Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Diego Forlan]

Don't forget:

c) An example of where the home team in the 1st leg of a two legged tie (using the away goals rule) played defensively or intentionally played for a 0-0 draw

But it won't matter, as DanSelectivity (TM) filters out the difficult questions he cannot answer.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave



And you still haven't answered

a) how showing you can apply your education and therefore prove you understood what was taught isn't relevant

The above isn't a question. But aside from that, I never said applying your eductiaon to the real world wasn't relevant. Obviously it is, so why make yet another needless statement? In trying to downgrade me, you brought up my job, which has no relevance at all, and then after being told this was irrelevant, you somehow found a way (God knows why) to alter the discussion into applying education to real life situations to save your skin.

Originally posted by Dave
the questions about the italian league posed on bigsoccer (where they "know their stuff")

I've covered the query on the Italian league in several posts a few pages back. As usual, I was the only one to obtain the information.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
I've covered the query on the Italian league in several posts a few pages back. As usual, I was the only one to obtain the information.

errr, I posted twenty years worth of statistics from the Italian league back on page 12. No surprise that many of the questions raised by me in that posts have remained unanswered.

Remind me again which Italian league stats you posted.


Moomba

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by moomba
errr, I posted twenty years worth of statistics from the Italian league back on page 12. No surprise that many of the questions raised by me in that posts have remained unanswered.

Remind me again which Italian league stats you posted.


Moomba

I compiled all the Italin league stats. I have them here in front of me (as I do the English ones). I posted several posts concerning the Italian League, the scoring (or lack of it) and the sharp increase in scoring prior to the 3-point rule coming into play. Keep using the Italin League though moomba - It obviosuly helps your argument far betttr than the English League does, and you need all the help you can get.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
As usual, I was the only one to obtain the information.

Another lie Dan? How about you show me where you posted the Italian league stats.

Originally posted by moomba on page 12 of this thread
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

How about some answers to some of these

Moomba

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
Keep using the Italin League though moomba - It obviosuly helps your argument far betttr than the English League does, and you need all the help you can get.

Stat from both league's support my argument. Your own stats show that scoring has increased, and the percentage of draws in the English league has decreased since the introduction of the rule. And that is even before you take into account the other factors that you have conveniently ignored despite repeated requests for clarification

The Italian League is even more obvious, but both leagues prove my point.

Moomba

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by moomba
Another lie Dan? How about you show me where you posted the Italian league stats.

Obtaining the information and posting it do not have to be done together imbecile.

I obtained the stats days ago. I've used them too, but I don't have to spend 30 minutes typing every one of them out in a friggin table. I do this enough and it is time consuming.

Originally posted by moomba
Stat from both league's support my argument. Your own stats show that scoring has increased, and the percentage of draws in the English league has decreased since the introduction of the rule.

Stats from the English Leaue show there has been no perceptible difference. 0.08 of one goal is not relevant. It is so tiny that it can reasonably be attributed to random variation. If this is what you are clinging to, please give up. You are embarrasing yourself.

You're not silly enough to expect to get exactly the same totals (down the the hundreths) when you compare samples are you?

In the Italian League There was a huge increase to 2.80 two years bvefore the 3 -point rule was inrdoduced, the year after it was 2.4-something (still higher than it had been), and since it has levelled of at around 2.5. There is every chance that this trend would have continued with the 2-point rule, but we never got the chance to find out. Not that you'd acknowledge this of course.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Obtaining the information and posting it do not have to be done together imbecile.

I obtained the stats days ago. I've used them too, but I don't have to spend 30 minutes typing every one of them out in a friggin table. I do this enough and it is time consuming.

Why don't you admit you poached them off the guy who posted on BigSoccer?

Dan's Italian League Stats

Game, set, match, Forlan...

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
The above isn't a question.

In DanEnglish (TM) it may not be, but in the language we speak in this country it is.

But aside from that, I never said applying your eductiaon to the real world wasn't relevant.

Yes Dan. You did. Lets refresh your memory.

Originally posted by Dan26
If I was a truck driver with a degree in stats, it wouldn't make my opinion any less valid than if I was an accountant with a degree in stats.

In other words, being able to apply your education in the real world isn't relevant to the validity of your opinions on topics related to the degree.

That's the point I was making, and as usual it appears that you've missed it.

Obviously it is, so why make yet another needless statement?

Because you keep denying it.

