Hi, I was an occasional poster (with the same username) over at 606 and thought I'd give this place a go. I'll start with something that's not transfer-related...
I doubt there’s a football fan alive who hasn’t complained about referees favouring the home side but is the truism actually true, can it be statistically proven?
Apparently a new Freakanomics-style book claims that yes, it can. I’ve not read 'Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won', but there’s a detailed review in the LRB here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n13/david-runciman/swing-for-the-fences
Everyone knows that teams have better records at home than they do away – in the Premier League the home team has a 63% winning record, in La Liga it is 65% - but it’s difficult to work out why exactly. What can explain the difference between United's excellent home form and awful record last year?
The book’s authors try to run the numbers on all the obvious factors:
- the influence of the crowd (both positive on the home team and negative on the away lot)
- the irritants of travelling, staying in unfamiliar hotels etc
- the benefits of local knowledge about home pitches and stadiums
According to their analysis, none of these factors has a significant influence on results and home advantage is almost entirely down to one thing – the ref.
Referees give more fouls against away teams and send more of their players off. If the home team is losing, injury (or as we like to call it, Fergie) time is twice as long as when it is winning. You may think that this can all be explained by the natural inclination of home teams to attack and the away lot to defend but the authors claim that’s not the case.
They think it’s because refs are, probably subconsciously, biased because of a desire to please the thousands of people watching. The stats show that the degree to which a ref is influenced is affected by the size of the crowd and how close the crowd is to the pitch.
Sounds sensible, it’s just human nature isn’t it?
But the LRB reviewer doesn’t buy the argument, claiming more ethereal factors that cannot be statistically measured also play vital roles. He cites belief and the importance of being part of a team and even a wider community that includes the crowd. Then there's the decisions taken by managers more inclined to take risks at home, where they are expected to win.
As mentioned, I’ve not read the book so my thoughts shouldn’t be given too much weight but I’m inclined to agree with the reviewer: it seems absurd that home advantage is down entirely to biased refs. The Freakonomics approach of ignoring everything that cannot be reduced to hard numbers seems reductive.
What do you think explains the massive difference between home and away records, can it really all about refs wanting to be loved?
Proof that refs are biased?
posted on 28/6/11
im using bias as that is the key word in the title, sorry to offend you with this, wasn't suggesting bribes at all, do you not see me posting pro Man U all the time? I'm hardly an ABU
Don't read into things too much and focus on the core point that I believe decisions are brought out of proportion when the result goes United's way, whether its out of jealousy that they have pulled off another victory from the jaws of defeat or it helps them sleep at night I have no idea.
posted on 28/6/11
I still believe Chelsea are bigger victims in this case. You only need to look at our games (vs United April 2010) and Spurs (April 2011) to see this. In April 2010 there was an entire media frenzy devoted to decisions that went our way, ignoring the ones that went against us, inciting it as Karma. Unlike United, we don't have many or any friends in the media hence why decisions for us are magnified to a larger degree
posted on 28/6/11
comment by Never Blowing Bubbles (U7929) posted 3 minutes ago
I still believe Chelsea are bigger victims in this case. You only need to look at our games (vs United April 2010) and Spurs (April 2011) to see this. In April 2010 there was an entire media frenzy devoted to decisions that went our way, ignoring the ones that went against us, inciting it as Karma. Unlike United, we don't have many or any friends in the media hence why decisions for us are magnified to a larger degree
---------------------
After the Barca debacle in the CL semi I think you had friends everywhere. You were robbed blind of another crack at United in Rome
posted on 28/6/11
"never blowing bubbles"
can see your point, I know united fans go on about the Drogba goal but it put you 2-0 up, Macheda scored with his hand, but the offside goal was seen as the title winning decision. And for the Gomes howler, United fans should have been more annoyed at him than the linesman to be honest
posted on 28/6/11
Mrs UnitedRedMacca said offside is Rocket Science (U2024)
What was annoying about that is unlike Moscow, I honestly believed we would have beaten you. I expected us to lose in Moscow (although not in that manner) but I honestly believed if we had got past Barca we would have won.
