Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Diego Forlan]

You have to wait a week until he comes up with something more witty, just look at the away goals thread for an example

 

[X_box_X]

Originally posted by Falchoon

I agree with you in one part, 3 over 2, meaning it is more important to win rather than draw, part of the reason the 3 point rule was introduced

Indeed. Under the current system used, Soccer acknowledges a win being more important than a draw.

You're all looking at the top of the table, though. The difference isn't noticed at the top of the table, it's noticed at the bottom of the table. Take for instance:

Bolton - 0-5 - Arsenal
Bolton - 1-4 - Newcastle
Bolton - 0-3 - Chelsea
Bolton - 0-8 - Man. United
Bolton - 1-0 - West Ham
Bolton - 2-1 - Sunderland


West Brom - 2-2 - Arsenal
West Brom - 1-1 - Newcastle
West Brom - 0-0 - Chelsea
West Brom - 3-3 - Man. United
West Brom - 2-2 - West Ham
West Brom - 3-3 - Sunderland

West Brom - 0 wins, 6 draws, 0 loses, 6pts, 0
Bolton - 2 wins, 0 draws, 4 loses, 6pts, -14

Funny. Both teams have a total of six points, even though it is easy to tell West Brom (over those six games) has been the better side. Their goal difference proves that. Realistically, West Brom's points tally should be 1.5 times greater than Bolton's points tally. However, instead of being a total of nine points, their total is three fewer, at six.

Now, using the same figures, the teams oppositions tally would look like this:



V Bolton

Arsenal - 3pts
Newcastle - 3pts
Chelsea - 3pts
Man United - 3pts
West Ham - 0pts
Sunderland 0pts

V West Brom

Arsenal - 1pt
Newcastle - 1pt
Chelsea - 1pt
Man United - 1pt
West Ham - 1pt
Sunderland 1pt

Therefore, the games that Bolton played were of more importance as they had way more points given out. Double, in fact.

Realistically, Bolton should have had 8 pts given away against them, which all works out perfectly as Bolton should have fewer points than West Brom (Two points fewer).

Now, back to my point, if the lower ranked teams are able to draw games with the higher ranked teams, why should they be relegated? A win is currently three times more important than a draw, therefore, a win would really be a HUGE advantage to the teams at the bottom of the table.

 

[ScouseCat]

I am in favour of any system which rewards and encourages teams to play for a win as opposed to settling for a draw.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Ok folks, I've got this one nailed (finally)

Lets say, a team wins a game, ok? That is a POSITIVE result, so lets give them a big gold star and positive number for their good work (+1)

A team that loses a game is naughty. That is a NEGATIVE result, so lets give them a kick up the anus and a negative number for performing dismally (-1)

Now a team that doesn't win or lose, so they must draw. Now considering a draw is half a win, it is should be rewarded with exactly half of a win, so lets give them +0.5. Now we still have a 50% remainder to deal with, obviously this other half is a loss. A loss is a NEGATIVE result, so they should recieve half the value of a loss, so lets give them -0.5. Now, when we add up the +0.5 and -0.5, obviously the net result is ZERO. ZERO

So based on my solid mathematical background, I propose the current system is completely and uttely biased, and should be changed such that:

1 point for a win
0 points for a draw
-1 point for a loss.

I am right, the rest of you are all WRONG. I supply the maths to back me up, and now you idiots will all go crazy.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by X_box_X [V]
Now, back to my point, if the lower ranked teams are able to draw games with the higher ranked teams, why should they be relegated? A win is currently three times more important than a draw, therefore, a win would really be a HUGE advantage to the teams at the bottom of the table. [/B]

This is really utter nonsense. Teams should avoid relegation simply because they can pull out a draw against the top teams. Do you know the kind of negative tactics they employ against these teams? 10 men behind the ball? Do you think that warrants a stay of execution?

These teams get relegated because they are generally ****house and cannot beat the teams around them on the table. If they can't do that, they don't deserve to be in the same league, regardless of if you award 3 or 3000 points for a win.

 

[X_box_X]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Ok folks, I've got this one nailed (finally)

Lets say, a team wins a game, ok? That is a POSITIVE result, so lets give them a big gold star and positive number for their good work (+1)

A team that loses a game is naughty. That is a NEGATIVE result, so lets give them a kick up the anus and a negative number for performing dismally (-1)

Now a team that doesn't win or lose, so they must draw. Now considering a draw is half a win, it is should be rewarded with exactly half of a win, so lets give them +0.5. Now we still have a 50% remainder to deal with, obviously this other half is a loss. A loss is a NEGATIVE result, so they should recieve half the value of a loss, so lets give them -0.5. Now, when we add up the +0.5 and -0.5, obviously the net result is ZERO. ZERO

So based on my solid mathematical background, I propose the current system is completely and uttely biased, and should be changed such that:

1 point for a win
0 points for a draw
-1 point for a loss.