In trying to downgrade me, you brought up my job,

No, you claimed you had a stats degree, as though that somehow makes your opinion more valid than that of others. When you did that you left yourself open to that claim being questioned. All I have done is point out that it's a little odd that someone with a stats degree is working as a storeman. It's not a put down, or 'downgrade", it's a rebuttal of your claim to "expert" status.

which has no relevance at all, and then after being told this was irrelevant,

Hang on, at the start of the thread it was relevant, now it isn't.

Which is it?

you somehow found a way (God knows why) to alter the discussion into applying education to real life situations to save your skin.

Yes Dan.

I've covered the query on the Italian league in several posts a few pages back.

Not on bigsoccer you didn't. Can we take it from that that you don't know your stuff?

Even here all you've done is use one years stats as an argument that the scoring was going up anyhow.

As usual, I was the only one to obtain the information.

So the stats moomba posted were what exactly? DanSelectivity at work again.

 

[Karanicolas]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Why don't you admit you poached them off the guy who posted on BigSoccer?

Dan's Italian League Stats

Game, set, match, Forlan...

Poaching and posting them is not the same thing you imbecilic Builders Arms' frequenter ...

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dave
In DanEnglish (TM) it may not be, but in the language we speak in this country it is.

Is DanEnglish (TM) a new plug-in for DanOffice (TM) ?

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
Obtaining the information and posting it do not have to be done together imbecile.

Sorry to break this to you Einstein, but you posted that you were the only one to obtain the information, wheras I have now shown you that I obtained the information and posted it on page 12 several days ago. Hence, the "is this another one of your lies Dan?" statement. Of course you will probably ignore the fact that you have (once again) lied, even though the proof that has been handed to you on a platter.

You may say that you obtained the information but did not post it, but quite frankly your track record says to me not to believe one word you say. I would suggest you don't call me an imbecile again, or I won't be as polite to you as I have been in the past.

I obtained the stats days ago. I've used them too, but I don't have to spend 30 minutes typing every one of them out in a friggin table. I do this enough and it is time consuming.

You haven't used the stats showing the decrease in the percentage of matches finishing in a draw since the rule was introduced, or didn't you obtain that information.

Stats from the English Leaue show there has been no perceptible difference. 0.08 of one goal is not relevant. It is so tiny that it can reasonably be attributed to random variation. If this is what you are clinging to, please give up. You are embarrasing yourself.

Once again you refuse to acknowledge any other factors behind changes in goal scoring in the last half a century. For a stats man that you claim to be, not recognising or acknowledging any of these other factors is humiliating

You're not silly enough to expect to get exactly the same totals (down the the hundreths) when you compare samples are you?

We have had this discussion before Dan. Five years post the change and five years pre the change were significant difference in scoring rates. Of course you said that they were irrelevant stats, still haven't had that explained to me after you used similair (and smaller) sample sizes. Go beyond that sort of timeframe and there are a huge number of factors that could influence goal scoring rates, and as such (unless you address other contributing factors) the stats become irrelevant. Unfortunately, you have ignored all of the other contributing factors, which for you is par for the course

In the Italian League There was a huge increase to 2.80 two years bvefore the 3 -point rule was inrdoduced, the year after it was 2.4-something (still higher than it had been), and since it has levelled of at around 2.5. There is every chance that this trend would have continued with the 2-point rule, but we never got the chance to find out. Not that you'd acknowledge this of course.

Read my post, I did acknowledge the "spike" in the 1992/93 season, the first year the backpass rule was introduced, and the year that the goals scored involving the bottom two clubs was (from memory) over 230 goals. The increase in 92/93 was followed by a fairly large drop in 93/94. The results since then (after the introduction of the rule) have been consistently better than all but one year since the early 60's. Acknowledge some of this Dan, and you may have a touch more credibility. Or you could just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Moomba

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
You are embarrasing yourself.

Not nearly as much as someone who will not admit he was wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In case you can't work it out Dan, that's you.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Is DanEnglish (TM) a new plug-in for DanOffice (TM) ?

No, similar to ok.crowsenglish it's a language spoken by only a very select few. It's grammatical rules change from day to day, indeed, minute to minute.

Not even Bill Gates could come up with something so convoluted.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Dan26

I've never posted anything more distatsteful than what I posted towards Dipper

Do you see that Shinners, DF,Moomba, Dave & whoever else?Bow down at the throne of DIPPER none of you have ever provoked such ire as to be on the receiving end of such 'distatsteful' abuse, you are mere amateurs when compared with me, I am truly honoured at this accolade.

posted by Dan26and for that I apologised.