Ref was poor but we sure didn't help ourselves by missing so many chances, in the 2nd leg Barca were as poor and frail as any team I've seen come to us in a while and were there for the taking w/10 men and we should have gone for it
Had Drogba not reacted in the way he did (although understandable) I think the media may have had a lot more sympathy but of course we had idiot Mirror/Daily Mail journo's calling for us to be banned for a year etc.
posted on 28/6/11
comment by Never Blowing Bubbles (U7929) posted 11 seconds ago
Mrs UnitedRedMacca said offside is Rocket Science (U2024)
What was annoying about that is unlike Moscow, I honestly believed we would have beaten you. I expected us to lose in Moscow (although not in that manner) but I honestly believed if we had got past Barca we would have won.
Ref was poor but we sure didn't help ourselves by missing so many chances, in the 2nd leg Barca were as poor and frail as any team I've seen come to us in a while and were there for the taking w/10 men and we should have gone for it
Had Drogba not reacted in the way he did (although understandable) I think the media may have had a lot more sympathy but of course we had idiot Mirror/Daily Mail journo's calling for us to be banned for a year etc.
------------------------------
Moscow was one of those games that was a tad mind boggling tbh
First half Chelsea never turned up and second half we didn't
I wanted Chelsea to win the game v Barca tbh and felt we would had a better chance in the final against you
The Barca that turned up in Rome was very different to the one you should have beat though. They were phenominal then as they were at Wembley
posted on 28/6/11
shandy0306 (U2975)
I can understand United fans frustration with that as we have been there before in big games. In Nov 2008 we were 1-0 up against Arsenal and all over them, they never even threatened our goal and looked toothless, then RVP got a goal (which was more offside than Drogba's vs you may I add) and that completely changed the game and we lost. That game triggered our loss of form and we fizzled out of the title race by January.
Having said that unlike Arsenal in that game, Chelsea were the better team and I personally felt we were more comfortable at 0-1, then at 0-2 or 1-2, so had Drogba's goal not stood, IMO we would still have won the game, although we'll never know for sure.
Gomes has a habit of fluffing up in the big games
posted on 28/6/11
Mrs UnitedRedMacca said offside is Rocket Science (U2024)
Agreed. United should have been at least 3 goals up at half time, equally at full time we should have killed the game off by a couple of goals.
I've always believed that whilst Barca may be unbeatable, they are not invulnerable hence why I always believed there was a better chance to take them down over 2 legs than in one.
Unlike Chelsea, United had to go out and attack which left them exposed, but Barca were ultimately too good on the day. Other than Milan, I think I am right in saying Barca haven't lost a CL final, well that's no coincidence IMO
I hope for our sakes, somebody takes them out before the final. Chelsea and United could and should have won the CL in 09/10, Inter were good but not that good
posted on 28/6/11
comment by Never Blowing Bubbles (U7929) posted 31 seconds ago
Mrs UnitedRedMacca said offside is Rocket Science (U2024)
Agreed. United should have been at least 3 goals up at half time, equally at full time we should have killed the game off by a couple of goals.
I've always believed that whilst Barca may be unbeatable, they are not invulnerable hence why I always believed there was a better chance to take them down over 2 legs than in one.
Unlike Chelsea, United had to go out and attack which left them exposed, but Barca were ultimately too good on the day. Other than Milan, I think I am right in saying Barca haven't lost a CL final, well that's no coincidence IMO
I hope for our sakes, somebody takes them out before the final. Chelsea and United could and should have won the CL in 09/10, Inter were good but not that good
--------------------------------
Yeah. That was the one that got away for me
How we managed to get beat by Bayern when cruising still goads me. (Bloody Robben)
We would, in my opinion have cruised through the semi in Shalke style and given Inter more of a game than we managed against Barca,
posted on 28/6/11
Mrs UnitedRedMacca said offside is Rocket Science (U2024)
The Bayern game was unbelievable.In both legs United were in cruise control. I remember switching off the TV at 3-0 thinking the game was over and sulking as I believed it would be a straight cruise to the final for you lot, it reminded me of our tie with Monaco in 03/04 where the same thing happened, only worse.