Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Diego Forlan]

Oh yeah, if a draw is half a win, can it be also half a loss?

 

[Karanicolas]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Oh yeah, if a draw is half a win, can it be also half a loss?

Maybe half a game saved!!??

 

[X_box_X]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Oh yeah, if a draw is half a win, can it be also half a loss?

Going by that logic you are basically saying a loss and a win are exactly the same.

 

[Dan26]

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

Of course it does.

3 points is more than 2 (you understand that don't you). Therefore if the total points given out in a game are 3 points and another is only 2 points then the first game is more important. Any games that has a win or a loss is more important than a drawn game. This is wrong. Drawn games should split the points. A draw is neither a loss nor a win - it is in between, and shoudl therefore get half the points.

Given that scoring hasn't significantly increased, there is no reason why it should be 3 points for a win.

 

[Dan26]

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.

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.

Who the f*ck are you you little c*cksucker? You come into this thread with NO opinions and nothing to contribute. F*ck off. At least I've made a valid contribution and some excellent points. Read them, and you might see that.

This is not some sort of competition betwen you and I. This has nothing to do with Aussie Rules. This has to do with Soccer and I have followed the game all of my life and know enough to make valid opinions. The fact you can tell me who played left back for Arsenal in 1956 does not make your opinion on the two-point rule more valid. I know plenty of peope, who follow the AFL but who are not smart enough to be opinionated. Soccer is a massively popular game followed by millions of people, many of whom share different opinions on various topics. I have attempted to draw some conclusions by disecting the data for this topic. What do I get? An arrogant, disrespectful response from an internet arseh*le.

Maybe you should actually acknowledge that there has been no significant increae in scoring since the 3-pont rule was introduced (which is a fact.) Did you know the stats before I calculated them? I don't care if you're bloody Pele, the fact is there has been no increase in scoring. You watching 10 games a week (i watch about 3) won't change that.

Now, IF there has been no increase in scoring (which the stats prove is the case) how does the 3-point rule encourage scoring? Shouldn't that have manifested itself in the numbers by now? It's been 20 years! Instead of shoving your superioty down my throat you could try an actual response to the topic. The 2-point rule existed for 100 years Dipper, so I'm sure it was working okay.

Geez, I supply the stats to back myself up, and idiots get all cranky.

 

[Slax]

I'm not sure if it's already been said (partly because I can't be stuffed wading through the crap). But there is a couple of simple reasons why the 3 point rule was introduced.

1. To encourage attacking football and to reward it.

2. To try and get rid of extremely defencive away play. How do you think the term boring, boring Arsenal came about in the 70s.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
Who the f*ck are you you little c*cksucker? ...

F*ck off.

Whoah dipper, you win.

I guess we'll never see another complaint from Danny boy about abuse.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
To label it one-third of a win might have some benefits, but the fact it can alter the championships rightful home is a downside.

Rightful as determined by whom Dan?

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by X_box_X
Going by that logic you are basically saying a loss and a win are exactly the same.

It's not my logic, ask your mate over there

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
It's not valid. Anyone who says a draw is not the exact mid-point didn't learn maths.

This from the man who averages percentages from different sized samples.

Quick, somone go tell Daniel Grollo.

A draw is the exact mid-point, end of story. Win and a loss are the opposites. When neither side wins and neither side loses, they meet at the mid-point. Giving less than half the alloctaed points for a draw creates a potentially unfair situation.

Fairness is not an absolute and is not something that is determined mathematically.

The point is, it's unfair. That itself is beyond argument.

No it isn't.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dave
Rightful as determined by whom Dan?

I'm sure we will soon see FC Crystal Waters of the Maldives were ripped off from the Maldives First Division title in 1906 because they only awarded 2 points for a win back then.

 

[Dave]

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?

It's Danematics dammit!,

Still, as I've pointed out above, it seems that your need for mathematical fairness only applies in certain situations.

Of course it does, becuase when it throws up a result he doesn't like he reinvents it to suit his position.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
I'm sure we will soon see FC Crystal Waters of the Maldives were ripped off from the Maldives First Division title in 1906 because they only awarded 2 points for a win back then.

oh the shame!

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dave
It's Danematics dammit!,

Danematics sounds like something that's promoted on those Informercials at 3am.

Feel like you're always on the backfoot? Painting yourself into a corner everytime you get into a debate? Do you feel that people are laughing at you no matter what stats you bring up? Kenyan websites letting you down? Well, try Danematics and all your problems will be solved!

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Dave
Whoah dipper, you win.

I guess we'll never see another complaint from Danny boy about abuse.

Hehe Dave well I feel kinda pleased that I got such a reacton.

I'm not a dobber & have never complained to the moderators before but perhaps I should show them this example of spiteful personal abuse.

I think I may need counselling to overcome it.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Dan26
Who the f*ck are you you little c*cksucker? You come into this thread with NO opinions and nothing to contribute. F*ck off. At least I've made a valid contribution and some excellent points. Read them, and you might see that.