Err.....no you didn't actually, go back & check, in fact the only reason I think you even mentioned regret for it was that I pointed out that many people would have tried to get you banned for such abuse-I think you know that a ban would have been inevitable in context of what some people have been banned from this site for.

posted by Dan26Direct personal abuse at me has been far worse than any I have dished out.

You can't claim the moral high ground here because I have never directed any abuse at you that is 'worse' than that which you directed at me, go back & check but I haven't.My initial post on this thread that angered you to such a degree was not abusive but was critical of your football knowledge & dismissive of your view, for some reason this pressed your buttons much more than some of the posts where people are launching abusive attacks on you & are clearly trying to get a reaction.
I feel in your mind this may go back to the previous 3 point for a win thread where I called you ignorant & arrogant & you claimed to never have been so insulted before, but there's a difference between insulting somebody with with firmly held views on their character & foul mouthed abuse.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave



Yes Dan. You did. Lets refresh your memory.

No, I didnt. I never said applying your education to the real world wasn't relevant. Of course it's relevant. What has a post comparing a truck driver to an accountant got to do with this? The point was about education, not jobs, yet idiotically, you brought up yet another irrelevant point, despite this obvious fact.

Originally posted by Dave


That's the point I was making

The points you make are irrelevant and stupid.

Originally posted by Dave
Not on bigsoccer you didn't. Can we take it from that that you don't know your stuff?

No one on this thread has contributed to that topic on bigsoccer bar a few posts. Who cares where the posts are made, as long as a point is made in those posts. You shouldn't care as long as you can respond (which you have been doing, albeit not very well)

Originally posted by Dave


Even here all you've done is use one years stats as an argument that the scoring was going up anyhow.

No. I mentioned that particular years figures (which was a fact) and indicated that scoring levelled off. I never said scoring was going up. I explicitly stated that we don't know how scoring would have changed, because the 3-point rule was introduced shortly after the 1994 season. Dont make up lies, and force feed them.

I also indicated that scoring in the Italian League was around 2 goals a game for a long time. But given that i don't like to use small samples, I indicated that the English League is relevant as well (as is every league that used the rule) and in that League there was no significant change.

It would be irresponsible to base ones judgement of the rule solely on the Italian League, but the moment I bring other leagues it, you don't even admit that the correct thing has been done to compare leagues and not put all out eggs in one basket.

Originally posted by Dave
So the stats moomba posted were what exactly

They wee the same stats I obtained but the ones I got went back to the 1950 season. I calculated the average score per season for every year from 1950 onwards. Would you like them?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by DIPPER
Err.....no you didn't actually, go back & check, in fact the only reason I think you even mentioned regret for it was that I pointed out that many people would have tried to get you banned for such abuse-I think you know that a ban would have been inevitable in context of what some people have been banned from this site for.

Banning had nothing to do with it. I've never been a troll on this site and I've always been a contributor. I wanted to take back what I said because I thought it was over the top. It was a stupid thing for me to do.

I actually thought , "If it was a rela life situation, would I talk that way?" The answer was "no," so I regretted my post towards you, even though I was angry at the time. Just took me a while to calm down, but once I did, I could see it was over the top. No one should have to read that sort of stuff directed at them. Not to that extent anyway.

Originally posted by DIPPER
You can't claim the moral high ground here because I have never directed any abuse at you that is 'worse' than that which you directed at me.

I know you havn't. That's why I was apologising. That was my point.

Originally posted by DIPPER
My initial post on this thread that angered you to such a degree was not abusive but was critical of your football knowledge & dismissive of your view, for some reason this pressed your buttons much more than some of the posts where people are launching abusive attacks on you & are clearly trying to get a reaction.

That was why I was more angered by your post. It was far more insulting to me, especially considering some of the feeble minds on here that are more deserving of it. This all seems to come back to one post I made about the away goals rule about a year ago. Every 2-legged tie I had seen to that point, it had always been obvious who the winner was, even in the event of a tied aggregate. Never needed or felt obligated to search the Encyclopaedia for the exact wording. Bringing up a hypothetical 5-4, 1-0 scoreline (1000: 1 shot) was a "what if." Of the dozens of other ties I'd seen, it was always aggregate, then away goals if necessary, and I thought this was always the case, except in the 1000:1 chance of a team losing 0-1, 4-5, on which I was wrong, but it was a situation whih to the best of my knowledge has never happened. Besides, you don't even know me. At the moment, with Pay-TV, I am watching at least 4 games a week sometimes 5 (always watch the Spanish replay) bearing in mind most of these are between midnight and 6am. Behind the AFL, Soccer is my favourite sport. Played it at school too for two years, before reverting to Aussie Rules in years 11 and Basketball in year 12.

