Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Dan26
A draw is the mid-point between a win and a loss. That is fact. Anyone who knows anything can see this, and that the points should be shared (which they are.) The probelm is that in the event of a side winning, that side gets three points which devalues a draw. All matches should be of equal importance.

Says who????

Only on the blandest and most techinical statistical argument is a draw half a win.

A draw is what the competition decides its value is.

A draw in English soccer is a third of a win

The authortitis have decided that anyone can get a draw and therfore is should not be given as much relative value.

Statistics don't make these decisions, Dan, people do.

All matches are of equal importance - 3 for a win, 1 for a draw.

Every match of every week has these rules.

The comp has decided t devalue a draw because they want to see results, and if you can't get one, you don't desere as many points.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
The 3-point rule was introdued in Serie A in 1994-95. Over the last 10 years the highest scoring season was actually in 1992-93

Moomba, it looks like one season is a big enough sample when it suits Dan's argument.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Jars458
Says who????

Maths. Which is always right except when it produces results that Dan doesn't agree with in which case it's wrong.

Only on the blandest and most techinical statistical argument is a draw half a win.

"bland" is Dan's middle name.

 

[X_box_X]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennis ... Also unfair and inequitable

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
...plays a wild cut shot, takes a big meaty edge and is heading straight towards 2nd slip. Oh no! It's gone straight through him and down to the fence for four runs. Given how obvious that it was going straight to him, you think he would have seen it coming! Someone better wake up that slip fielder!...

You are choosing not to comprehend with the LETTERS THAT ARE BEING TYPED.

The day you actually sit back and comprehend to my assumptions will be the day that ... Actually, there won't be a day that will happen.

 

[Diego Forlan]

X_Box_X = MiniDan?

 

[Dan26]

Re: colin steps up to the plate....

Originally posted by colin
Wrong. It does affect the way soccer is played. You see, soccer is such a tactical game, that the way a team plays is greatly determined by its attitude going out on to the park.

Nice in theory. Not so nice in practice. Athletes always have a competitive streak. It is with all of us from when we first start playing sport. I have it when I play sport, and I'm not thinkng of how many points are up for grabs in the event of a draw when I'm competing. When athletes are out there competing, and one player challenges another, it's highly unlikely that player is thinking about how many points are up for grabs. When the 3-point rule was introduced in 1981 there was no dramatic change in scoring, so this "attitude" did not manifest itself with more scoring as many would have thought.

Originally posted by colin
It doesn't take a genius to see that teams' attitudes under the 3 point rule are much more positive to the 2 point rule. Do you agree?

You'd think so wouldn't you? Teams know that a win is more valuable. But knowing this and changing the way they play because of it are two different things.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by moomba
It's pretty simple really Dan. Falchoon said that scoring has been on the decrease since the 50's, you said that was untrue, and a figment of his (and my) imagination. You have got the stats that show that scoring was indeed on a downward trend from the 50's through to the start of the 80's, I wouldn't have thought there was room for anymore discussion on the matter other than you being man enough to admit you were wrong on this one.

You will find what happened was that in the 1950's game scores were higher - all over Europe. A bit over 3 a game. They decreased for whatever reason and levelled out. If you look at Serie A, they actually staretd to rise again (after having levelled off) prior to the 3-point rule coming into play in 1994.

One is for sure, the 3-pont rule certainly hasn't had any dramatic affect on scoring.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Jars458
This sums up your whole philosphy.

How is a draw a 25% possibility?

In most leagues around the word approximately 25% of games are draws. There is always a bit of random variation depending on how high scoring the league is, but 25% is the generally accepted figure.

Originally posted by Jars458
any combined result of a two leg game, is very difficult to work out even on a statistcal basis.

Technically we don't knwo the exact probabilities, because the ON-field aspet is not an exact science. But the bookies offer odds for a draw that equate to it being around 25% likely. That is how those guys operate and make money. They base their odds on the most probable outcomes.

The other thing is that a two-legged tie will, in theory, result in a draw less than 25% of the time (if we work on the basis that a normal draw in a 90 minute game occurs 25% of the time.) This is because 180 minutes produces more goals and therefore less likelihood of both teams having the same number of goals. So I don't know what the probability would be, but if all Soccer games went for 180 minutes I'd guess that the likelihood of a draw would be around 15% (give or take)

Originally posted by Jars458
Lets say it is 25% for a moment

Do you think in a two leg match between Liverpool and Adelaide City there is the same chance of a draw as in a match between Liverpool and Man Utd.

