Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Falchoon]

Ignoring the logic of my last post

Originally posted by Dan26
And under the system the team with the most wins has more chance of winning the championship than they did without it. That might seem fair at first glance, but it could also create a very unfair situation. On team could have a 28-win:10-loss record and another could have a 23 win:14 draw:1-loss record.

The second team has the statstically better record. As a draw is half a win (they have none) , they have won 73% of their matches. Team B has won 79%. Team A will win the title, because of the way the points are allocated. However their record is inferior. This is undisputably unfair. You might argue it is good for the sport (and you may have a point) but it is still unfair.

All based on YOUR theory that a draw is half a win, what is more important, not losing or winning? This is the theory that you have proven time and time again that you can not get your head around. All being equal both should have 50% support, but Soccer as a sport and as entertainment will go nowhere if the chief aim of teams is not to lose, it is relatively too easy to achieve. A greater incentive needs to be given to a team to go for a win, hence the 3 point rule. The rule as with most new rules in all team sports was intended to fix a perceived problem with the sport. Not coincidentally in this case with the move to full time professionalism.
A draw is not half a win, it is nothing to do with a win. A team wins, the other team wins, or no one wins, how points are decided is completely arbritary.

Originally posted by Dan26

This is a stupid argument. Going by that logic no matter what system is used, the outcome is always fair. What utter garbage. What if the system itself is unfair? That then leads to situations like the above. You are assuming - wrongly - that the criteria is always fair.

In a totally fair world the winner of a sporting league (any team sport) should have to play every side twice (home and away) getting twice as many points for a win as a draw. That will create a perfectly fair and equitable ladder.

The criteria in soccer (heck that's what I thought we were discussing) is always fair, every team plays each other once at home and once away. The team with the most points wins the championship. What could be more fair?
The other sport you talk about uses the home and away system to set out a ranking for a finals system. The two aren't comparable.

The draw being half a win is a figment of your imagination, it is 0% of a win, it aint a win, not even half.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by moomba
For the five years prior to the 3 point rule results were achieved in 71.2% of all Division 1 matches. For the five years after the 4 point rule was introduced results were achieved in 75.5% of all Division 1 matches. Pretty significant, and much more relevant to the statistics of one side alone.

I did a bit of a search for past tables and found some interesting results.

The tables I found were from 1970 onwards, and from the English League. They didn't show the results before that. From the 1969-70 season until the 1980-81 season (the last 12 seasons with the two-point rule) the results were as follows.

1969-70 to 1980-81:
Matches - 5544
Draws - 1602
Percentage of draws - 28.90%
Total goals per match (both teams combined) - 2.55



From the 1981-82 season until the 2001-02 season (the first 21 seasons with the three-point rule) the results were as follows.

1981-82 to 2001-02:
Matches - 8840
Draws - 2398
Percentage of draws - 27.13%
Total goals per match (both teams combined) - 2.63

So, the 3-point rule has had the massive affect of decreasing draws by 1.77% and increasing the total goals per game from 2.55 to 2.63. Wow!

If it was right for 100 years until 1981 why change it to make it more unfair? What has changed? Has there been more scoring? No (0.08 is nothing.) Has the amount of draws decreased? Not perceptibly.

Who cares if your little selective total of 5 years shows that resuts were achieved 70% of the time. A 20 year sample like I used from 1981-2002 is far more relevant. I'd go back further than 10 years for the two-point rule but the tables only went back to 1969-70.

Originally posted by moomba
I am sure you will always appreciate that despite sides going flat out for a win and the 3 points, that this does not always end up in a result.

Of course. Attacking football doesn't guarantee scoring in any given game. But over several thousand matches if the rule really did make more attacking football this would manifest itself in bigger scores. This has not been the case. The increase has been from 2.55 to 2.63 goals per match.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
So, the 3-point rule has had the massive affect of decreasing draws by 1.77% and increasing the total goals per game from 2.55 to 2.63. Wow!

So an improvement in total goals per game as well as the percentage of games finishing with a result. Sounds like a good rule to me, and with no negatives, this just confirms my view that the 3 point ruled is one of the best changes to the game in the last 25 years.

If it was right for 100 years until 1981 why change it to make it more unfair? What has changed? Has there been more scoring? No (0.08 is nothing.) Has the amount of draws decreased? Not perceptibly.

More scoring, less draws = good rule change. With no negative affects of the 3 point rule, 1 extra goal and 1 less draw would be worth the change IMO. As for you 100 years argument, there have been many rules changed in a variety of sports after a lengthy period of time. It's called the development of the sport, and while not all rule changes are for the overall good of the game, you have proven that this one is.

