Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dave
If you persist in this illogical line of reasoning you may recieve a visit from DanJihad (TM). Not a pretty thought.

DanJihad (TM). I love it

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Dave
With the same bunch or a different bunch?

The same bunch. And the beatings are getting worse and worse.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by M29
The same bunch. And the beatings are getting worse and worse.

Can't go past a good beating.

 

[Falchoon]

Analyse this;

scoring aside, a poor team in the 60's could play for 42 draws, result mid table.

A similarly poor team in the '00's can play for 38 draws and be relegated.

There has to be a change in psychology.

 

[Squeak]

Can we back up 12 to 15 pages here for a sec.

When was it decided goals per game was the most relevant stat for this topic?

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Squeak
Can we back up 12 to 15 pages here for a sec.

When was it decided goals per game was the most relevant stat for this topic?

Apparently no one can predict the psychology of a team under 2 different rules. So you have to use any stats of your choosing no matter how obteuse.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
So what does claiming they are sleeping together imply Dan?

You are a child. How old are you, 13?

I take it you're in your late 30's or so, right? What is this some sort of mission to prove that I really literally am of the belief tht Diego and Shinners are having sex. For God's sake give up the crap and get back to the topic, dumbass.

What's next? You gonig to think Diego Forlan is actually the Diego Forlan from ManU?

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Dave
Can't go past a good beating.

It's beyond that. It's a rape and pillage.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
Such compelling argument.

Bullsh*t pretty much summed it up, I'm afraid. That's simply what it was.

Originally posted by Mr. Thought Police
Wrong, the implication is in your words. Whether you intended it or not it another matter.

Wrong. The implication is only in the words if you believe it is. I know what I impied and what I didn't. You do not.

You might as well claim whatever you want through implication, by your stupid logic. Good idea by you though. Hey let's start claiming things through implication even though the other person didn't say anything! That way, you can make up whatever you want! Wow, an idea for you to win an argument!! You can make things up about the other person! Wow! I think you're onto something!!

Originally posted by Dave
See, there's a difference between implication and intention.

Indeed there is. Unfortunately I didn't imply what you were claiming, and I am the only one that knows. You don't.

Originally posted by Dave
No Daniel it isn't.

Wow, you're rebuttal skills have reached new heights. What is this the 108th time a "No it isn't" or "Yes it is" has been used by you? Thank God you don't debate for a living. For your sake.

Originally posted by Dave
No, the initial discussion was that the person who worked in their field was more likely to know what they were on about and that their opinion holds more weight than that of someone who does not work in the field. That was my point, and as usual you missed it.

And you totally missed mine. A person's job has no impact on their ability to apply already learned knowledge. The ability to calculate numbers is not proportional to what job you have.

Originally posted by Dave
I'll take the opinion of those who know their stuff over yours any day Dan.

Well, that counts you out.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
You are a child.

How old are you, 13?

dumbass.

For someone who claims not to get into personal abuse you do a pretty good impression of someone who does.

What is this some sort of mission to prove that I really literally am of the belief tht Diego and Shinners are having sex.

Just pointing out the inconsistancies on your posts Dan. Of which there are many.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by moomba
they are one of many factors, other than the 3 points for a win rule change that have to be considered when assessing scoring patterns over a long period of time.

The problem is, you have no way of meansuring just how those other changes have impacted the game. You can claim you can measure scoring differences since those ruels came in, but after doing that for the "3-point" rule and finding you were wrong you then claimed the stats don't mean anything. Therefore, you won't be able to measure them for the other changes either, because according to you they won't mean anything. Your logic, moomba.

Originally posted by moomba
I have acknowledge that there are many factors behind scoring over a long period of time, you have not. I have also acknowledge that statistics alone can only provide an indicator of trends, not the full story. Surprisingly enough, you have not come up with one non-statistical argument in this thread.