Originally posted by DIPPER

I feel in your mind this may go back to the previous 3 point for a win thread where I called you ignorant & arrogant & you claimed to never have been so insulted before, but there's a difference between insulting somebody with with firmly held views on their character & foul mouthed abuse.

Your criticsm of my favouring of the 2-point rule (which i am entitled to have) was unnecessary given that I was the one who went to the effort of obtaing the information. If you disagreed, then fine. No problem. But insulting my character, because of that is a no no. Favouring 2 points over 3, does not mean that person knows nothing about Soccer, Dipper. Even you have to admit, whether you like the rule or not, that it has made virtually no difference to scoring in top flight English football.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
No, I didnt.

Yes you did.

What has a post comparing a truck driver to an accountant got to do with this?

It implies the job you do is irrelevant. Hence applying your education is irrelevant.

The point was about education, not jobs, yet idiotically, you brought up yet another irrelevant point, despite this obvious fact. The points you make are irrelevant and stupid.

No they aren't.

No one on this thread has contributed to that topic on bigsoccer bar a few posts.

More diversion.

No. I mentioned that particular years figures (which was a fact) and indicated that scoring levelled off.

Oh, so two years was enough to state this was it?

I never said scoring was going up.

I never said you did.

Dont make up lies, and force feed them.

aaww, you're so cute when you get mad sweetie pie.

I also indicated that scoring in the Italian League was around 2 goals a game for a long time. But given that i don't like to use small samples, I indicated that the English League is relevant as well (as is every league that used the rule) and in that League there was no significant change.

Significant in your opinion. Not insignificant in the opinion of a number of others.

It would be irresponsible to base ones judgement of the rule solely on the Italian League,

You were prepared to state the rule had had no impact based solely on the stats of the EPL.

There you have it people, Dan the irresponsible.

They wee the same stats I obtained

So you weren't the only one to obtain the information then?

 

[Diego Forlan]

Still waiting for someone to acknowledge the 'true' source of their Italian league stats (amongst others)

While we are on the topic, do some people realise that your 'stats' hold absolutely no credence if you cannot acknowledge their source? Because I can quite easily say you pulled them straight out of your arse, and yet you have no proof, nothing, diddly squat, to prove otherwise. Of course you could circumvent this by actually stating where you got the information from, and saying 'off the web' doesn't count. Have you heard of plagarism?

Ho hum.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
Yes you did.

No, I never said applying education to the real world wasn't relevant. Why must you continue to post blatant lies? Any reason? Paranoia maybe?

Originally posted by Dave
It implies the job you do is irrelevant. Hence applying your education is irrelevant.

My post compared two jobs, and in doing so, I explicity stated that it didn't matter what the job was, the opinion of the said person was just as relevant. Having problems with the basic act of reading again?

Originally posted by Dave
No they aren't.

Yes they are - the points you make are diversionary, irrelevant, and pointless. Calling them points is an insult to points.

Originally posted by Dave
I never said you did.

Yes you DID say that I said scoring was going up, when I never said scoring was going up. You said, "Even here all you've done is use one years stats as an argument that the scoring was going up anyhow." This comment of you was utter crap of course, covered by me in the above post.

Originally posted by Dave
Significant in your opinion. Not insignificant in the opinion of a number of others.

Oh, so you think a 0.08 of one goal combined getween both teams is a significant figure do you? I'd hate to see how you would have responded if the figure was 0.4 or 0.5. But that figure of 0.08 is jsut so massively significant. Maybe you should look up significant in the dictionary - or get some persepective, and maybe if we're all lucky you could even use some of that common-sense floating around.

Originally posted by Dave
You were prepared to state the rule had had no impact based solely on the stats of the EPL.

I'm prepared to use as many leagues as possible, but it takes a lot of time to compile the numbers. It took around an hour to compile the Italian stats and about 45 minutes to do the English ones. If I could immediately and quickly compile the figures for 20 European leagues I would do so but it takes time, and frankly I don't want to do it right now. If you'd like to, be my guest. I don't see you compiling ay numbers.