Who cares if your little selective total of 5 years shows that resuts were achieved 70% of the time. A 20 year sample like I used from 1981-2002 is far more relevant. I'd go back further than 10 years for the two-point rule but the tables only went back to 1969-70.

Little selective total. Ha. You used the records of the one club in England that would be least affected by a rule change, and you have a go at me for selectivity. The best way to see the effect of a rule change is to assess results immediately before and immediately after, any longer than that and your results will be skewed by other rule changes or developments in the game. Besides that I couldn't be @rsed going through 30 years of stats, 10 was bad enough.

Of course. Attacking football doesn't guarantee scoring in any given game. But over several thousand matches if the rule really did make more attacking football this would manifest itself in bigger scores. This has not been the case. The increase has been from 2.55 to 2.63 goals per match.

You obviously misread what I said, so let me repeat. If both sides are trying to get a win, even if the end result of those efforts is no change in the current scoreline, that is preferable to both sides settling for a draw. Your stats will record both games exactly the same, as just another draw, with no additional goals, we both know that there is a marked difference between the two.

Moomba

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dan26
This has no relevance to anything discussed here. We are talking about the results of matches - not the scoring system used within them.

It is relevant. Your point is that mathematics should be the basis of determining the value of a win as opposed to a draw to ensure fairness? What's the difference between that and using mathematics to determine the value of a goal as opposed to a behind?

Irrelevant. All that matters is the end result of the match and that can be either a win, a loss or a draw. How we get to that win, loss or draw is up to the scoring suystem used in that sport. But once the result is complete, a draw (if it happens) is half the value of a win.

So maths should be used only for valuing wins and losses, but not the method of scoring? What happened to the mathematical fairness that you care so much about?

If the 3 points for a win is unfair due to DanMaths, then surely DanMaths should also apply to the 6 points for a goal and 1 point for a behind?

Or if the 6 points for a goal/1 point for a behind is just a mere step in the journey to a final result in a game, then surely it's fair that the 3 points for a win/1 point for a draw is just a mere step to a final result in a championship ladder.

The actual scoring system used within the match is totally irrelevant and the fact you would devote even one post to it, is ridiculous.

The fact that you took a tongue in cheek post so seriously is ridiculous. Still, as I've pointed out above, it seems that your need for mathematical fairness only applies in certain situations.

None of that is measurable anyway. You can't meaaure how much harder it is to score a goal than a behind. But even if you could it is irrelevant.

It didn't stop cricket from adopting that weird system that determines the target scores if a game is cut short by bad weather? Surely there are enough football matches on tape to make an analysis on the difficulty of getting a goal as opposed to a behind and then working out a relative difficulty (I guess that over the past 40 years or so of TV coverage, there would've been at least 10,000 games played....a large enough basis to make a statistical sample).

The match result (W, L or D) is the thing that matters. If it to be totally fair, the same amount of points should be up for grabs in every match and if a draw eventuates those points shoud be shared. In Soccer some matches have a total of 3 points and others have 2. This means some matches are more important than others. All 380 matches should have the same importance.

Only problem is that everyone understands the system and plays under it.

The flipside of the argument is this. Each team starts at 0-0 and you could say that they each have 1 point, which they can either hold or lose depending on the reult. If a team wins, they get their 1 point, the 1 point from their opponent, and a bonus 1 point as a premium or bonus for winning. It sounds fair to me.

Judging by Liverpool's results over the last 44 years (22 with the 3-point rule and 22 without it) there have been no notable difference in draws. I don't know what the other club's results would be, but I would take an intelligent guess that similar conclusions will be drawn. Liverpool's sample is just too large for it to be discounted.

Dunno about you, but when Fergie removes a defender in Silvestre and brings on an attacking midfielder in Veron and decides that it's worth the gamble of losing a point to try and gain three, I'd say that 3 points for a win does its job properly. Under the old 2 points, I suspect that he and his Rent Boy counterpart would have been content to take a point each. But hey, I only watch the game, not keep an eye out on statistical details.

By the way, it's kind of amazing how you can so quickly find stats for wins and draws, and yet you still haven't found an example of a home team stacking their defence to play for a 0-0 draw in the first leg of a two legged tie where the away goals rule applies.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
...something about how I am right and everyone else is wrong...

Care to comment on the offside rule Dan?

 

[X_box_X]

Originally posted by Shinboners
I suppose that if you are to use mathematics to determine what is an appropriate valuation for what someone does, then why is it in AFL football that a goal is worth 6 times more than a behind? Have they done a statistical analysis to show that it is 6 times more difficult to get a shot on target between the two big sticks rather than one big stick and one shorter one? A team could conceivably get 5.20.50 (25 shots on goal) and lose to another team who gets 9.0.54 (9 shots on goal) - is that a fair representation of what has happened? Obviously the first team did all the attacking, had the better of the play, and yet they get penalised by what might be a mathematically inappropriate scoring system.