I have acnowledged other factors, but we can't measure those factors. Sorry, but we can't. Deal with it. With the 3-point rule, it was widely believed scoring had increased in England. It hadn't. Sure, other factors may come into it over a period of time, but as soon as the rule was introduced there was no significant change. There was no chance for other variables to come into it so soon after the change, because there was was no time for trends to emerge.

Originally posted by moomba
Six (or seven) years after the rule change the number of teams in the league changed from 44, to 46 to 38. I don't see the point in doing any analysis of scoring figures during this period, without also doing a detailed analysis of the effects of changing numbers of teams in a league. That's why I didn't go beyond the 5 years either way.

This shouldn't have an effect. If the best two teams play each other 38 times in a 2 team league does that mean scoring will decrease to below 2.00 per game combined? Of course not. And I don't know where you get off claiming there were 44, 46 or 38 teams in the league. There is currently 20.

I tend to agree that 5 years is a relevant sample. The problem is no matter what sample size you or I use, someone will claim that we are only using that particular sample size for our own benefit so it is a lose-lose situation. If you're sticking to the 5-year sample for England the difference was not significant. You might claim that the way the game was played changed. But how do you know when you'd have virtually no memory of following the league in 1980? If teams were more attacking it should show up with more scoring opportuniteis hence goals.

Originally posted by moomba
You continue to quote the 0.08 however you have been unable/incapble/unwilling to acknowledge that the rule change was never intended to effect every match.

Beause of the low scoring nature of the game, a huge percentage of matches would be "those type of matches." If we accept that around 25-30% of matches are draws, then that means 25-30% of matches are in the balance at the 90 minute mark. If the rule really did promote and encourage more teams to attack and score in "those type of games," why hasn't scoring significantly increased, when those games account for such a large poercentage of the season? If one in every three matches (and it should be more, because by your logic, any game with a margin of one goal will be affected) will be affetced by the rule in terms of the way those teams approach the closing stages of the game, there must therefore be some actual evidence that those games have resulted in more chances (hence goals) being created. You have not provided anyone with any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim.

Originally posted by moomba
Scoring has increased, by over 30 goals per season from memory.

30 is virtually is nothing. There are individual seasons where the amount of goals vary by 60-70 from year to year! 0.08 is nothing. Random varation only.

Originally posted by moomba
It's not meaningless, when the debate is whether or not scoring has been on a downward trend since the 50's. Once again, you were wrong on that one, yet you fail to acknowledge that.

I was staing it was not on a downward trend over the last 10 years and I was 100% right. You yourself said you only felt a 5 year sample was relevant because of other changes in the game. Yet, you cling to a 50 years sample!!! This is as hypocritical as you have ever been, moomba! Given that you like the 5 year samples and use them when it suits you, it might be an idea to ackowledge that 5 year sample in this particular case,

If you look at scoring since the 50's it decreased then levelled off. There is no eveidence to suggest we would have been stuck with 1 goals games (combined) if nothing was changed. This is unsubstantiated conjecture.

Originally posted by moomba

Help me out here Dan, what exactly are you talking about.

Can't you read? You stated that the frequency of draws decreased to 71% (from 75% between 1976-1980) in the first 5 years following the rule change. In the next 5 years (1986-1990) the figure was 71% again. I therefore asked you what your point was, because your stat meant nothing. There are alway fluctuations in numbers such as those and 4-5% is normal variation. In the 1988 season draws occured 31% of the time, which was a 5% increase on 1987. There was nearly 6% difference between 1974 and 1975. Fluctuations like that are perfectly normal.