I am right, the rest of you are all WRONG. I supply the maths to back me up, and now you idiots will all go crazy.

Diego, your system doesn’t need points. Why one point for a win and negative one for a loss? If you are not going to award teams points for a draw, but the draw is still the middle-point between a win and loss, you don’t need the points system.

Your system is basically games won minus games lost. However, there are also games which will not be under any significance whatsoever as draws are basically dead games. If a team has a sexy record of 26 wins, 6 draws and 6 loses, the six drawn games will be dead games as you have classed them as a value of zero. Therefore, 26 minus 6 gives you a figure of +20. In your scoring system, this is the amount a team will end up with. 20 points.

Your system is fair, though. I would approve of it if you fixed one thing up. A negative figure for points lost. Your system is exactly the same as mine, except you have taken a point away from each option. Why do you need to do that?

I don’t think you realise this, but you are agreeing with me, as your system is equally as fair as mine and would bring out the same standings. Work it out.

Mine:

Wins – 2 pts
Draw – 1 pt
Lose – 0 pts

Yours:

Wins – 1 pt
Draw – 0 pts
Lose - -1 pt

Therefore, let’s use the teams Arsenal and Liverpool. Now, their results are as follows:

Arsenal – 3-0
Arsenal – 2-1
Arsenal – 4-1
Arsenal – 5-0
Arsenal – 2-2
Arsenal – 1-2

Won – 4
Drew – 1
Lost – 1

Liverpool – 2-2
Liverpool – 1-1
Liverpool – 1-0
Liverpool – 2-2
Liverpool – 4-0
Liverpool – 2-0

Won – 3
Drew – 3
Lost – 0

My system would have these standings:


1. Liverpool – 9pts
2. Arsenal – 9pts

Your system would have these standings:

1. Liverpool – 3pts
2. Arsenal – 3pts

No matter which system you use, the system will not affect the standings. Of course, the points system would differ, but the standings wouldn’t change.

Meaning, our systems are equal in fairness and will not change the standings.
Therefore, you agree with me.

Thank you, Diego.

 

[Carmelo Anthony]

X Box

Who honestly gives a $hit.. for f...'s sake this board is total bull$hit.

Wow.. you win..3 pts, draw 1 pt, loss 0!

Every team goes by that.. if you changed it to 2-1-0... it would be exactly the same. Being 2 games behind youd be 4 pts behind instead of 6.. but youd still need 2 goddam bloody wins to be equal.

Why dont you go onto the cricket board and say that there shouldnt be such thing as bonus points.. because pitch conditions, weather in different states.. im sure you could have ur fun (which to the other 6 billion or so people in the world would consider stupid, pathetic and crap) over there.

DAMN!

* Funny thing is you and ur idiot away goal rule friend try to make it sound controversial.. when its bloody not.

Pointless thread.. someone delete this before I puke

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by moomba
It's funny, he hasn't responded to Falchoon's post stating several alternative reasons why scoring hasn't risen in recent years,

Falchoon stated that scoring was on a downward trend. This was not true. In the 12 years preceding the 3-point rule the average total score per game was:

1970 - 2.62
1971 - 2.36
1972 - 2.51
1873 - 2.51
1974 - 2.40
1975 - 2.63
1976 - 2.66
1977 - 2.45
1978 - 2.66
1979 - 2.63
1980 - 2.42
1981 - 2.66

The first 6 years (1970-75) the average total score was 2.51, the next 6 years (1976-81) the average total score was 2.58

It seems the notion that scores were decreasing is a figment of your's and Falchoon's imagination.

Originally posted by moomba
or to my post on AFLHQ about how one side attacking often results in more attacking opportunities for the opposition side,

What's that got to do with anything? It's common knowledge that if a side goes on the attack they leave themselves open defensively. A perfect example of an exciting match where both teams were on the attack was last year's Worthington Cup Final. If all games were played like that, we would see perhaps between 4 and 5 goals scored combined. If sides do this it should result in significantly higher scoring games. Proplem is, the 3-point rule hasn't had as much of an affect (if at all) as you imply.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26
Falchoon stated that scoring was on a downward trend. This was not true. In the 12 years preceding the 3-point rule the average total score per game was:

1970 - 2.62
1971 - 2.36
1972 - 2.51
1873 - 2.51
1974 - 2.40
1975 - 2.63
1976 - 2.66
1977 - 2.45
1978 - 2.66
1979 - 2.63
1980 - 2.42
1981 - 2.66

The first 6 years (1970-75) the average total score was 2.51, the next 6 years (1976-81) the average total score was 2.58

It seems the notion that scores were decreasing is a figment of your's and Falchoon's imagination.