What happens if it's only three times as hard to get a "goal" than a "behind"? To be fair, shouldn't a goal be only worth 3 points?

Interesting. Very interesting.
You have a good point, however, it is totally irrelivant in this thread. Seriously, Shinners, you should post this on the AFL board - It would bring up a lot of debating.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by X_box_X
Interesting. Very interesting.
You have a good point, however, it is totally irrelivant in this thread. Seriously, Shinners, you should post this on the AFL board - It would bring up a lot of debating.

Nah, just taking the p*ss and pointing out Dan's lack of consistency on how he reckons that mathematical fairness should determine things in sport.

I'm happy with 6 points for a goal and 1 point for a behind just as I'm happy with 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw.

However, I do remember that rugby union changed their scoring system a few years ago. I'm not strong on rubgy, I thought a try was originally worth 3 points, then 4, and then 5. It seems that teams were racking up winning scores by kicking field goals whereas the administrators (and fans) would prefer to see the players attempting to score a try, hence the increase in value of a try.

 

[Karanicolas]

Originally posted by Dan26
*sigh*

Because a win is a win, a loss is a loss and a draw is the mid-point.

It is neither a win , nor a loss. It is exactly in between. It is no closer to a loss than it is to a win. It is in the middle. A fair an equitable system will recognise this.

The question is not whether the sytem is fair and equitabe (it obviously isn't.) The question is do we want it to be fair an equitable? Do we want the unfairness to give the advanatge of encouraging teams to go for a win? There is a strong current of support suggesting it is better to be unfair. Maybe they have a point?

Dan 26.66666666666666666666 (recurring),

1. If there are four games with the following results: 2:0, 1:1, 0:0 and 0:1, both draws cannot be considered the midpoint as they are not exactly in between either of the win/loss results.

2. Why is the system not fair and equitable given that all teams play each other home and away and know the rules before the season began?

3. What do you mean by: "Do we want the unfairness to give the advanatge of encouraging teams to go for a win?"?

 

[Diego Forlan]

...sits back and enjoys as Dan26, and now X_box_X both embarass themselves with frail arguments...

Go you good things!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by moomba
So an improvement in total goals per game as well as the percentage of games finishing with a result. Sounds like a good rule to me,

The imporvement (hehe) is miniscule. In fact, it was so small that the difference cannot be attribued to the rule. It is more likely attributable to random variation. We are talking an increase of 0.08 of one goal combined betwen both teams. That is so small as to be irrelevant. Random variation only.

Originally posted by moomba
...with no negatives

Hahaha. Yeah right. No negatives. Sure. Like the title going to the wrong team because the rule doesn't mathematically award points correctly. That, my friend is a negative. It might be worth it if the rule promoted a significant increase in attacking football. But it doesn't. There was virtually no difference. 2.55 compared to 2.63. That's not significant.

Originally posted by moomba
...this just confirms my view that the 3 point ruled is one of the best changes to the game in the last 25 years.

End result is that the rule promotes a mathematically unfair points system that has not made any siginificant difference to scoring. There was nothing wrong with the system for 100 years. You probably don't even remember the old rule so you are just used to the new one.

Originally posted by moomba
More scoring, less draws = good rule change.

The scoring and likelihood of draws has not altered significanlty. The changes are so small as to be insignificant. Stop using them as your crutch.

Originally posted by moomba
With no negative affects of the 3 point rule, 1 extra goal and 1 less draw would be worth the change IMO.

No neagatives? The fact the system is mathaematically unfair is a negative. The fact some games have a total of 3 points, and some games have a total of 2 points means some games are more important than others. All games should be of equal importance.

Originally posted by moomba
It's called the development of the sport, and while not all rule changes are for the overall good of the game, you have proven that this one is.

I have proven that there is virtually no differecne to the amount of scoring in the EPL with the three point rule comapred to the 2 point rule. If you're going to continue to promote that the 0.08 goals (less than one-tenth of one goal) per match is somehow noticeabale then please stop - you are making a fool out of yourself if you keep using that as your argument.

Originally posted by moomba
Little selective total. Ha. You used the records of the one club in England that would be least affected by a rule change, and you have a go at me for selectivity.

I used Liverpool's record. Then I also used the total record for all clubs from 1970 to 2003. Forgot about that did we?