Originally posted by moomba
- The scoring in 1992/93 was affected by two things, first the introduction of the backpass rule in Italy, second the presence of two teams, Ancona and Pescara being promoted to Serie A and having a combined 234 goals either scored for, or more likely scored against prior to immediate relegation. This compared to 169 goals involving the two bottom team the year before, a difference of 0.21 goals per game.
-

I highly doubt whether the backpass rule accounted for such a difference. It is a good rule but it hasn't changed the game that much. Apart from Nash's error for ManCity, there aren't too many goals which can be directly attributable to the keeper not being allowed to pick up the ball. As fo the extra teams, does this mean the surplus teams in the 50's and 60's accounted for the higher scoring, rendering your claims of a trend meaningless (by your logic). I'm not disputing that scoring was higher back then, but by your logic you should therefore dismiss your own claim! Are you going to do that?

Your claims about Ancona and Pescara being the reason for affecting the scoring are laughable. Last time I checked, the Serie A in 1992-93 has 18 teams, the same numnber as it did in 1991-92. No increased number!! The amount of goals they conceded was only just marginally more than what the bottom two teams of 1993-94 (Atalanta and Lecce) conceded. At any rate there are always crap teams, but they don't account for scoring increasing for the whole league by more than 0.5! The number of teams was still identical!

Originally posted by moomba
The impact of the back pass rule was lessened the following year and the two bottom teams Atalanta and Lecce were involved in a combined 200 goals only.

The bottom two teams in 1992-93 conceded 148 goals. In 1993-94 the bottom two teams conceded 138. Not enough of a difference to account for the increase in scoring. Try again. Your argument was that it is easier to score against those bottom teams.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
For someone who claims not to get into personal abuse you do a pretty good impression of someone who does.

Pfft. Personal abuse. Calling you a child (when we know you aren't) and saying you are 13 (when we know you aren't) should be water of a ducks back to someone your own massive intellect.

As I've said before, I never insult a persons look (if I know what they look like of course) their job, marital status, religion or any other personal details. That's no go-territory.

If me having little jibe insults at you (which is basically name calling) offends you so much, you need to once again, get some perspective. Subtle, cruel insults, where the offendee has no comeback, are the worst and I never resort to that.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
Bullsh*t pretty much summed it up, I'm afraid. That's simply what it was.

In your not so humble opinion. It's astonishing that no-one else believes that.

Wrong. The implication is only in the words if you believe it is.

You've contradicted yourself with one word and one sentence. That's even better than last time.

I know what I impied and what I didn't.

No, you know what you intended. What was implied is in the meaning of the words themselves.

You might as well claim whatever you want through implication, by your stupid logic.

No, as the meaning has to be there in the first place. You can't say "fish" and claim "donuts"was implied. Actually, you probably could.

Indeed there is.

Yet in the next sentence you display that you don't know what that difference is.

Unfortunately I didn't imply what you were claiming
, and I am the only one that knows. You don't.

You know what you intended the words to mean, not what was implied by the words danny boy.

Wow, you're rebuttal skills have reached new heights.

It saves space and time not to type the same stuff twenty times in a post Dan. One of these days you'll realise that.

Whilst we're on debating skills, it's interesting that you consider "bull****" such an admirable example of rebuttal. That appears to be a touch hypocritical danny boy. For someone who thinks himself the master of debate you're slipping.

What is this the 108th time a "No it isn't" or "Yes it is" has been used by you?

As opposed to all those "bull****s", "bums chums" " idiots" and "morons" that you are so enamoured of. Oh and the tactic of ignoring information that you can't refute. They'd go down a treat in a formal debate.

A person's job has no impact on their ability to apply already learned knowledge.

Yes it does. Practice Danny boy, practice.

Well, that counts you out.

And that's the difference between us Dan. When I look at whether my opinion is likely to be reasonable or not I consider what other people think of it, not only what I think of it. Whereas as you oh navel gazer are incapable of anything other than narcissistic self adulation.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Dan26
Pfft. Personal abuse. Calling you a child (when we know you aren't) and saying you are 13 (when we know you aren't) should be water of a ducks back to someone your own massive intellect.

It is. That doesn't mean it isn't personal abuse Dan. Some people might be offended by it.