Falchoon said since the fifties/sixties

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Falchoon


Trust you to laugh but logic is obviously not a strong point, going by my logic you wouldn't take the bottom eighteen teams out you'd take out the top 2 and the bottom 2. You'll actually find the highest scoring games occur between teams at opposite ends of the ladder. The team with the most goals in their games this year is Arsenal with 77, second is Bolton with 72, 3rd is Newcastle with 70, Tottenham is 4th, West Ham next with 67. Something of a pattern forming? More goals involving teams at opposite ends of the ladder? Take out the bottom teams, take out the top teams more games are evenly matched?

Interpretation not part of your course?

You havn't been on the Persian Rugs have you Falchoon?

There are so many reasons why I can explain that the above quote by you is total bollocks. Hopefuly I'll only need a couple to show you.

Are you trying to tell me, that if two average division one sides were added to the premeir Legaue next year (taking it to 22) and these two sides were the same quality as the the relegation teams, that scoring would increase? These new teams might have to play matches against the top teams but they also have to play against the same quality teams at the lower end of the table.

Your argument about the top and bottom teams being involved in the highest scorign games is flawed. If you take the bottom teams out, you are left with a new group of 18 teams who would would play amongst themselves. The worst teams would become teams 17 and 18.

Imagine if it was a 4 team legaue involving Arsenal, Manyoo, Chelsea and Liverpool. Because these 4 teams would play amongst themselves, we may eventually see that the bottom team (Liverpool) might be involved in higher scoring games (as your figures suggest.) But the same Liverpool team in a 20 team league would not necessaruly be involved in higher scoring games, because the opponents they play would change which dictates their scoring capabilities.

You are not taking into account that a change in the number of teams changes the standard of the league and therefore the scoring capabilites of the team because each team plays a different set of matches.

Taking two teams away from the top division just makes the overall standard better. It won't affect the number of goals scored. If it does affect the number of goals scored, then by that logic a 100 team division should have higher scooring games.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Falchoon
Falchoon said since the fifties/sixties

Well over an entire 12 year period (1970-81), there was no noticeable flutuation. 12 years is nearly 5,000 games.

And besides, what is wrong with a low scoring game? Isn't quality the most important thing. Maybe basketball is more your thing?

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26
You havn't been on the Persian Rugs have you Falchoon?

There are so many reasons why I can explain that the above quote by you is total bollocks. Hopefuly I'll only need a couple to show you.

Are you trying to tell me, that if two average division one sides were added to the premeir Legaue next year (taking it to 22) and these two sides were the same quality as the the relegation teams, that scoring would increase? These new teams might have to play matches against the top teams but they also have to play against the same quality teams at the lower end of the table.

Scoring would increase, yes.
They will (not might) play against the top teams with higher than average scores, they will play against similarly ranked teams with average scores. The greater the differential in standard the higher the scoring.

Originally posted by Dan26


Your argument about the top and bottom teams being involved in the highest scorign games is flawed. If you take the bottom teams out, you are left with a new group of 18 teams who would would play amongst themselves. The worst teams would become teams 17 and 18.

Am I missing something, must be the drugs?

Not that flawed - The team with the most goals in their games this year is Arsenal with 77, second is Bolton with 72, 3rd is Newcastle with 70, Tottenham is 4th, West Ham next with 67.
The worst teams are still of a higher standard than 19-20.

Originally posted by Dan26

Imagine if it was a 4 team legaue involving Arsenal, Manyoo, Chelsea and Liverpool. Because these 4 teams would play amongst themselves, we may eventually see that the bottom team (Liverpool) might be involved in higher scoring games (as your figures suggest.) But the same Liverpool team in a 20 team league would not necessaruly be involved in higher scoring games, because the opponents they play would change which dictates their scoring capabilities.

You what?

Originally posted by Dan26


You are not taking into account that a change in the number of teams changes the standard of the league and therefore the scoring capabilites of the team because each team plays a different set of matches.