For what it's worth, the last 5 years under the 2-point rule (1977-1981) reuslted in 28.79% of matches being draws. For the first 5 years of the three-pont rule (1982-1986) this decreased to 24.54. Then in the next 9 years after that (1987-1995) it increased again to the normal level of 28.64.

Originally posted by moomba
I couldn't be @rsed going through 30 years of stats, 10 was bad enough.

Well I could be arsed, and by doing so I showed you there was no significant difference over a long period of time. Until you can be @rsed doing it, you will have to accept my stats, which are factual figures.

Originally posted by moomba
You obviously misread what I said, so let me repeat. If both sides are trying to get a win, even if the end result of those efforts is no change in the current scoreline, that is preferable to both sides settling for a draw. Your stats will record both games exactly the same, as just another draw, with no additional goals, we both know that there is a marked difference between the two.

I don't know what you are trying to prove. Over several thousand matches, if the 3-point rule promote a more attacking philosphy this would manifest itself in the stats. I know what you are saying, in the sense that both teams may attack and both teams will want to win, so the chances of a draw are probably still the same. But this isn't about draws. It is about encouraging attacking football, which means more goals. You can have an attacking draw, for instance - nothign wrong with that. Many think that the rule encourages more scoring because teams want to go for the win. Scoring has not significantly increased. The figures show this.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Shinboners
It is relevant.

No, it's not.

Originally posted by Shinboners
Your point is that mathematics should be the basis of determining the value of a win as opposed to a draw to ensure fairness? What's the difference between that and using mathematics to determine the value of a goal as opposed to a behind?

There is a huge difference. For starters it is impossible to measure the difficulty of scoring a goal compared to a behind. It is not measurable. A win a loss and a draw are end results and are perfectly meaurable. The scoring system used within a match has absolutely no relevance to the win, loss, draw discussion. None. Besides last time I checked a goal was always worth 6 points. In the EPL some matches are worth 3 and others worth 2 (one point each.) The value of a goal doesn't change. It is always the same.

Originally posted by Shinboners
So maths should be used only for valuing wins and losses, but not the method of scoring? What happened to the mathematical fairness that you care so much about?

Shinboners...you can measure wins and losses and draws in a table, and measure it. Wins being twice as much as draws. You cannot measure the probability of scoring a goal in the AFL. There are thousands of variables. The end reuslt is what we are looking at here, and the end result (W, L or D) is perfectly measurable.

Originally posted by Shinboners
If the 3 points for a win is unfair due to DanMaths, then surely DanMaths should also apply to the 6 points for a goal and 1 point for a behind?

3 points for a win is clearly unfair as it means some matches have a total of 3 points, and other matches have a total of 2 points. This means some matches are more impoertnat than others, which is mathematically wrong, because all 380 matches should be of equal importance. Six points for a goal and one for a behind has nothing to do with any of this. It is a scoring system used WITHIN a sport. All we are concerned with here are the mesurable end results, and whether they promote a fair system.

Originally posted by Shinboners
Or if the 6 points for a goal/1 point for a behind is just a mere step in the journey to a final result in a game, then surely it's fair that the 3 points for a win/1 point for a draw is just a mere step to a final result in a championship ladder.

No. 6 points for a goal/one for a behind is not mathematically measurable in terms of fairness. They are just arbitary figures. Giving a draw less than half of what a win is worth is mathematically unfair.

Originally posted by Shinboners
It didn't stop cricket from adopting that weird system that determines the target scores if a game is cut short by bad weather?

Interesting point. If a team is chasing 5 runs per over in 50 overs and rain reduces the number of overs to 15, then the old system meant the chasing team still had to get 5 runs per over. This was deemed unfair because the chasing team could go for the slog knowing it's near impossible to get bowled out.

The ICC then changed the system, to make it a bit harder for the chasing team in that circumstance. The idea of course is to have a system where the chasing team's probability of getting a total in 50 overs is identical to getting the new total in a rain-reduced 15 overs. The huge problem was the new system could not measure this probabioity. They were rough guesses. They were implementing a system where they were taking a guess at making the chasing teams target the same difficulty in reduced overs as under the full 50 overs.

There is still controversy surrounding the system and always will be because the probability of winning in reduced overs, comapred to 50 overs is unmeasurable.

But it is all a moot point because it's only a scoring sytem used within the sport. The end result is the important measurable quantity. For what it's worth I'm not a huge fans of the bonus point system. A win's a win as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Shinboners
Surely there are enough football matches on tape to make an analysis on the difficulty of getting a goal as opposed to a behind and then working out a relative difficulty (I guess that over the past 40 years or so of TV coverage, there would've been at least 10,000 games played....a large enough basis to make a statistical sample).