As I've said before, I never insult a persons look (if I know what they look like of course) their job, marital status, religion or any other personal details.

Intelligence isn't a personal detail now? Education?

If me having little jibe insults at you (which is basically name calling) offends you so much, you need to once again, get some perspective. Subtle, cruel insults, where the offendee has no comeback, are the worst and I never resort to that.

You don't get to decide what is and what isn't personal abuse Dan, the general community decides that. Simply because you don't consider it insulting doesn't mean it isn't.

Ans yes, just because I consider that it is doesn't mean it is. I would however say that calling someone a co(cksucker, a moron, a bum chum and some of the other things you've said would be considered abuse by a large number of people.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by M29
It's beyond that. It's a rape and pillage.

Ouch.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Dave
In your not so humble opinion. It's astonishing that no-one else believes that.

It doesn't matter what they believe - what matters are the facts. I know what I wrote, and what I meant when I wrote it. You don't. The fact you are trying to guess what someone else is thinking shows you are getting in way, way over your head. I respond to what you say - not what i think you might have meant.

Originally posted by Dave
No, you know what you intended. What was implied is in the meaning of the words themselves.

And what was implied by me, was not what you said was implied. I meant exactly what was written - there was no hidden implication. What you believe was implied, is just your own convultued crap.

Originally posted by Dave
No, as the meaning has to be there in the first place. You can't say "fish" and claim "donuts"was implied. Actually, you probably could.

If you read the post, what was said was exactly what was implied. There was no hidden implication, that exists anywhere other than in your own imagination. The fact you would even bother trying to argue that you knew what someone else was saying when that person told you that there was no hidden implication (and that person - ME - is the only one that knows) indicates you have some serious issues.

Originally posted by Dave
You know what you intended the words to mean, not what was implied by the words danny boy.

The words meant what they said. You said yourself that I didn't say it. You said that. You claimed I implied it, which I didn't. You just claim I did. I didn't say it. What I wrote was what I meant. It's not far fetched that what a person writes is exactly what they mean Davey Boy. Except of course when YOU don't agree with that, so you make up a hidden meaning for it, and claim things are are total crap, and based in Davey-fantasy land.

Your inability to even mount a proper argument in this thread really shows you should be the last person who should be responding to this topic anyway. 90% of what you have written has no relevance to the topic, which says something because you get totally humiliated whenever you attempt to contribute. All you do is back-slap, or respond to things which are non-topic related (your last post being a perfect example )

Originally posted by Dave
Whilst we're on debating skills, it's interesting that you consider "bull****" such an admirable example of rebuttal. That appears to be a touch hypocritical danny boy. For someone who thinks himself the master of debate you're slipping.

I don't need to be the master of debate to counter such thought -provoking rebuttals as "no it isn't."

Pathetic and stupid of you to critize my one word response (which was all your claim was worth. You claimed something false. I responded with the word which described thqat claim - Bullsh*t) when you have posted literally hundreds of 3 word responses over the months - something I am not guilty of. My responses are thought out - yours are not. You's are a joke.

Originally posted by Dave
When I look at whether my opinion is likely to be reasonable or not I consider what other people think of it.

LOL. Classic.

Lemming. I knew it.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
The problem is, you have no way of meansuring just how those other changes have impacted the game.

Of course you can measure these changes. It is however a big job and even if you can't be bothered you can acknowledge the existence of other factors. You on the other hand just pretend that they don't exist using the 0.08 per game as if the rule change is the only thing that has affected scoring over the past half century.

You can claim you can measure scoring differences since those ruels came in, but after doing that for the "3-point" rule and finding you were wrong you then claimed the stats don't mean anything. Therefore, you won't be able to measure them for the other changes either, because according to you they won't mean anything. Your logic, moomba.

When did this happen Dan. I have measured the increase in goal scoring in England and Italy since the rule. I have also acknowledge a large number of other factors that may have effect goals coring rates.

