Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Dan26]

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

Originally posted by Shinboners


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?

No one can prove how a home teams tactics would vary unles you play the first leg with the away goals rule and then again without it. Otherwise you are just guessing.

Originally posted by Shinboners
It seems that your statement above seems to kill of your own theory about home teams playing defensively to blah blah blah blah blah......

No it doesn't. All athletes have a competitive streak, and they all want to win. My argument was that the away goals rule makes no difference to the attacking philosphy of a team overall over 180minutes. Any extra encouragement to attack (if any) is cancelled out be less encouragment when they are the home team. I find it highly unlikley that a team, under the away goals rule, will base their entire attacking phliosophy on the 25% likelihood of the match being a draw (which actually would be less likely over 180 minutes.) The aim will always be to score more goals over the 180 minutes than their opponent. Let's suppose only 15% of 2-legged ties end up equal on aggregate goals. It is not worthwhile to base your entire attcking philosphy on the off-chance that scores are tied after 180 minutes. Away goals don't come into it that often, so why play to accomodate them? Play to win.

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

When an idot like Diego questions the proven knowledge that draws happen around 25% of the time in Soccer, I have every right to question him. Why are you sticking up for someone who is questioning something that everyone knows is common knowledge? I'm guessing because A.) he's arguing against me, and therefore it wouldn't matter what garbage he said, you'd stick up for someone arguing against me no matter how right I am, or B.) because he supports ManYoo (though since 1993). If you look beyond that you will see he has made a fool of himself. He hasn't contributed any valid points - it's all "hits him through the covers for 4" crap. Have a read.

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

I watch 3 or 4 games a week. I just finished watching Spanish Soccer for the last 2 hours on Fox (was actually gonna go down the beach, but 42 degrees is just too hot, so I'm staying inside today). Besides, the above quote of yours is in repsonse to me questioning Diego about why he is bothering arguing over the likelihood of draws in Soccer, when he knows darn well how frequntly they occur. That begs the question: Why in the name of God are you bothering responding? Do you, like Diego, also disagree about the likelihood of draws in Soccer being around 25%-ish? Or have you just decided, like him, to argue every point that is made, regardless of what it is?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by moomba

Originally posted by Dan26


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

You will find that scoring was higher all over Europe in the 50's, before gardually decreasing and levelling off, and seemed to settle at around 2.5. Italy was lower, but just prior to the 3-point rule being in place scoring increased again.

Originally posted by moomba

Originally posted by Dan26
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.

My 12 year sample was used because I only had the stats back to 1969 (so i used the last 12 years of the 2-point rule from 1969-1981 - the only ones I had. )The problem with say, a 50 year sample size is that it won't take into account how scoring has changed within that sample - it will just give you an overall figure. Best to do it in 10 year increments (or 12, or 8, whatever, same diff) and see the differences. I still think every year can be relevant in it's own right (though larger sampels are better), because each year consists of over 400 games which is more than enough to get a realistic idea of scoring. If one season rises by over half a goal per game to 2.80 this is most likely due to a new trend. Very rarely would we see a difference that big over 400 games unless there was a legitimate reason for it. 400 games is too many for that number to just flukily happen.

Unfortunately, because the 3-point rule was introduced 3 years after the 2.80 goals per game was achieved in 1982-83, we can't see if scoring was increasing and would have levelled off at around 2.5 goals per game (which I suspect it would have, but we'll never know for sure.)

One thing's for sure - any impact it has had, has been minimal.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
You will find that scoring was higher all over Europe in the 50's, before gardually decreasing and levelling off, and seemed to settle at around 2.5. Italy was lower, but just prior to the 3-point rule being in place scoring increased again.

Just about the same time as the league was increased to 18 teams, but don't let that interfere with your argument.

My 12 year sample was used because I only had the stats back to 1969 (so i used the last 12 years of the 2-point rule from 1969-1981 - the only ones I had. )The problem with say, a 50 year sample size is that it won't take into account how scoring has changed within that sample - it will just give you an overall figure. Best to do it in 10 year increments (or 12, or 8, whatever, same diff) and see the differences.

So why the problem with my ten years of stats, five before and five after the rule change. To remind you I believe you said something like "no-one cares about your selective little five year statistics".

I still think every year can be relevant in it's own right (though larger sampels are better), because each year consists of over 400 games which is more than enough to get a realistic idea of scoring. If one season rises by over half a goal per game to 2.80 this is most likely due to a new trend. Very rarely would we see a difference that big over 400 games unless there was a legitimate reason for it. 400 games is too many for that number to just flukily happen.

Like I said, I am not sure what the reason for the 2.80 was, but it certainly wasn't a trend, scores dropped back by nearly 0.4 of a goal per game the following year. I would say that there was a legitimate reason why scoring spiked in 1992/3, however I will wait for others to fill us in as to the reason why.

