. However, the only game we have lost outside the top 6 since he's come here is Bournemouth, losing narrowly to a late goal. We're beating the average-poor sides now at Goodison (lost to Burnley at home before), and are not getting ripped apart by relegation candidates like Southampton.
Firstly, you first paragraph is an unnecessary defence of the appointment of Allardyce. None of my posts in this thread have been about whether he was a credible appointment, or even whether he's done well. I have pointed out more than once that I think he's done just fine.
There's no bias in my point at all. You gave an example of 2 games and I gave an example of 8, you can't seriously believe that expanding the amount of games we're looking at data from means that i'm being unfair?! I'm only counting domestic games because Allardyce hasn't had European games to compare with so it's not like for like. If anything that makes his domestic games easier, as he's had longer to prepare and doesn't have to worry about the likes of Baines, Jagielka, Rooney and Williams playing 3 games a week.
Saying 'we're not getting battered except...' means we're still getting battered mate, that's fairly self explanatory I think. You're basically just agreeing with the points I've made but putting across like a disagreement. I'm saying we have spent the whole season losing to good teams and winning at home to the others, you're saying we only lose to the good teams and we were doing that anyway, and we also beat the bad teams at home. Sound familiar?
We lost at home to Burnley before he took over yes - they were in outstanding form at the time and are still above us now - and we (luckily if we're honest) drew a home game with West Brom under him - they were absolutely not in outstanding form, and are adrift at the bottom of the league. Comparable performances and results in my opinion, just like the draws away at City, Brighton and Palace before he arrived are comparable with the draws away at West Brom and home to Chelsea.
We lost 4-1 to Southampton and 2-1 to Bournemouth but the only difference in the games was the amount of chances Southampton put away, we didn't defend any better. Bournemouth had 18 shots and 6 on target, Southampton had 17 and 5 on target. We were 'ripped apart' to the same extent, but got away with it, just as we did when Newcastle hit the post twice, and we cleared two off the line and headed against our own bar against Chelsea. That's just part of football, sometimes it goes for you and sometimes it doesn't.
I'm not taking issue with Allardyce here, or trying to say he's done a bad job. All i'm doing is pointing out that saying we were in real relegation trouble before he came doesn't take into account that the way we were always going to get out of relegation trouble was by beating the teams below us at home. The fact that we had won every game at home to a side below us before he took over is enough for me to believe that we would have beaten 4 out of Huddersfield, Swansea, West Brom, Leicester and Palace whoever was in permanent charge. People obviously disagree, but i'm basing this on actual facts rather than just a gut feeling that we were doomed which is all anyone seems to be able to throw my way as an argument.