Of course not. But in any league over several hundred games, draws occur around 25% of the time. It doesn't vary anywhere around the world. It's always around that 25-27% mark. I am looking at the bigger picture, not individual matches.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave




I'll say this slowly. Averaging % from different sized samples without applying a weighting produces a figures that is statistically meaningless.

I'l say to slowly. Averaging the % from different sized samples means that I am producing a figure that is designed to show the average percentage wins each year. That is what the figure means. You have been coming up with the same "statistically meaningless" dialogue regualry without backing it up. It is menaingful, if the figure we are trying to find is "average percentage wins per season." It is not meaningul if we aren't. In this case we are, therefore the figure is meainingul.

Originally posted by Dave
In the recent vote on the offer Grocon made to it's employees, workers were divided up into four companies. 3 of them voted roughly 3-1 against - 75%-25%. One voted 100% for. Usuing your method we would have an average % vote "for" per company of 43%. A meaningless figure when you find that the company that voted 100% for had twoemployees, compared to the others which numbered in the hundreds. A figure that is in no way indicative of the "competitiveness" of the vote.

In a political sense, there is no reason why anyone would want to find the average percentage votes per company. It goes against the principal of democracy. An average % vote "for" per company of 43% is statsistically acurate IF you were compelled to find the avergae % votes per company (but why would you want to?) In the AFL however, it makes sense to find this figure because unlike those 4 comapnies, all 106 seasons are equals. A premiership is a premiership, regardless of how long the season was. The different sized seasons (14 games in the early years) mean that a teams overall win-loss ratio does not always accurately reflect their year to year competitivness. Finding the average of their % wins per season MEANS that the team wins, say, 55% of their games per season on average, indicating their competitiveness from year to year.

If there is a problem that we need to find (eg. the problem being average % wins per season) and there is a way to get the answer to that problem (which there is), then the figure we get from that answer is a meaningful solution to that problem. The figure of 55% means that team-A wins 55% of their games per season on average. That is what it MEANS.

Originally posted by Dave
Giving all samples equal weight means you are not weighting them. Idiot.

I am giving all samples equal weight for the purpose of finding a teams year to year competitiveness. That is why it is being done.

Originally posted by Dave
I've already provided you with two alternatives that I think are better.

Well repeat them. Maybe you can enlighten us on the best way to find a teams average % wins per season. I've shown my way - you show yours.

 

[colin]

Re: Re: colin steps up to the plate....

Originally posted by Dan26
Nice in theory. Not so nice in practice. Athletes always have a competitive streak. It is with all of us from when we first start playing sport. I have it when OI play sport, and I'm not thinkng of how many points are up for grabs in the evnet of a draw. When athletes are out there competing, and one player challenges another, it is highly unlikely that player is thinking about how many points are up for grabs. When the 3-point rule was introduced in 1981 there was no immediate change in scoring, so this "attitude" did not manifest itself with more scoring as many would have thought.

Not so nice in practice? Well I can give you one example off the top of my head. Egypt V Ireland in the 1990 WC. Egypt blatantly played for the draw from the first whistle, got their whole team behind the ball for 90 minutes, and basically gave the world an exhibition of how the game should not be played.

Where was their competitive streak? Under the 3 points rule they would have had to look for something, as we were seeded 3 in the group (behind Holland and England). There's a practical example, and there's many more like that.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
In most leagues around the word approximately 25% of games are draws. There is always a bit of random variation depending on how hig scoring the league is, but 25% is the generally accepted figure.

Evidence please? Otherwise this point is immediatley stricken as heresay.

Originally posted by Dan26
Technically we don't knwo the exact probabiliteis, because the ON-field aspet is not an exact science. But the bookies offer odds for a draw that equate to it being around 25% likely.

Your evidence is 'bookies odds' ? Hahahahahaha. I am literally laughing at you. More heresay from the man with alleged 'facts'

 

[Diego Forlan]

Re: Re: Re: colin steps up to the plate....

Originally posted by colin
Not so nice in practice? Well I can give you one example off the top of my head. Egypt V Ireland in the 1990 WC. Egypt blatantly played for the draw from the first whistle, got their whole team behind the ball for 90 minutes, and basically gave the world an exhibition of how the game should not be played.

Where was their competitive streak? Under the 3 points rule they would have had to look for something, as we were seeded 3 in the group (behind Holland and England). There's a practical example, and there's many more like that.