Well firstly I'm not little I'm 6 foot 2 inches tall & it's all very well abusing people like this on the internet but I wonder if you'd have the temerity to abuse me in this way to my face?

As for having no opinion on the subject just go to old threads (as you like doing) & find the one where we went through all this the last time where I voiced my opinions & all the people that are regarded as knowledgable posters agreed with 3 points for a win whilst you you talked a load of bollocks as per usual.

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

Well the offside rule used to be that the attacking player had to be behind 3 defenders not the current two.

The goalkeeper used to be able to pick up back passes from his team mates to name but two changes, 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.

Geez, I supply the stats to back myself up, and idiots get all cranky.

That's your problem you mummy's boy ******, you think everything can be answered with stats, as was pointed out by Moomba( someone who obviously understand a great deal more about football than you) on this thread stats don't take account of the number of games that say end up 1-1 but where both sides are going hammer & tongs for the leading goal, I've watched footbal progress & I can tell that the game is more adventurous than it was, stats won't tell you that but the people that go every week & stand there(or sit) in the p1ssing cold will tell you.


Anyway Dan have you seen that the American international Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink has been linked with a move to Barcelona & isn't it ridiculous the way that away goals count double in a 2 legged European tie, I mean one side could lose 5-3 away & draw 0-0 at home & they'd go through, how silly is that?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by DIPPER
Well firstly I'm not little I'm 6 foot 2 inches tall & it's all very well abusing people like this on the internet but I wonder if you'd have the temerity to abuse me in this way to my face?

I'd love to. Arrange me a flight to England and we'll meet at Highbury to bash each other at half time.

Originally posted by DIPPER
As for having no opinion on the subject just go to old threads (as you like doing) & find the one where we went through all this the last time where I voiced my opinions.

In that thread from a while ago, there were no stats or figures to back any of the points up. I have since supplied them in this thread. Hope you noticed. Obviously you didn't.

Originally posted by DIPPER
Well the offside rule used to be that the attacking player had to be behind 3 defenders not the current two.

The goalkeeper used to be able to pick up back passes from his team mates to name but two changes, it's called progress Dan

The above post is ridiculous. So what if there were a couple of rule changes? They were ON field changes. Off field changes are not as necessary, because no matter what rule takes place on the field, the end results of W, L or D will always remain. Why don't you ackowledge this? You know darn well it's true.

On field rule changes have absolutely no relevance to an off-field points system.

Originally posted by DIPPER
The goalkeeper used to be able to pick up back passes from his team mates to name but two changes

I like that particular rule change and it has neagted negative play. Nash's error from Man City is a perfect example of how it encourages sides to press forward (see, that's not a stat). But it has no relevance to an off-field points allocation. None.

Originally posted by DIPPER
That's your problem you mummy's boy ******,

Ohhh, a comeback!

Originally posted by DIPPER
you think everything can be answered with stats,

Bull crap. I don't think that at all. That's just a convenient excuse used by people, who lose arguments. "Oh....ummm....Dan you can't base everything on stats" Idiots.

I never once suggested you could base everything on them, but you can use them to analyse data, and if you would ever admit you will notice that the scoring rate in English Soccer has not altered under the three-point rule. That is very, very relevant - more relevant than anything else in this thread.

Originally posted by DIPPER
stats don't take account of the number of games that say end up 1-1 but where both sides are going hammer & tongs for the leading goal

This is irrelevant. If both sides are going hammer and tongs for the leading goal, then they should score more often under the 3-pont rule than without it, right? This has not proved to be the case.

Your argument may be that you can have attacking football in a low scoring game, where many chances are created. True. But over several thousand matches that attacking football will (should) eventually translate into higher scores. This hasn't happened.

Originally posted by DIPPER
I can tell that the game is more adventurous than it was, stats won't tell you that but the people that go every week & stand there(or sit) in the p1ssing cold will tell you.

I'll take your word for it. Though I wonder how good your memory is prior to 1981 though? How old would you have been back then? Young I'm guessing. If the game is more adventurous why hasn't scoring increased?

For what it's worth, in my opinion on field rule changes will have far more of an affect on scoring and attacking philosphy than a points system. The allocation of points per match is not a physical thing that manifests itself through the on-field rules. Any impact is has therefore would be minimal.

Originally posted by DIPPER
Anyway Dan have you seen that the American international Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink has been linked with a move to Barcelona & isn't it ridiculous the way that away goals count double in a 2 legged European tie, I mean one side could lose 5-3 away & draw 0-0 at home & they'd go through, how silly is that?

Hello? Relevance? Where are you? Keep to the topic. It just makes you look paranoid. Why change the topic, unless you don't want to argue the topic at hand?

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26
Of course it does.