I have acnowledged other factors, but we can't measure those factors. Sorry, but we can't. Deal with it. With the 3-point rule, it was widely believed scoring had increased in England. It hadn't. Sure, other factors may come into it over a period of time, but as soon as the rule was introduced there was no significant change. There was no chance for other variables to come into it so soon after the change, because there was was no time for trends to emerge.

Show me were you have said something similar to "there has been a net increase in goals scoring since the rule however goals scoring rates have also been affected by the following factors". All I have heard form you is 0.08, 0.08 ad nauseum, .

I have also shown the the stats showing the immediate change in goal scoring, and the imnmediate decrease in matches finishing in a draw in the English by comparing the five years before the rule and five years after the rule. You of course, said that "no-one cares about your little sample size" or something similar. I am still waiting on your explanation of this.

This shouldn't have an effect. If the best two teams play each other 38 times in a 2 team league does that mean scoring will decrease to below 2.00 per game combined? Of course not. And I don't know where you get off claiming there were 44, 46 or 38 teams in the league. There is currently 20.

This has been argued before. Surprisingly enough you have not acknowledge any of Falchoons claims. As for the 44, 46 or 38 teams, you have caught me out a beauty Dan. I was looking at Man City tables, they were in Div 2 during that (and other ) period. I don't know about getting off on footballs statistics, I've always said I'd try anything once, but I think there are better options around. Is getting off to statisitics something you do often, let us know if you find it worthwhile, it could change our life forever.

I tend to agree that 5 years is a relevant sample. The problem is no matter what sample size you or I use, someone will claim that we are only using that particular sample size for our own benefit so it is a lose-lose situation. If you're sticking to the 5-year sample for England the difference was not significant. You might claim that the way the game was played changed.

Yawn. Why did you say that "no-one cares etc etc". Stats can show anything you like, it is usually how you explain logically why stats are what they are that adds credibility to any argument. First of all there have been more goals in the England game

But how do you know when you'd have virtually no memory of following the league in 1980?

Many examples of teams playing negatively under the 2 points for a win rule worldwide. Italia '90 is one where negative teams thrived under the conditions, you'd also do well to speak on the odd occasion with those that have been involved in the game longer than you. Listen, and take on board what others say, you might even find that there is a small gap in your football knowledge that they can help you out with.

In addition to this logic tells me how teams will respond to different rules, and this rule is logically a winner. You were 4 years old in 1980 right? How is your memory of football before 1980?

If teams were more attacking it should show up with more scoring opportuniteis hence goals.

Unless other factors are present which would decrease the scoring opportunities. I should reming you also that scoring has increased since the rule was introduced, both immediately after the rule change, and on a longer term basis despite several other factors. I would also hazard a guess that the increase in scoring opportunities (ie shots on goal) has been greater than the increase in the number of goals scored. Prove me wrong on that one.

Beause of the low scoring nature of the game, a huge percentage of matches would be "those type of matches." If we accept that around 25-30% of matches are draws, then that means 25-30% of matches are in the balance at the 90 minute mark.

Well for a start we wouldn't accept 25-30% because I have shown stats before showing that it is not a reliable figure. Also that doesn't take into account games that have a late leveller (ie Man United (1993-2003), nor does it take into account games that finish in a result despite being tied up lat ein the game. You would have to do much more to convince me that 25-30% is a figure I should accept as reasonable.

If the rule really did promote and encourage more teams to attack and score in "those type of games," why hasn't scoring significantly increased, when those games account for such a large poercentage of the season? If one in every three matches

Other factors, other factors, other factors, do we have to continually go over the same argument where you totally ignore the existence of other factors that may have decreased scoring. Your 0.08 is irrelevant because there are so many other factors that affect that rate. If you aren't prepared to assess the impact of some of these other factors, you shouldn't be using 0.08 in your argument.

b]

(and it should be more, because by your logic, any game with a margin of one goal will be affected)[/b]

No, I would think, by an large both team would approach the match the same way regardless of the rule change. The losing team would strive for a point regardless, the leading team would be protecting there lead, possibly going for an insurance goal.

will be affetced by the rule in terms of the way those teams approach the closing stages of the game, there must therefore be some actual evidence that those games have resulted in more chances (hence goals) being created. You have not provided anyone with any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim.