Colin, it doesn't matter how many correct examples you give him, you can never be right. He is right because whatever dribble flows off his fingertips is indeed fact. Like Paul Wade, he is the nation's most knowledgable soccer 'expert'

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Evidence please? Otherwise this point is immediatley stricken as heresay.



Your evidence is 'bookies odds' ? Hahahahahaha. I am literally laughing at you. More heresay from the man with alleged 'facts'

Are you as ignorant in real life as you are on here? I'd respond to your quotes, but I'm responding to a complete imbecile. Havn't you got any knowledge of the likelihood of draws in Soccer? Have you not been readind this thrwad and the stats of English Football over the last 30 years? Do you not know that bookies base theor prices on the probabilities of a particular outcome? Did you not know this you utter imbecile?

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Are you as ignorant in real life as you are on here? I'd respond to your quotes, but I'm responding to a complete imbecile. Havn't you got any knowledge of the likelihood of draws in Soccer? Have you not been readind this thrwad and the stats of English Football over the last 30 years? Do you not know that bookies base theor prices on the probabilities of a particular outcome? Did you not know this you utter imbecile?

Ok chump, here's what I found

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.

This is for Liverpool Football Club. May I remind you this is ONE team

Here's some dribble by you about the English League:

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

Then out comes this pearler:

In most leagues around the word approximately 25% of games are draws. There is always a bit of random variation depending on how hig scoring the league is, but 25% is the generally accepted figure.

Now please tell this ignorant teenage bandwagoner how you can deduce that because the average draws by one football club is around 25%, and that the average draws is one league is also around 25%, that the average draws in most soccer leagues will now be 25%?

Oh yeah, one thing I'm dying to know Dan, is given your obvious intellectual genius and skill for mathematics, why is it that you are working as a simple storeman, rather than for the CSIRO or some equally worthy organisation that is befitting of your talents?

I'm sure we're all curious to know the reason.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan


Now please tell this ignorant teenage bandwagoner how you can deduce that because the average draws by one football club is around 25%, and that the average draws is one league is also around 25%, that the average draws in most soccer leagues will now be 25%?

God, you are an utter imbecile. Most Soccer leagues average around 2.5 goals per game. This scoring rate equates to roughly 25% of games being draws, give or take.

That's just the way it is. Stop being idiotically pedantic, and get into the real world. The low scorgn nature of the sport means draws are more frequent. I'd guess you would have known that.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
God, you are an utter imbecile. Most Soccer leagues average around 2.5 goals per game. This scoring rate equates to roughly 25% of games being draws, give or take.

That's just the way it is. Stop being idiotically pedantic, and get into the real world. The low scorgn nature of the sport means draws are more frequent. I'd guess you would have known that.

So whats the average amount of goals in Serie A, La Liga, the Bundesliga, SPL, MLS, NSL, etc etc? Haven't seen any 'stats' for these.

Oh yeah, one thing I'm dying to know Dan, is given your obvious intellectual genius and skill for mathematics, why is it that you are working as a simple storeman, rather than for the CSIRO or some equally worthy organisation that is befitting of your talents?

I'm sure we're all curious to know the reason - just thought i'd mention it again just in case you missed it in the last post, being an oversight and all.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
So whats the average amount of goals in Serie A, La Liga, the Bundesliga, SPL, MLS, NSL, etc etc? Haven't seen any 'stats' for these.

It's roughly the same level anywhere give or take. The low scoring nature of the sport makes a draw in Soccer far more frequent than, say, in the AFL (obviously.) Look at the Bundesliga and La Liga tables in the Monday papers and you will see they are all roughly the same in terms of "draw frequency." Go to Soccernet and see for yourself. Do it now and have a look. Somewhere in that mid to high 20's range is normal for Soccer. This seaosn draws are happening 30% of the time in France, 25% of the time in Germany, 28% of the time in Spain, an 25% of the time in Scotland. That's just normal, and what anybody with any knowledge would expect. Except you of course.

Originally posted by Diego Forlan

Oh yeah, one thing I'm dying to know Dan, is given your obvious intellectual genius and skill for mathematics, why is it that you are working as a simple storeman, rather than for the CSIRO or some equally worthy organisation that is befitting of your talents?

I'm sure we're all curious to know the reason - just thought i'd mention it again just in case you missed it in the last post, being an oversight and all.