And I didn't state that the rule had no impact overall. I stated, correctly that it had no impact in England which has proved entirely correct (oh wait, except for that huge 0.08 of one goal per game which has changed the way we live and speak.)

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Still waiting for someone to acknowledge the 'true' source of their Italian league stats (amongst others)

While we are on the topic, do some people realise that your 'stats' hold absolutely no credence if you cannot acknowledge their source? Because I can quite easily say you pulled them straight out of your arse, and yet you have no proof, nothing, diddly squat, to prove otherwise. Of course you could circumvent this by actually stating where you got the information from, and saying 'off the web' doesn't count. Have you heard of plagarism?

Ho hum.

click here

Don't you look like a fool now.

 

[X_box_X]

Originally posted by Dan26
click here

Don't you look like a fool now.

Don't worry about the clanger, Dan.
The guy is a complete nutshell. You only have to remember the thread started by Bulldog1954, 'Rank your teams players'. The clanger doesn't rate Lampard. Any guy who doesn't rate Lampard doesn't know their soccer IMO.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by X_box_X
Don't worry about the clanger, Dan.
The guy is a complete nutshell. You only have to remember the thread started by Bulldog1954, 'Rank your teams players'. The clanger doesn't rate Lampard. Any guy who doesn't rate Lampard doesn't know their soccer IMO.

Lampard is ****e, and you know this because Raineri is pleading for him to get a go in England. Eriksson isn't stupid. Face it, he's just a fat ****. Petit is by far a more cultured midfielder than Lampard will ever be. I guarantee you, I am not the only person here who doesn't rate him, does this mean we all don't know anything about soccer?

Anyway I won't resort to Dan26 style put downs by referring to your age, number of years bandwagoning or sexual preference.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
Oh, so you think a 0.08 of one goal combined getween both teams is a significant figure do you? I'd hate to see how you would have responded if the figure was 0.4 or 0.5. But that figure of 0.08 is jsut so massively significant. Maybe you should look up significant in the dictionary - or get some persepective, and maybe if we're all lucky you could even use some of that common-sense floating around.

Once again Dan, you have failed to respond to the following points, preferring just to restate the 0.08 goals per game rubbish. Here is why that figure is misleading.

1 - From memory your 0.08 per game figure was over a period of over 30 years. There have been changes in the number of teams in th eleague, rule changes, and many other factors that would affect that figure. You haven't addressed any of these other factors which IMO makes your figures meaningless.

2 - You have failed to recognise the existence of matches which are played in a much more attacking manner, but do not contain more goals. In my mind these games are a great benefit to the game, but no stats will reflect that.

3 - You have failed to consider that in many games, for example Man City leading by 3 goals over Fulham half way through the match, the rule was never going to have any effect. Where it is most effective is those games that meander to a meaningless draw, with neither side making any great efforts to get the winner. These are the games that the rule was brought in for, and a more meaningful figure would be the increase in goals per game in these types of games

4 - You have failed to accept the simple fact that scoring was on a downward trend as indicated by Falchoon, and as proven by goals scoring records in English Division 1 since the 50's. This trend was ended, surprisingly enough about the same time as the rule changed.

5 - You have not considered the fact that for the last five years of 2 points for a win, gmaes finished in a result 71.2% of the time. For the five years after the rule change that rate was lifted to 75.5%, significant in any language. Of course you avoided this topic by inferring that my sample size of ten years to so small it was meaningless, yet since then you have used sample sizes of 12 years and 1 year. I am still waiting for an answer about this inconsistency.

6 - You have failed to accept the simple fact that goal scoring in every year since the rule was changed in Italy has exceed goals scoring in all but one year since the early 1960's. Matches finishing in a result in Italy in every year since the rule change have been far greater than any year since the early 60's.

These are just a few of the questions that you have consistently failed to answer. I am also waiting for a response as to why you suggested that you were the only one to find Italian League stats even after I showed you the post that I made detailing these stats several days ago. I am still waiting for you come up with any evidence to refute the fact that increasing or decreasing the number of teams in a league affects scoring rates.

I am sure there are many questions to you that have remained unanswered on this topic (and others). Be aware that every time you argue your point without making any attempt to address those questions, they will be asked again and again.

Moomba

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
click here

Don't you look like a fool now.

How do I look the fool, I'm not the one who was comitting plagarism