You might be able to get a sample from thousands of games of the probability of scoring from 40 metres directly in front. But what about the probability from scoring from 45 metres on a 30 degree angle? And what about the probabiltiy of scoring from 20 metres on a 75 degree angle? And what about the probability of scoring from 55 metres on a 15 degree angle, a 25 degree angle, and a 35 degree angle?

The probabilities (if you measure them over thousands of samples) will be different for each situation. Does this means we allow 8.3 points instead of 6 for a goal from 45 metres on 65 degree angle? This is not measurable Shinboners. The idea is to score a goal - the difficulty of doing so doesn't matter. The end reuslt (W, L or D) of the match is the only truly measurable quantity. You cannot measure the probability of scoring a goal because of the thousands of variables.

You can't measure fairness in terms of the scoring system within a match. It's impossible. But we can make sure all 380 games in the EPL are of the same value. This would be fair, but at the moment some games are worth 3 and others are worth 2? Do we find some AFL goals being worth 5 points because they are easy goals? No of course not. They are all the same value - six. The value doesn't change like the value of a Soccer match changes from 2 to 3.

Originally posted by Shinboners
Dunno about you, but when Fergie removes a defender in Silvestre and brings on an attacking midfielder in Veron and decides that it's worth the gamble of losing a point to try and gain three, I'd say that 3 points for a win does its job properly.

You'd think so wouldn't you? The stats over the last 30 years don't reflect this though. There has been virtually no increase in scoring.

Originally posted by Shinboners
By the way, it's kind of amazing how you can so quickly find stats for wins and draws, and yet you still haven't found an example of a home team stacking their defence to play for a 0-0 draw in the first leg of a two legged tie where the away goals rule applies.

You'e not learning are you? It's easy to find results. They are factual measurable figures. It's impossible, however, to observe a match under the away goals rule and prove that the way the match was played would be different to how it would be played without the rule. You can't prove it. No one can. If a team playes attackingly in the first-leg you cannot prove that it's because of the away goals rule. There is no way of knowing unless you play the tie under both rules to compare.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26
The imporvement (hehe)


attribued
significanlty.
neagatives
mathaematically
differecne
comapred
noticeabale
nothign

First rule of pointing out spelling (typing) mistakes is..................

hehe

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26

No neagatives? The fact the system is mathaematically unfair is a negative. The fact some games have a total of 3 points, and some games have a total of 2 points means some games are more important than others. All games should be of equal importance.

That is laughable Dan, some games have 3 points and some 2 makes some games more important than others?

Maybe you could point out which of the upcoming weeks fixtures are more important than others, my tipping needs a boost.

Blackadder to Baldrick, oh you mean you can tell which games were more important after they were played, ahhhh

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Dan26

I'd suggest however, that you only respond to the thread you made on bigsoccer which will generate far better discussion that it will on here. The people over there really know their stuff and can generate some interesting points.

The people over there really know their stuff??? So WTF are you doing over there then?


The idea that you of all people would take some sort of moral high ground in regards to 'knowing your stuff' where football is concerned would be laughable if it wasn't so offensive.

Imagine if I suddenly decided that I knew more about Aussie Rules than you, you'd think it was a joke wouldn't you, because you've been to more games than me, grown up with the culture of the game & actually played the game well funny that because that's exactly how I feel when you start preaching to me (amongst others) about football.


I can't actually beleive that we're having this debate again, this time I refuse to lower myself to your level of ignorance.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26




I have proven that there is virtually no differecne to the amount of scoring in the EPL with the three point rule comapred to the 2 point rule. If you're going to continue to promote that the 0.08 goals (less than one-tenth of one goal) per match is somehow noticeabale then please stop - you are making a fool out of yourself if you keep using that as your argument.


For what it's worth, the last 5 years under the 2-point rule (1977-1981) reuslted in 28.79% of matches being draws. For the first 5 years of the three-pont rule (1982-1986) this decreased to 24.54. Then in the next 9 years after that (1987-1995) it increased again to the normal level of 28.64.

He's not necessarily making a fool of himself, scoring had been on a downward trend for years, in the 50's-60's the average goals per game was well over 3, 1960/61 for instance had an average of 3.7 goals per game, this had been on a steady decline for years, especially as more money came into the game, the stakes became higher and a focus shifted from winning to not losing, especially towards the bottom end of the league, where a drop could lead to severe financial pressures.

You do not have to be a statistical genius to plot a trend line on where scoring would be if the 3 point rule was introduced, so a 3% increase is not necessarily a 3% difference.