My personal life is none of your business. No relevance here.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
It's roughly the same level anywhere give or take. The low scoring nature of the sport makes a draw in Soccer far more frequent than, say, in the AFL (obviously.) Look at the Bundesliga and La Liga tables in the Monday papers and you will see they are all roughly the same in terms of "draw frequency." Go to Soccernet and see for yourself. Do it now and have a look. Somewhere in that mid to high 20's range is normal for Soccer. This seaosn draws are happening 30% of the time in France, 25% of the time in Germany, 28% of the time in Spain, an 25% of the time in Scotland. That's just normal, and what anybody with any knowledge would expect. Except you of course.

This would have to go down as the biggest ever backdown by Dan26. That's 5 leagues you've mentioned, how many soccer leagues are there in the world?

Originally posted by Dan26
My personal life is none of your business. No relevance here.

Funny that you make a comment like that, yet you don't mind making personal judgments based on people's intellectual ability, the sporting teams they follow, and their age. You sir, are a hypocrite!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
This would have to go down as the biggest ever backdown by Dan26. That's 5 leagues you've mentioned, how many soccer leagues are there in the world.

Oh for ***** sake Diego, are you lost? Draws happen about a quarter of the time in Soccer. You know this so what in the name of God are you arguing over? Draws have a frequency in this sport of around one-quarter. Get used to it. That's the way it is.

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Funny that you make a comment like that, yet you don't mind making personal judgments based on people's intellectual ability, the sporting teams they follow, and their age. You sir, are a hypocrite!

You have contributed nothing to this thread. All you do is sit in the background, wait for someone to respond to me, and then you praise their post. It doesn't mater what they say. They could say, "The sky is blue" and your response is, "Hits him through the covers for four. How do you like that Dan" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. It sounds bloody stupid, but it's coming from you so it doesn't surprise me)

In other words, you are a follower, a lemming. Without others contributions in this thread, you would be totally lost, because you ride off their coat-tails.

You are a fair dinkum tosser of the highet order and reading through your posts in this thread, you have made a total fool of yourself. Contribute something meaningful or get lost.

 

[Shinboners]

Re: Re: colin steps up to the plate....

Originally posted by Dan26
Nice in theory. Not so nice in practice.

Did anyone else see the irony of Dan posting the above?

Speaking of theory and practice, where's that example to support your theory that a home team will play for a 0-0 draw in the first leg of a two legged tie?

Athletes always have a competitive streak. It is with all of us from when we first start playing sport. I have it when I play sport, and I'm not thinkng of how many points are up for grabs in the event of a draw when I'm competing. When athletes are out there competing, and one player challenges another, it's highly unlikely that player is thinking about how many points are up for grabs. When the 3-point rule was introduced in 1981 there was no dramatic change in scoring, so this "attitude" did not manifest itself with more scoring as many would have thought.

Ooops. It seems that your statement above seems to kill of your own theory about home teams playing defensively to blah blah blah blah blah......

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dan26
Havn't you got any knowledge of the likelihood of draws in Soccer?

I don't think you're the type of bloke who should be questioning other people's knowledge of soccer here.

Have you not been readind this thrwad and the stats of English Football over the last 30 years?

I think Diego and everyone else are too busy actually watching games of soccer to be reading stats books.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dan26

That's just the way it is.

Yep. A bit like the away goals rule and 3 points for a win.

Stop being idiotically pedantic,

More irony.

and get into the real world.

Better make it a double.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Oh for ***** sake Diego, are you lost? Draws happen about a quarter of the time in Soccer. You know this so what in the name of God are you arguing over? Draws have a frequency in this sport of around one-quarter. Get used to it. That's the way it is.

So now it's sport in general, not just soccer that has a draw frequency of 25%? Oh dear. Keep backpedalling!

Originally posted by Dan26
You have contributed nothing to this thread. All you do is sit in the background, wait for someone to respond to me, and then you praise their post. It doesn't mater what they say. They could say, "The sky is blue" and your response is, "Hits him through the covers for four. How do you like that Dan" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. It sounds bloody stupid, but it's coming from you so it doesn't surprise me)

In other words, you are a follower, a lemming. Without others contributions in this thread, you would be totally lost, because you ride off their coat-tails.

You are a fair dinkum tosser of the highet order and reading through your posts in this thread, you have made a total fool of yourself. Contribute something meaningful or get lost. [/B]

Obviously humour is not your strongest point. It's been apparent to me and others for quite some time that this is the case. Those "straight past the keeper for four runs" comments wern't even directed at you. A bit paranoid are we?

Once again you busy yourself making personal judgements. I quite like the attention you give me Dan, I feel privelged. It must get up your nose that I (and others) can easily disprove any of your petty, frail and ill-formed views on the world game.