Eyes are my evidence Dan. You, on the other hand have not provided any evidence to support your view, and surprisingly enough you are yet to offer a real life perspective supporting your point of view. Football is not played inside a calculator. Evidence is there I am sure detailing shots on goals

30 is virtually is nothing. There are individual seasons where the amount of goals vary by 60-70 from year to year! 0.08 is nothing. Random varation only.

Same argument Dan, other factors, other factors.

I was staing it was not on a downward trend over the last 10 years and I was 100% right. You yourself said you only felt a 5 year sample was relevant because of other changes in the game. Yet, you cling to a 50 years sample!!! This is as hypocritical as you have ever been, moomba! Given that you like the 5 year samples and use them when it suits you, it might be an idea to ackowledge that 5 year sample in this particular case,

How is this hypocritical. Falchoon makes a statement, you tell him he is dreaming, I prove that he is factually correct. Nothin more to say. I am not clinging to any sample, and I haven't gone further into the downward trend than to prove that you were wrong to say Falchoon and I were dreaming. I also haven't said anything, negative or otherwise about you 10 year trend. From the king of hypocrites this a great one.

If you look at scoring since the 50's it decreased then levelled off. There is no eveidence to suggest we would have been stuck with 1 goals games (combined) if nothing was changed. This is unsubstantiated conjecture.

There has been an overall downward trend since the 50's, that is a simple fact. You can't argue that point Dan, although you can argue the relevance of such a trend.

Can't you read? You stated that the frequency of draws decreased to 71% (from 75% between 1976-1980) in the first 5 years following the rule change. In the next 5 years (1986-1990) the figure was 71% again. I therefore asked you what your point was, because your stat meant nothing. There are alway fluctuations in numbers such as those and 4-5% is normal variation. In the 1988 season draws occured 31% of the time, which was a 5% increase on 1987. There was nearly 6% difference between 1974 and 1975. Fluctuations like that are perfectly normal.

Still not sure what your point is.

I highly doubt whether the backpass rule accounted for such a difference. It is a good rule but it hasn't changed the game that much. Apart from Nash's error for ManCity, there aren't too many goals which can be directly attributable to the keeper not being allowed to pick up the ball. As fo the extra teams, does this mean the surplus teams in the 50's and 60's accounted for the higher scoring, rendering your claims of a trend meaningless (by your logic). I'm not disputing that scoring was higher back then, but by your logic you should therefore dismiss your own claim! Are you going to do that?

There is a trend Dan, that is fact. Once again I am arguing the merits of the trend, just the factual existence of one. I think the impact of the backpass rule didn't account for all of the difference, but it would have accoutned for some. Whenever there is a huge immediate change in something like goal scoring, it is reasonable to look for some of the reasons why. The backpass rule is a pretty good start.

Your claims about Ancona and Pescara being the reason for affecting the scoring are laughable. Last time I checked, the Serie A in 1992-93 has 18 teams, the same numnber as it did in 1991-92. No increased number!! The amount of goals they conceded was only just marginally more than what the bottom two teams of 1993-94 (Atalanta and Lecce) conceded. At any rate there are always crap teams, but they don't account for scoring increasing for the whole league by more than 0.5! The number of teams was still identical!

Falchoon showed stats showing that the most goals scored (by both sides) were loosely in games involving the bottom and top teams. It could just be that this one-off increase is partly due to the extra 60 odd goals in games between these two teams, compared to Atalanta and Lecce the year before. It shows that goal scoring was not as high across the board as it appears, but it was a smaller increase across the baord, and a huge increase at the bottom end of the table.

