By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Still a dilemna for me. You can change your religion, change your sex even, change your political affiliation, change your wife..change pretty much anything in your life but its tough to change your allegiance to your football team. This used to be a working mans game...yes, its still a beautiful game but now its big business too. JMO
You're on a game show and there are prizes behind three doors. Behind one door is the star prize, a lifetime pass to see the Swans and behind the other two doors is a free dental consultation. The game show host knows where both dental consultation prizes are. You choose a door then the game show host opens one of the doors with the dental consultation prize leaving you with a straight choice - stay with your original choice or change to the other available door. So, which choice would be more likely to yield the star prize - stick or change - or would it not make a difference either way?
I hear people suggesting that referees should explain their decisions after the game. Well, why not during the game? Refereeing is not easy ( I did it once - and never again - in a friendly under 15 game winning myself no friends) especially in such a high paced contact sport oft times in an extremely intimidating environment. They are forced to make split second decisions in very stressful situations and yet we have the technology available to help them make more accurate calls in real time and to inform/educate us, the spectators. So why don't we allow video replay, why don't we allow officials the same luxury as the TV pundits to review a contentious decision? Everyone on the field makes mistakes..I don't believe today's referees are any worse than those of a previous generation. It always used to be the "disrupts the flow of the game" lobby that won the day but the game - and the audience and the rewards - has clearly evolved and yet its still controlled by a man with a whistle and two guys with flags. Come on...this is 2015 not 1915! How many times is the game now stopped - and quite rightly so - in case of potential head injuries? Why not a time-clock to ensure that the ball is in play for ninety minutes or seventy or sixty minutes? (Actual playing time when you include all the deliberate time wasting, injuries real and fake, play acting, remonstrations with the referee, dead ball situations is probably no more than sixty minutes anyway).
So back to my hobby horse - if the home team wins only about 40% of the time yet the team that scores the first goal (irrespective of being home or away) wins over 60% of the time then are we placing undue significance on where - rather than how - the fixture is played out?
Greetings from an infrequent lurker and very occasional poster. I hope the following makes sense but if it doesn't then ask me for clarification but please spare us all the "football is played on grass not paper" responses.
According to the PL results thus far this season: a) 65% of the teams that scored first won the game and b) 93% of the teams that scored first picked up at least a point
What can we take from that? Firstly, seven games is not statistically significant however I believe that these percentages are historically within range. Therefore I'm sure that some of the managers that take a more scientific approach to the game than their peers) like BR at Liverpool are well aware of the value - not just the importance - of the first goal.
Lets look at Swansea. Realistically, they would be looking to bag between 45 and 55 points for the season with 40 being the bare minimum and 60 the absolute ceiling. GM probably has a few numbers in his head like minimum wins >> 14 * 3 = 42 points plus a bunch of draws.
Discounting, lets say an average of two scoreless draws, if GM sets a target of Swansea scoring the first goal in at least 60% of the remaining 36 games (currently their hit rate is 67%) that would account for 21.6 games. If the historical average remains close to 65% then those 21 or 22 games would yield approximately 14 wins and 42 points. Add a bunch more of the remaining draws and the points total should be 50, more or less.
Suffice to say that if scoring the first goal isn't matched with good game management then all bets are off. So far, GM seems to be learning fast.
In my opinion since the points value of a win is worth three times that of a draw it behooves the manager to risk losing one point in pursuit of three. That's another topic for sure but we can go there if you like ...and I have the stats to prove it;-)
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