Other factors also contribute to less scoring in the modern age, no less being the size and athleticism of the modern player to their 70's counterparts, this is pretty much cancelled with defenders and attackers but have a look at the goalkeepers of today compared to 25 years ago. Virtually none were over 6' tall, the average today would be a minimum of 4" taller and the differences in athleticism and training techniques are vast.

Also from 88/89 the first division was reduced to 20 teams, the 21st and 22nd best teams, statistically the easiest to score against were now in the 2nd division. All of a sudden that 3% differential attributed to the 3 point rule looks a whole lot bigger.

 

[ShellySaint]

Originally posted by Dan26


Over the last 22 seasons when the 3-point rule has been in place, Liverpool's record is 225 draws and 639 non-draws (either a win or a loss.) Therefore, from 1982 to 2003, 26.04% of Liverpool's matches have been draws.

In the 22 years preceding 1982 (the last 22 years with the 2-point rule), Liverpool's record was 237 draws, 687 non draws (either a win or a loss.) From 1960 to 1981, 25.65% of Liverpool's matches were draws.

I think you should give the stats from each year as they were a different team in each year

What utter crap

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
The imporvement (hehe) is miniscule. In fact, it was so small that the difference cannot be attribued to the rule. It is more likely attributable to random variation. We are talking an increase of 0.08 of one goal combined betwen both teams. That is so small as to be irrelevant. Random variation only.

For a start, the rule change only really comes into play late in the game when the result is tied. If you are winning you are going to play no different than you would under the 2 point win rule, if you are losing you are going to play no different than you would under the 2 point win rule. The only matches in which the 3 point rule will come into effect late in the game when the score is tied. So you can say that the increase is only .08 gpg (which is still better than 30 goals per year in a 20 team league), but in reality the difference the rule makes is much more significant, just over a smaller number of matches. There is also an argument to say that clubs will take a more attacking approach into a game given the 3 points on offer. What happens then usually will depend on the scoreline.

Secondly as Falchoon has posted there have been numerous changes in the game since the 80's that have affected the amount of goals scored. Changes to a 20 team league, tactical and strategic developments in the game, someone employed George Graham, influx of foreign players, and especially foreign keepers. The very reason I chose the ten year period (apart from I couldn't be bothered) was that it was the best way to illustrate the changes while the environment of the sport was pretty much the same.

Hahaha. Yeah right. No negatives. Sure. Like the title going to the wrong team because the rule doesn't mathematically award points correctly. That, my friend is a negative. It might be worth it if the rule promoted a significant increase in attacking football. But it doesn't. There was virtually no difference. 2.55 compared to 2.63. That's not significant.

If we were talking about the English Maths League it would be a negative, however as we are talking about a sport, maths is irrelevant. All teams know the rules, all teams are treated equally by the rules.

End result is that the rule promotes a mathematically unfair points system that has not made any siginificant difference to scoring. There was nothing wrong with the system for 100 years. You probably don't even remember the old rule so you are just used to the new one.

No Maths - Yes Sport - Yes Fair.

As for my memory I will vouch for my memory of an event from the early 80's over a 26 year old any day. What do you recall about the debate leading up to the rule change Dan?

The scoring and likelihood of draws has not altered significanlty. The changes are so small as to be insignificant. Stop using them as your crutch.

Excuse my French but feck off telling me what I can and can't do. Your stats are a pile of inaccurate bollox where you have made absolutely no allowances for the many factors that could affect scoring rates. Even so 30 goals per season is significant, the decreased likelihood of draws, by your stats, is significant.

No neagatives? The fact the system is mathaematically unfair is a negative. The fact some games have a total of 3 points, and some games have a total of 2 points means some games are more important than others. All games should be of equal importance.

No Maths - Yes Sport - Yes Fair.

I have proven that there is virtually no differecne to the amount of scoring in the EPL with the three point rule comapred to the 2 point rule. If you're going to continue to promote that the 0.08 goals (less than one-tenth of one goal) per match is somehow noticeabale then please stop - you are making a fool out of yourself if you keep using that as your argument.

You have proven nothing, because your statistics are fundamentaly flawed. As I have explained above the increase in goals per game is much higher when you discount those games that are not affected by the 3 point win rule. We have more goals (over 30 per season based on your stats) and more results (based on your stats), I believe that the true results, accounting for all factors are much higher. With absolutely no negatives to be seen, the rule is a winner all round. As for making a fool of myself in an argument with you I am prepared to take that risk, stuff the consequences.

I used Liverpool's record. Then I also used the total record for all clubs from 1970 to 2003. Forgot about that did we?

You were more than happy to use the Liverpool stats as proof of your theory before I put up my stuff. It was only then that you miraculously found the tables you couldn't find before. Even still you have failed to account for the many variations in the game since the early 1980's and as such your stats are essentially useless.