That was my whole point, their is less of a differential between top and bottom. Less blowouts

Originally posted by Dan26


Taking two teams away from the top division just makes the overall standard better. It won't affect the number of goals scored. If it does affect the number of goals scored, then by that logic a 100 team division should have higher scooring games.

A 100 team division would most certainly have higher scoring games, ie Liverpool 8 York 0.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26
Well over an entire 12 year period (1970-81), there was no noticeable flutuation. 12 years is nearly 5,000 games.

And besides, what is wrong with a low scoring game? Isn't quality the most important thing. Maybe basketball is more your thing?

and 48 years would be 20,000 games, the problem that the solution was devised for did not rear its head in 1980.

I like soccer hate baseball
I like basketball hate cricket

the quality is in the game not scoring. IMO one of the great beauties of soccer is the work and effort that goes in to scoring a goal. Never worked people out who dismiss the game because of its low scoring.

How come you haven't had a go at my age or soccer supporting experience as yet? I thought it was your standard line?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Falchoon
Scoring would increase, yes.
They will (not might) play against the top teams with higher than average scores, they will play against similarly ranked teams with average scores.

And when they play those top teams they will not be as likely to score themselves, because of the differential. It works both ways. The standard of the competition is just more diluted over 100 teams - It doesn't mean the scoring rate will increase or decrease.

If it was just a two-team League between Arsenal and Manyoo, we would still see between 2 and 3 golas scored per game on avergae (roughly.) The fact it is a 2 team league doesn't make the scoring any more frequent than if it was a 100 team league.

Originally posted by Falchoon
Not that flawed - The team with the most goals in their games this year is Arsenal with 77, second is Bolton with 72, 3rd is Newcastle with 70, Tottenham is 4th, West Ham next with 67.
The worst teams are still of a higher standard than 19-20.

Irrelevant.

if you take out, say, 6 random teams you will be left with 14 teams and those new 14 teams would comprise the new highest scoring teams and the new lowest scoring teams. The structure of the competition has changed. The scoring rate wouldn't.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
Falchoon stated that scoring was on a downward trend. This was not true. In the 12 years preceding the 3-point rule the average total score per game was:

As Falchoon has pointed out, he stated that scoring has been on a downward trend since the 50/60's. I was surprised you haven't posted statistics to disprove that so I had a go.

1950/51 - 1959/60 season: 3.41 goals per game
1960/61 - 1969/70 season: 3.16 goals per game
1970/71 - 1979/80 season: 2.54 goals per game

This trend was reversed in the 80's. I wonder what happened then?

1980/81 - 1989/90 season: 2.65 goals per game

Feel free to double check my figures, but shows a fairly clear downturn, followed by a reversal of a trend, exactly what Falchoon suggested.

It seems the notion that scores were decreasing is a figment of your's and Falchoon's imagination.

Still think that way?

What's that got to do with anything? It's common knowledge that if a side goes on the attack they leave themselves open defensively. A perfect example of an exciting match where both teams were on the attack was last year's Worthington Cup Final. If all games were played like that, we would see perhaps between 4 and 5 goals scored combined. If sides do this it should result in significantly higher scoring games. Proplem is, the 3-point rule hasn't had as much of an affect (if at all) as you imply.

Got nothing to do with the actual topic at hand, although I notice that you are trying to use an argument from the away goals rule debate to support your case in the 3 points for a win debate, not sure what is going on there

Anyway I put that in just to note your tendency to ignore posts that don't suit your side of the argument.

Moomba

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
Well over an entire 12 year period (1970-81), there was no noticeable flutuation. 12 years is nearly 5,000 games.

Mmmm. A few pages back I chose to use ten years, five before and five after to assess the impact of the rule change on the comp, and you said this.

Originally posted by Dan26
Who cares if your little selective total of 5 years shows that resuts were achieved 70% of the time.

Must be the extra two years that make it a reasonable sample size eh Dan?

Moomba

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by X_box_X
Meaning, our systems are equal in fairness and will not change the standings. Therefore, you agree with me.

Thank you, Diego.

...and the ball flies over the keeper's head and down to the boundary for four...

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26
And when they play those top teams they will not be as likely to score themselves, because of the differential. It works both ways. The standard of the competition is just more diluted over 100 teams - It doesn't mean the scoring rate will increase or decrease.

Starting to get completely OT, how come you haven't mentioned the better goalkeeping?
That's right, they will not be as likely to score v the top teams as is the case now no bloddy difference, however they will average 5 goals per game or more against those ranked 75+. Now I know you're not going to see it that way just to be difficult but that is a higher scoring comp the AVERAGE will increase.