Unfortunately, because the 3-point rule was introduced 3 years after the 2.80 goals per game was achieved in 1982-83, we can't see if scoring was increasing and would have levelled off at around 2.5 goals per game (which I suspect it would have, but we'll never know for sure.)

The average rate of scoring post the rule change is better than all but one in the preceding 40 years. I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that the rule change is a contributing factor toward this. Likewise it is not too much of a stretch given the figures to say that the the rule change has contributed toward the decreased likelihood of draws in the Italian League.

One thing's for sure - any impact it has had, has been minimal.

That's for sure is it Dan26. Have you even bothered to read any thread not written by you in the last page or two.

Moomba

 

[moomba]

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

Originally posted by Dan26
No one can prove how a home teams tactics would vary unles you play the first leg with the away goals rule and then again without it. Otherwise you are just guessing.

And you are not?

No it doesn't. All athletes have a competitive streak, and they all want to win. My argument was that the away goals rule makes no difference to the attacking philosphy of a team overall over 180minutes. Any extra encouragement to attack (if any) is cancelled out be less encouragment when they are the home team. I find it highly unlikley that a team, under the away goals rule, will base their entire attacking phliosophy on the 25% likelihood of the match being a draw (which actually would be less likely over 180 minutes.)

Your response to Colin's England v Egypt example showing exactly the opposite of what you say was?

The aim will always be to score more goals over the 180 minutes than their opponent. Let's suppose only 15% of 2-legged ties end up equal on aggregate goals. It is not worthwhile to base your entire attcking philosphy on the off-chance that scores are tied after 180 minutes. Away goals don't come into it that often, so why play to accomodate them? Play to win.

And your response to Colin's England v Egypt example was?

When an idot like Diego questions the proven knowledge that draws happen around 25% of the time in Soccer, I have every right to question him. Why are you sticking up for someone who is questioning something that everyone knows is common knowledge?

How the feck is that proven knowledge. Look up the page a bit and you will see that in the Italian League draws happened in 29.3% in the 50's, 31.8% in the 60's, 38.6% in the 70's, 37.2% in the 80's and 31.1% in the 90's. Or perhaps you would like to provide some reference for this "proven knowledge".

I'm guessing because A.) he's arguing against me, and therefore it wouldn't matter what garbage he said, you'd stick up for someone arguing against me no matter how right I am, or B.) because he supports ManYoo (though since 1993). If you look beyond that you will see he has made a fool of himself. He hasn't contributed any valid points - it's all "hits him through the covers for 4" crap. Have a read.

Diego has just been taking the p1ss this entire thread. Problems is that one or two don't realise that.

Moomba

 

[Shinboners]

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

Originally posted by moomba
Diego has just been taking the p1ss this entire thread. Problems is that one or two don't realise that.

Shhhh.....don't spoil the fun.

 

[Diego Forlan]

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

Originally posted by moomba
Diego has just been taking the p1ss this entire thread. Problems is that one or two don't realise that.

I don't see any p1ss being taken here moomba. I am being deadly serious, using my knowledge of mathematics and the world game to support my argument. I just think you are trolling this thread, and spoiling any logical discussion that could take place. However it is your lack of contribution that is highlighting just how much of an imbecile you are - and a bandwagoner.

 

[Dan26]

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

Originally posted by moomba
Diego has just been taking the p1ss this entire thread.

Easy to do that, because he doesn't have to contribute any ideas, fatcs, or opinions. Problem is, to take the p*ss you have to be funny.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by moomba


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.
Moomba

Now there's a surprise, add 2 teams and the scoring increases?
Who would have guessed?

Originally posted by Dan26
No one can prove how a home teams tactics would vary unles you play the first leg with the away goals rule and then again without it. Otherwise you are just guessing.

Or perhaps basing an opinion on 20+ years of intelligent observation of games without the rule and with the rule. It's actually not that hard to work out which teams go in to the game with an attacking attitude and those without. Then compare the percentages over the years.

Who knows, there may be a trend

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by moomba
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

Good stuff Moomba, these sats make a strong argument for 3 points for a win.........especially if you're the sort of person who thinks stats help to make a persuasive case.


I wonder if anything else caused the 2.80 goals in 1993/94 or whether it was a freak, what year did the rule reagarding goalie's not being able to pick up a back pass come into effect?That rule took some getting used to & the Italian defenders just like those at Liverpool loved playing it back to the keeper.


Following on from Colin's memory of Egypt in the 1990 world cup what about the group games from the 1992 European Championships?This is without doubt the tournament where attacking football dies a death, it was terrible everyone scared to lose & I'm sure that it was this tournament more than any other that paved the way fro FIFA to go with 3 points for a win all over the world.Anyone who doubts it get a video of it & watch the group games absolutely dire.