3 points is more than 2 (you understand that don't you). Therefore if the total points given out in a game are 3 points and another is only 2 points then the first game is more important. Any games that has a win or a loss is more important than a drawn game. This is wrong. Drawn games should split the points. A draw is neither a loss nor a win - it is in between, and shoudl therefore get half the points.

Given that scoring hasn't significantly increased, there is no reason why it should be 3 points for a win.

You accidentally missed quoting the part of my post

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

If we are dissecting which games are more important after the fact, then we can rank all games in order of importance, this week 3 points for Bolton will be more important than 3 points for Tottenham.

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

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26


I never once suggested you could base everything on them, but you can use them to analyse data, and if you would ever admit you will notice that the scoring rate in English Soccer has not altered under the three-point rule. That is very, very relevant - more relevant than anything else in this thread.

you yourself said it went up 3% in the EPL

despite better goalkeeping
despite the bottom 2 teams being taken out

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
Whoah dipper, you win.

I guess we'll never see another complaint from Danny boy about abuse.

I guess I should apologise, but the little f*cker ****es me off. As do you frequently with your crap such as...

Originally posted by Dave
Fairness is not an absolute and is not something that is determined mathematically.

Fairness in sport is most equitable when, in the event of a draw the points are shared. Whether you want to determine it mathematically is up to you, but sharing the points for a draw is the msot equitable method of distribution. To bother arguing against this is folly.

Originally posted by Dave
This from the man who averages percentages from different sized samples.

You can averagre the samples. Add 'em up and divide. I have a friggin degree in statsistics, Dave. You can did up a billion numbers and divide if you want - a calculator will give you an answer. If you remember I was calculating the average winning percentage that the particular team had in any given year

If I was calculating overall winning percentage you'd be right. It wouldn't be the correct way to do it.

But I'm not calculating overall winning percentage (and I never said I was) so you are wrong.

I was calculating the average winning percentage that the team has in any given year. If the figure I get is 55% it doesn't mean the team has all-time win-ratio of 55%. It means that the team on average wins 55% of their games in any given season. This was calculated so that all seasons were given equal importance. That was the reason and method behind doing it that way. It's not just some figure that doesn't mean anything. It means that the team wins, on average, 55% of their games in any given season. That's what it means.

I noticed that a 22 game season had more weight than a 14 game season when calculating a teams all-time winning percentage. Adding up the winning percentages from each season and dividing them gets rid of that "weight" problem by giving all seasons the same weight.

The probelm was you didn't understand. You thought I was calculating all-time winning percentage. I wasn't, and the sooner you understand that, the better it will be for you.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Falchoon
you yourself said it went up 3% in the EPL

Going up from 2.55 to 2.63 is not significant Falchoon.

Originally posted by Falchoon

despite the bottom 2 teams being taken out

LOL. You're not serious are you? Since when will that affect scoring? Going by your logic, if the bottom 18 teams are all taken out and it is a 2-team league scoring will decrease further.

The amount of teams in the league will have no affect on scoring. Gee, I hope they don't increase it to 100 teams one day. Under your logic we'll have 50 goals per match.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26
Going up from 2.55 to 2.63 is not significant Falchoon.



LOL. You're not serious are you? Since when will that affect scoring? Going by your logic, if the bottom 18 teams are all taken out and it is a 2-team league scoring will decrease further.

The amount of teams in the league will have no affect on scoring. Gee, I hope they don't increase it to 100 teams one day. Under your logic we'll have 50 goals per match.

You don't read posts do you Dan, just quote random bits of them.
Prior to the change, scoring was on a downhill slide, a trend graph would predict a percentage decrease in scoring should the rule have remained the same. 3% is an increase over an earlier point of time. I contend that the percentage would have been greater than for the same years using the 2 point rule. Somewhere between 5% and 10% is significant.

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?

 

[Karanicolas]

Dan,

I was trawling the BigSoccer Boards for a bit of education and saw the exchange below between you and another poster.

The funny thing was that you hadn't responded. Probably an oversight on your part, no doubt. Why not respond on this Board for the benefit of us uneducated slobs who might enjoy sport for something more than the numbers that it produces?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dan26
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


---- the other poster then noted these stats -----


Try the same stats for Italy.
from 82-83 (first old rothmans yearbook I found lying about)

Matches - 240
Draws - 101 (42%)
Goals 505 (2.1 per game)

last season
matches - 306
Draws - 87 (28.4%)
Goals - 806 (2.63 per game)

More recently 90-91, one of the last 2pts for a win seasons and considered one of the most open & attacking seasons for years.
Matches - 306
Draws - 101 (33%)
Goals - 702 (2.29 per game)

So although in England the impact may not have been as great as expected, the same can't be said elsewhere.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Rolled!!

Just how many soccer leagues are there in England, let alone the rest of the world?

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Karanicolas
The funny thing was that you hadn't responded. Probably an oversight on your part, no doubt. Why not respond on this Board for the benefit of us uneducated slobs who might enjoy sport for something more than the numbers that it produces?

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

Moomba