For what it's worth, the last 5 years under the 2-point rule (1977-1981) reuslted in 28.79% of matches being draws. For the first 5 years of the three-pont rule (1982-1986) this decreased to 24.54. Then in the next 9 years after that (1987-1995) it increased again to the normal level of 28.64.

True, and you do have a point about the sample size. However if I went beyond 5 years there would have been too many changes in the game to be able to provide an accurate summary (taking into account the work I was prepared to do).

Well I could be arsed, and by doing so I showed you there was no significant difference over a long period of time. Until you can be @rsed doing it, you will have to accept my stats, which are factual figures.

Factual figures, bugger all relevance. Once again, don't tell me what I can and can't do. Cyber tough guy really doesn't suit you.

I don't know what you are trying to prove. Over several thousand matches, if the 3-point rule promote a more attacking philosphy this would manifest itself in the stats. I know what you are saying, in the sense that both teams may attack and both teams will want to win, so the chances of a draw are probably still the same. But this isn't about draws. It is about encouraging attacking football, which means more goals. You can have an attacking draw, for instance - nothign wrong with that. Many think that the rule encourages more scoring because teams want to go for the win. Scoring has not significantly increased. The figures show this.

Read above, see the error of your ways. I would also like to say that you don't need extra goals, or you don't need a result to see the benefit of the 3 point rule in any particular game. If both teams are going for it (and even you would concede that they are more likely to with 3 points on offer) it doesn't matter if the scoreline stays the same, the rule has benefited that particular match. In the long run, that is what no amount of stats can tell us.

Moomba

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
The imporvement (hehe)

By the way, what was that all about? I didn't have the temerity to make a spelling mistake did I.

Moomba

 

[myee8]

What is hard to see in stats is how the game was played. Were both teams trying to get a draw or were they both playing for a win and the game ended a draw?

Why can't you just accept the rules as they are instead of analsying them to death? I spose you have a comment on the offside rule.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dan26
No, it's not.

You're only saying that because it's showing your selective use of DanMaths.

There is a huge difference. For starters it is impossible to measure the difficulty of scoring a goal compared to a behind. It is not measurable.

Dunno about that. Sports like diving (er, off those planks over swimming pools and no RVN jokes thanks. Oi! Moomba - stop laughing up the back or you're out of here) and ski-jumps have no problems in rating the difficulty of certain manoeuvres, so I can't see any problem with the AFL borrowing the basis of their system to work out the relative difficulty between scoring a goal and a behind.

A win a loss and a draw are end results and are perfectly meaurable. The scoring system used within a match has absolutely no relevance to the win, loss, draw discussion. None. Besides last time I checked a goal was always worth 6 points. In the EPL some matches are worth 3 and others worth 2 (one point each.) The value of a goal doesn't change. It is always the same.

It's relevance, as I've stated before, is that it shows that you're willing to use DanMaths in circumstances that suit you, and to ignore it when applied to other situations.

Shinboners...you can measure wins and losses and draws in a table, and measure it. Wins being twice as much as draws. You cannot measure the probability of scoring a goal in the AFL. There are thousands of variables. The end reuslt is what we are looking at here, and the end result (W, L or D) is perfectly measurable.

There are plenty of variables when it comes to executing a dive (I said NO RVN jokes Moomba) or a ski jump. They don't have any problems with it.

For the third time, I'm only pointing out your selective use of DanMaths.

3 points for a win is clearly unfair as it means some matches have a total of 3 points, and other matches have a total of 2 points. This means some matches are more impoertnat than others, which is mathematically wrong, because all 380 matches should be of equal importance. Six points for a goal and one for a behind has nothing to do with any of this. It is a scoring system used WITHIN a sport. All we are concerned with here are the mesurable end results, and whether they promote a fair system.

Perhaps ALL GAMES are worth 3 points. It's just that sometimes you have two teams playing and neither of them is good enough to claim all three, so FIFA have decreed that they should get 1 point each for trying and all those third points are put away in the FIFA safety deposit box in a Swiss bank in Geneva.

No. 6 points for a goal/one for a behind is not mathematically measurable in terms of fairness. They are just arbitary figures. Giving a draw less than half of what a win is worth is mathematically unfair.

I think I've read that somewhere before.

You might be able to get a sample from thousands of games of the probability of scoring from 40 metres directly in front. But what about the probability from scoring from 45 metres on a 30 degree angle? And what about the probabiltiy of scoring from 20 metres on a 75 degree angle? And what about the probability of scoring from 55 metres on a 15 degree angle, a 25 degree angle, and a 35 degree angle?