 

[Shinboners]

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

Originally posted by Dan26
Easy to do that, because he doesn't have to contribute any ideas, fatcs, or opinions. Problem is, to take the p*ss you have to be funny.

Oh, come on. Stop being such a sour puss. You have to admit, Diego Forlan's parodies of your posting style were not only spot on, but bloody hilarious.

I think you're just upset because he's so good at yanking your chain. He posts something and you can't resist the urge to reply. And no matter where he takes the topic (that is, the less serious he gets), you still follow.....you're just like a puppy dog following his master.

 

[Diego Forlan]

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

Originally posted by Shinboners
Oh, come on. Stop being such a sour puss. You have to admit, Diego Forlan's parodies of your posting style were not only spot on, but bloody hilarious.

I think you're just upset because he's so good at yanking your chain. He posts something and you can't resist the urge to reply. And no matter where he takes the topic (that is, the less serious he gets), you still follow.....you're just like a puppy dog following his master.

This is where I feel you lack an understanding of humour, Shinners. Quite clearly, all my posts should be treated seriously, do you even bother to read what I type? You'll find their full of knowledge, facts and valid points. Given that statistics and humour were not my majors at Uni, I feel I know something about these topics. It's quite obvious I am right, as you still cannot provide any 'proof' (hehe) to debunk any of my statements.

* Powered by DanMaths (TM), DanSelectivity (TM) and DanTheories (TM)

 

[Dan26]

I think it's pretty obvious, from the bum-chum aspect of both of the above two posts, that Diego Forlan and Shinboners are sleeping together.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by DIPPER



I wonder if anything else caused the 2.80 goals in 1993/94 or whether it was a freak, what year did the rule reagarding goalie's not being able to pick up a back pass come into effect?That rule took some getting used to & the Italian defenders just like those at Liverpool loved playing it back to the keeper.

I don't know when the back-pass rule was introduced in Italy, but if the back pass was worth 0.5 goals per game (if that was what we assume caused the increase to 2.80), then the average in the Italian league now of around 2.5 is perfectly normal (i.e around half a goal higher than it was withut the back pass.) To me though, I wouldn't have thought the back pass rule would have a huge impact on scoring.

As for the English League - well, no change there. Those arguing against the 2-point rule in favour of 3-points won't use the the English League in their argument. I think they will just bring up the Italian League (even though 90% of the discussion on this board concerns The EPL)

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dan26
I think it's pretty obvious, from the bum-chum aspect of both of the above two posts, that Diego Forlan and Shinboners are sleeping together.

When all else fails, get into the gutter.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dan26
I think they will just bring up the Italian League (even though 90% of the discussion on this board concerns The EPL)

Um, don't you recall the time that you posted something from a Kenyan website about some African competition to prove one of your points?

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Shinboners
I reckon that if the away team gets a draw or win, the points they get should count for double.

So cruel, yet so funny.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
I think it's pretty obvious, from the bum-chum aspect of both of the above two posts, that Diego Forlan and Shinboners are sleeping together.

Want to score a few away goals with me Dan?

 

[Dan26]

Diego is the bitch in the relationship. Fetch the paper Diego.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Diego is the bitch in the relationship. Fetch the paper Diego.

Awww c'mon Dan, I'd love to see your 'ball control'.

I tell you what, if you put the ball in the back of my net, I'll make it worth double - and Shinners' can be worth half. Sound fair?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Shinboners
Um, don't you recall the time that you posted something from a Kenyan website about some African competition to prove one of your points?

The away goals rule is just as relevant in Kenya as it is in England, the Maldives, Germany, Bangladesh or Ethiopia. The country is irrelevant, the rule isn't - something you obviously don't understand. You asked me to do a search. I did and that website came up. Who cares what country it is, as long as it addresses the point.

Now go and find Diego, Mr. Soccer. You two make a good couple.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Awww c'mon Dan, I'd love to see your 'ball control'.

I tell you what, if you put the ball in the back of my net, I'll make it worth double - and Shinners' can be worth half. Sound fair?

You are dumber than soap dish residue.

 

[Dan26]

Hey Diego,

Feel like playing cricket? How sound like you're ready to hit some beautiful coverdrives for four....again.... and again... Wanna have soem more fun?

How about copying and pasting someone elses posts and and reciting them in a lame attempt art humour, which only your Bum-chum Mr.Soccer (and only after I brought his attention to it) notices.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
You are dumber than soap dish residue.

Playing hard to get?

You know I secretly crave the sensation of you placing the ball on my penalty spot.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Hey Diego,

Feel like playing cricket? How sound like you're ready to hit some beautiful coverdrives for four....again.... and again... Wanna have soem more fun?

Will you stand up behind the stumps and whisper sweet nothings in my ear?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Playing hard to get?

You know I secretly crave the sensation of you placing the ball on my penalty spot.

You're such a sweety. But will you still be this accomodating when the team you started supporting in 1993 isn't winning titles?