Originally posted by Dan26

If it was just a two-team League between Arsenal and Manyoo, we would still see between 2 and 3 golas scored per game on avergae (roughly.) The fact it is a 2 team league doesn't make the scoring any more frequent than if it was a 100 team league.

What's that line in Shawshank Redemption about being obteuse?

Originally posted by Dan26

if you take out, say, 6 random teams you will be left with 14 teams and those new 14 teams would comprise the new highest scoring teams and the new lowest scoring teams. The structure of the competition has changed. The scoring rate wouldn't.

Random teams? where'd that come from?
I was talking bottom 2 teams which reversed also applies to top teams. Logic my friend is not a strong point.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by moomba
As Falchoon has pointed out, he stated that scoring has been on a downward trend since the 50/60's. I was surprised you haven't posted statistics to disprove that so I had a go.

1950/51 - 1959/60 season: 3.41 goals per game
1960/61 - 1969/70 season: 3.16 goals per game
1970/71 - 1979/80 season: 2.54 goals per game

This trend was reversed in the 80's. I wonder what happened then?

1980/81 - 1989/90 season: 2.65 goals per game

Feel free to double check my figures, but shows a fairly clear downturn, followed by a reversal of a trend, exactly what Falchoon suggested.

There's a surprise

Originally posted by moomba

Anyway I put that in just to note your tendency to ignore posts that don't suit your side of the argument.

Moomba

There's a surprise.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Here's something I found in the equivalent thread on BigSoccer, i think it sums it up quite well.

"What you don't see in those stats is how the game was played. Were both teams trying to get a draw or were they both trying to win and the game ended as a draw? In football more than any other sport, stats are meaningless(except the score, of coarse)."

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by moomba
As Falchoon has pointed out, he stated that scoring has been on a downward trend since the 50/60's. I was surprised you haven't posted statistics to disprove that so I had a go.

1950/51 - 1959/60 season: 3.41 goals per game
1960/61 - 1969/70 season: 3.16 goals per game
1970/71 - 1979/80 season: 2.54 goals per game

This trend was reversed in the 80's. I wonder what happened then?

1980/81 - 1989/90 season: 2.65 goals per game

Feel free to double check my figures, but shows a fairly clear downturn, followed by a reversal of a trend, exactly what Falchoon suggested.

3.41 - 2.65 = +0.76. This is THREE QUARTERS of a goal difference. Three quarters! This is such a small and insigificant number, quite clearly you are clutching at straws compared to my almightly bulletproof argument.

NB: I am selectively ignoring the trend reversal in the 80's

Given that statistics was my major at Uni, quite clearly I know more about these things than you do, you humble peasant.

NB: I am selectively ignoring the fact it might have taken me 75% longer to finish my degree than other students because of the regular Academic Progress Commitee meetings

How old are you anyway? I bet you wern't following Man City when they were in Division 2 you bandwagoning c*cksucker.

 

[Karanicolas]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Here's something I found in the equivalent thread on BigSoccer, i think it sums it up quite well.

"What you don't see in those stats is how the game was played. Were both teams trying to get a draw or were they both trying to win and the game ended as a draw? In football more than any other sport, stats are meaningless(except the score, of coarse)."

Damn you Diegoal, I was going to use the above as my own argument.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Karanicolas
Damn you Diegoal, I was going to use the above as my own argument.

Notice how the BigSoccer thread has had stuff all replies? And Dan has the nerve to say they really know their stuff. Well, when you think about it they probably do, too smart to bother to reply to such rubbish!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by DIPPER
The 2-point rule existed for 100 years Dipper, so I'm sure it was working okay.

it's called progress Dan that's why we don't still live in caves, although in your case it wouldn't surprise me if you still did.

It's funny that Dan uses that argument given how scornful he is of it when people use it against him, for example regarding jumper changes.

I guess when it suits him being a hidebound traditionalist is ok.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by moomba
It's funny, he hasn't responded to Falchoon's post stating several alternative reasons why scoring hasn't risen in recent years, or to my post on AFLHQ about how one side attacking often results in more attacking opportunities for the opposition side, or everyones requests for him to find one example of a two legged tie where the home team took on a defensive stance into the first leg.

Obviously all just childish, bandwagoner, irrelevant, selective ****sucker arguments

"Hey Hey" is making a return and he's auditioning for ossie's spot. See an argument you can refute? Stick yer head in the sand and ignore it.