Just sit someone in front of the computer, enter in all the data, and see what comes out. Just because it's tedious slog work doesn't mean that it can't be done.

The probabilities (if you measure them over thousands of samples) will be different for each situation. Does this means we allow 8.3 points instead of 6 for a goal from 45 metres on 65 degree angle? This is not measurable Shinboners. The idea is to score a goal - the difficulty of doing so doesn't matter. The end reuslt (W, L or D) of the match is the only truly measurable quantity. You cannot measure the probability of scoring a goal because of the thousands of variables.

All we're looking for is to find out the relative difficulty of scoring a goal compared to a behind, and then seeing if 6 points for a goal is fair or not. You said it was an arbritary figure, why not, in the interests of mathematical fairness, try and find a more appropriate figure?

Not sure why you're arguing it so much - I'm just arguing it from your normal point of view of (Dan)mathematical fairness. I'm working from your side here.

You can't measure fairness in terms of the scoring system within a match. It's impossible. But we can make sure all 380 games in the EPL are of the same value. This would be fair, but at the moment some games are worth 3 and others are worth 2? Do we find some AFL goals being worth 5 points because they are easy goals? No of course not. They are all the same value - six. The value doesn't change like the value of a Soccer match changes from 2 to 3.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu here...didn't you say this a few paragraphs ago?

You'd think so wouldn't you? The stats over the last 30 years don't reflect this though. There has been virtually no increase in scoring.

As Moomba said (yeah, still in class....hasn't made any more RVN diving jokes and we might give him the dux award for BigFooty Soccer), you have to look beyond the raw stats and look at what happens in the game itself.

You'e not learning are you? It's easy to find results. They are factual measurable figures. It's impossible, however, to observe a match under the away goals rule and prove that the way the match was played would be different to how it would be played without the rule. You can't prove it. No one can. If a team playes attackingly in the first-leg you cannot prove that it's because of the away goals rule. There is no way of knowing unless you play the tie under both rules to compare.

I reckon I've seen enough soccer and the antics of managers and players in different situations to be able to make a reasonably informed judgement. And I'd back that over your "look at this stat! look at that stat!" approach to things.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by DIPPER
The people over there really know their stuff??? So WTF are you doing over there then?

The idea that you of all people would take some sort of moral high ground in regards to 'knowing your stuff' where football is concerned would be laughable if it wasn't so offensive.

Dan knows his stuff so well that he races off to quote from Kenyan websites for African Cup results in 1979 to prove that he's right and that the rest of us are wrong.

I can't actually beleive that we're having this debate again, this time I refuse to lower myself to your level of ignorance.

Does anyone remember Dan ever posting anything interesting about any games, the progress of Arsenal, or how other clubs/players are doing? It seems that 95% of his soccer posts cover just has two topics - the away goals rule and the 3 points for a win rule.

 

[moomba]

Ruud Van Nistelrooy walks into a bar. The barman takes one look at him and say "Why the long face"

Boom boom

Moomba

 

[Diego Forlan]

Few points worth noting here:

1 - Has Dan's beloved Arsenal been 'ripped off' (in his eyes) from winning the title since the 3 points for a win became active?

2 - Three points for a win is unfair. This claims comes from someone who:

a) Quotes one result from tournaments played over 20 years ago

b) Actually thought away goals were literally counted as double. So a team could win both ties, and still bomb out because they scored less away goals then their opponent.

c) Uses other peoples posts as evidence to support his own claim. This so-called genius who claims the away goals rule is 'controversial', yet has no proof to support his claim. He then
discovers (in someone elses post), the away goals rule is not
applied in the Worthless Cup. Bang. There's his 'evidence'. Up until that point, he had no response.

d) Cannot accurately quote other peoples posts.

e) Still has not provided any evidence as to a match where the home team in a 2 legged tie played defensively, or intentionally played for a 0-0 draw in the first leg.

No doubt DanOffice will do a spelling and grammar check on this post in order to gain some credibility (or throw in some cheap insult), but ladies and gentelman, how can one ever take this man seriously? For someone who has been 'following' Arsenal since 1989, he knows precious little about the game.

I know I'm digging up the away goals crap again, but it is relevant to this topic to. Clearly both concepts are encouraging attacking football, but someone can't accept this to be fact.

This 'teenage bandwagoner' has spoken. Nyah.

 

[Shinboners]

Hey Diego Forlan, you forgot to add:

f) Thought that Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink was an American.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Shinboners
Hey Diego Forlan, you forgot to add:

f) Thought that Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink was an American.

Sorry, I was using DanSelectivity in preparing my argument.