The bottom two teams in 1992-93 conceded 148 goals. In 1993-94 the bottom two teams conceded 138. Not enough of a difference to account for the increase in scoring. Try again. Your argument was that it is easier to score against those bottom teams.

I have mentioned scoring overall, not goals conceded. My argument has never been just that it is easier to score against bottom teams, but that more goals overall occur in games involving bottom teams.

Moomba

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Dan26
LOL. Classic.

Lemming. I knew it.

Could just be that Dave can see if others think differently to him that they may have valid reasons for doing so.

You'd be like that bloke in one of the Monty Python films, who wouldn't accept that his ship was sinking because it was his firm belief that the ship was built to be unsinkable. Picture of Dan26 going down with the ship, screaming "It's not sinking, it's not built to sink", brings a smile to my face this morning anyway.

Moomba

 

[Dan26]

Good reply Moomba, but it's nothing that won't stop us going around in circles. The thread has run its course unless new figures, or ideas are presneted. I've responded to your questions, you've responded to mine and we keep going round and round in circles, because there is no conclusive evidence to prove anything either way. Do we use a 50 year sample or a 5 year sample, for instance? Which is more relevant? I'll initiate one idea, then you'll claim other factors which are lieky relevant, but there isn't any evidence for those factors, therefore we keep going round and round in circles. Your comments have been noted.

One thing I vehemently disgaree with, is that the rule is "fair." Whether the rule is good for Soccer or not is one thing. It probably is good. But I steadfastly stick by the fact that when a draw is not half a win, the ladder does not truly represent the quality of the results.

 

[Goa^uld]

Originally posted by X_box_X

However, a draw is the middle-point between a win and a loss.

A draw is NOT half of a win... If youre team wins, you are merely satisfied that you didnt lose... You don't say 'it was half way to a win'
It is a sign of a good team to be able to go that step further, and win matches, instead of just drawing all of the time.

 

[Slax]

It's simple and those who don't want to accept that 3 points is a better system that works and has been proven to work probably don't even really follow the sport properly.

Soccer is in a position which AFL will never be. It's the world game that has a proper World Cup and is watched by more people than any other sporting event in the world including the Olympics, so accept it.

I still don't know why we give out 4 points instead of 2 in the AFL?

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Good reply Moomba, but it's nothing that won't stop us going around in circles. The thread has run its course unless new figures, or ideas are presneted. I've responded to your questions, you've responded to mine and we keep going round and round in circles, because there is no conclusive evidence to prove anything either way. Do we use a 50 year sample or a 5 year sample, for instance? Which is more relevant? I'll initiate one idea, then you'll claim other factors which are lieky relevant, but there isn't any evidence for those factors, therefore we keep going round and round in circles. Your comments have been noted.

One thing I vehemently disgaree with, is that the rule is "fair." Whether the rule is good for Soccer or not is one thing. It probably is good. But I steadfastly stick by the fact that when a draw is not half a win, the ladder does not truly represent the quality of the results.

Moomba, I think Dan is subconciously conceeding defeat with this. Well done!

 

[Karanicolas]

Originally posted by Slax
I still don't know why we give out 4 points instead of 2 in the AFL?

Thanks !!!

Another 300 crap posts that I will have to read on this thread!!!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Moomba, I think Dan is subconciously conceeding defeat with this. Well done!

Ssssh! He's trying to hide the fact that he's hasn't declined your "bum chum"'s invitation to the pub for a few drinks. Perhaps he's trying to avoid coming out?

 

[clucas91]

I have not read any of this thread, but a comment Diegoal made on the first page about rewarding a draw made me think of Japan.

Probably all know this, but over here they have extra time in league and cup games. If scores are level after 120 minutes, the game is officially a draw. But at least they don't just SETTLE for a draw...

But that was probably already mentioned on page 3295 of this bizarre thread.