It's been mentioned before, and I'll mention it again just to give you an excuse to write 20 paragraphs more about it - 3 points for a win and the away goals rule are in place to encourage attacking football as well as reward it. Everybody else sees this and knows this to be true - it is a fact. You got smashed on the away goals thread, and you are getting obliterated in this thread, even with extra help. But of course, we're wrong aren't we?

What about BigSoccer? I see you haven't bothered replying to anyone there. I guess the 'soccer intellecutals' there just can't be bothered viewing or responding to your garbage.

In closing, I'd like to point out the last reply in that BigSoccer thread, it goes like this:

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).

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by DIPPER
You quoted the English top division scoring averages per game for a number of years before & after the change was made & said that the small increase that occured was irrelevant so I don't think it's fair to pluck out 1 season (92/93).If as you say the average in the 8 years is 2.65 then this compares well with the 2.1 goals of 82/83, but we need to see averages from Italy of maybe the 20 years before the change.I can't find the averages but just looking at the league tables from Italy from 1975-1985 it was very rare fora side to hit 50 league goals, if you look at the last 5 years then lots of sides are doing it, this can't all be put down to 3 points for a win but I would suggest it's a major factor.

Here you go Colin, accuracy of the sums are reliant on my ability to put numbers into a spreadsheet, but I think these should do the trick.


Year Goals Wins Games GPG Win %
1980/1 459 147 240 1.91 61.25
1981/2 474 153 240 1.97 63.75
1982/3 505 139 240 2.10 57.91
1983/4 573 155 240 2.38 64.58
1984/5 504 143 240 2.10 59.58
1985/6 495 155 240 2.06 64.58
1986/7 462 159 240 1.92 66.25
1987/8 504 156 240 2.10 65.00
1988/9 645 191 306 2.10 62.41
1989/90 684 190 306 2.23 62.09
1980’s 5305 1588 2532 2.09 62.71

1990/1 702 195 306 2.29 63.72
1991/2 695 195 306 2.27 63.72
1992/3 858 202 306 2.80 66.01
1993/4 741 202 306 2.42 66.01
1994/5 773 229 306 2.52 74.83
1995/6 805 226 306 2.63 73.85
1996/7 808 204 306 2.64 66.67
1997/8 847 219 306 2.76 71.56
1998/9 845 224 306 2.76 73.20
1999/00 764 212 306 2.49 69.28
1990’s 7838 2108 3060 2.56 68.88

It shows some interesting things IMO.

First of all there was a lift in the scoring rate in the late 80's coinciding with an increase to an 18 team league. I would guess (having had a quick look at the goals for and against of the 19th and 20th team for a few years after the change that the lift was more due to this than anything.

The 2.80 goals per game in 1992/3 appears to have come out of the blue compared to the previous years. 2.40 the following year was also a fair bit higher than it had been previously. I don't know enough about Italian footbal to have any sort of idea why this could have happened, maybe one of our Italian experts could help out.

Taking all that into account, the 1994/95 season has seen a consistent increase in goals scored. Take our the 2.80 goals per game and you would have to go back to the 1961/62 season to find a scoring rate matching the lowest scoring rate of the mid to late 90's.

Also the tables indicate that the percentage of games finishing in a draw has decreased markedly since the introduction of the 3 point for a win rule. Again you would have to go back to the 60's before you will find a season where less than 30% of matches finished in draws. Since the rule was put in to place, we have seen this take place in 4 out of the 6 ensuing seasons (I haven't done the stats for 2000/01 or 2001/02. What it also shows is the the percentage of draws in any season varies markedly season by season, and putting a static 25-27% estimate is pure guesswork.

Moomba

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
The 3-point rule was introdued in Serie A in 1994-95. Over the last 10 years the highest scoring season was actually in 1992-93 when 2.80 goals were scord on average (with the 2-point rule). In 1993-94 (the last with the 2-point rule) the average was 2.42. In the 8 years since the 3-point rule has been introduced the average is 2.65./quote]

1950/1
1951/2
1952/3
1953/4
1954/5
1955/6
1956/7
1957/8
1958/9
1960/1
1992/3

Since the 1950's these are the only years where scoring has been higher that your 2.65 average goals per game since the introduction of the rule. You make a fair point in favour of the rule here, congrats to you.

Moomba

PS - Am I going to get an answer why my selective little ten years sample size is something that no-one cares about, while your 12 year one, and now your one year sample size is irrelevent.