All of which is meaningless as the statistics presented are not a proper indication of how difficult it is to get a penalty at certain grounds.

.......................

They are not meant to be. It clearly states they are for penalties given.

Ripley - you could infer each of those statements - though the stats don't prove them right. These stats don't prove the referees are biased, and they don't prove they miss more at certain grounds - the inference can of course be wrong.

-----------------------

That's exactly my point Mortimer. The stats can pretty much infer what you want them to. On their own, they prove nothing. Only with more indepth research can any conclusion become more substantial (I won't say undeniable, because in the case of football, I think that is an unobtainable objective).

filters: "despite the inconsistancys in the way the stats are presented the bottom line is the numbers atrributed to UTD dont set UTD apart as the legend of the myth would have you think"

That I can absolutely agree with

"and that in itself is proof that the myth dosent exist or is greatly exaggerated"

That I don't. The stat proves neither. It will remain a myth (not an untruth - please understand the difference) until the moment it has either been completely and undeniably proven or disproven. My last post hinted that that "goal" is an unobtainable one in football. The reasons why are obvious.

I will say though that Aug 2006 is no measure in which to conclude whether a myth that has existed for much longer than the last 5 and a half years is true or false. There is only one time frame that should serve as a starting point, and that is since the conception of league football in this country, whereby every single club is analysed.

And even then, that is, as I say, only a starting point.

They are not meant to be. It clearly states they are for penalties given.
========================================

Please forgive me. From what I've read of this article, I gathered that people were attempting to use these statistics as proof that penalty decisions don't favour United at Old Trafford because Fulham have conceded less.

All referees are Man Utd fans. Fact.

comment by Mr Chelsea (U3579)
posted 45 seconds ago
All referees are Man Utd fans. Fact.
------------------------------
That's that then. Fact.

I think most UTD fans will give credit to our defenders for our lack of penaltys conceded at OT in the PL as I think we have been averaging about 11 or 12 goals a season conceded at home for the last 5 season...

comment by filters=wimps (U11635)
posted 5 minutes ago
I think most UTD fans will give credit to our defenders for our lack of penaltys conceded at OT in the PL as I think we have been averaging about 11 or 12 goals a season conceded at home for the last 5 season...
----------------------------
This is another factor which has to be taken into account. Less opposition attacks in your box, will draw less penalties, in theory.

I think most UTD fans will give credit to our defenders for our lack of penaltys conceded at OT in the PL

--------------

Lack of penalties?

Sorry, couldn't resist that one

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)

posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago

I think most UTD fans will give credit to our defenders for our lack of penaltys conceded at OT in the PL

--------------

Lack of penalties?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point is there is no myth associated with our defensive record over the years just quality defending but we will let people concentrate on their myths....

I think most UTD fans will give credit to our defenders for our lack of penaltys conceded at OT in the PL

............

For example, Rio went how many years without ever getting booked?

It was a deliberately facetious comment that I made in my last post filters. There was no point to it

But you're right - people will concentrate on myths, especially when it suits them in doing so. A British trait perhaps, but we do have a tendency to knock those who are successful. Build 'em up to knock 'em down so to speak.

United are up there and they will be got at in that respect. As Liverpool were before them. The myth will remain just that - a myth. No more no less. Which, in one way is the point that people such as myself are making in this thread. If that myth can't be substantiated (proved beyond doubt to be true), then by the same token it can't be proved beyond doubt not to be true. For if that was the case either way, then the term "myth" wouldn't even be applicable.

That's how it works. That's how myths work. As stated too many times to recall in this thread - The Telegraph proves nothing - and one of the things it doesn't prove no matter how much anyone disagrees with the conclusions of the author? That the myth can be substantiated. Think about it.

The point Ripley is UTD's defensive record of goals conceded added to goals scored(best form of defence is attack) added to VC's point about Rio going a number of years without a booking, put alongside the telegraph articles stats do constitute a body of evidence questioning the accuracy and validity of the myth. Nobody is suggesting that UTD dont get dodgy or questionable decisions at OT Fergie did acknowledge that carricks challenges could have resulted in a penalty but every team gets these type of decisions. The myth is UTD get more and noone has offered proof to back it up but as I say there is a body of evidance to counter it

You point to United's defensive record, point to a player not being booked for a number of years - all positive aspects of United's play, all points that are made to confirm how good United are defensively.

So it stands to reason that a much better defence - a much better team overall - would concede fewer penalties than a team who isn't as good. Yet the stat says that over a 5-6 year period, the team who is worse than United have conceded one penalty less. Yet in the 5-6 years before that, Fulham had conceded numerous more penalties at home than United had. That also is a statistical fact. So what possible conclusion can we draw from that? That in those particular years there was a bias towards United? If we ascribe to the logic of the author of The Telegraph article, then that is precisely what we'd have to conclude. Do you see know how flimsy the conclusion drawn from such stats can be?

So, taking the last 5-6 years, does that mean that those stats either point to a bias in favour of Fulham - a bias that supercedes any possible bias in favour of United - an ascertion which, given your own view on the matter (that being that such bias doesn't exist), simply has to be ridiculous. So what is the reason for the U-turn in this statistic? Is it that United used to be favoured? Is that that United have gotten worse defensively? Is it that United's defenders have committed more fouls? Is it that referees have been more harsh on United at Old Trafford? Or is it that referees have been more lenient on Fulham at Craven Cottage? From looking at those stats in and of themselves, I can't say with absolutely certainty what the reason is. And neither can the author of The Telegraph article. And neither can you or anyone else.

I can't understand the confusion here, simply put there have been more penalties at Old Trafford given against United than several other teams at their home ground so you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford than you are at other teams grounds.

This doesn't mean that many valid penalty appeals are not turned down at Old Trafford every week, or that the penalties given against other home teams are not desperately unfair.

If you were to say, "you are more likely to have a valid penalty appeal turned down at Old Trafford than other grounds" then these stats wouldn't settle it either way, even with these stats you could say the above statement is true.

With these stats what you can clearly say is "over the last five years you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford than other grounds"

Let me put it as an example to show you. Lets go with road deaths per 1000 people (RDPTP from now on), New York and Mexico. Made up figures for the point of this example.

New York has 10 RDPTP last 5 years.
Mexico has 15 RDPTP last 5 years.

What you can say from these stats is that you are more likely to die on Mexican roads (like your more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford)

What they don't tell you is which set of roads are more dangerous (which grounds your more likely to get valid penalty appeals waved away)

Or to put it another way if United gave away 9 penalties over 5x19=95 games then United are giving a penalty away once every 10.555 home games, if Fulham gave away only 8 in the same timeframe then they give a penalty away once every 11.875 games. Meaning in purely mathematical terms an away team are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford than you are at Craven Cottage.

comment by 7_T_B We're all cheering you on Muamba! (U5768)
posted 7 hours, 1 minute ago
I can't understand the confusion here, simply put there have been more penalties at Old Trafford given against United than several other teams at their home ground so you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford than you are at other teams grounds.
-------------------------------------------------
No. This reason you can't understand, is because of holding this few. The fact that there have been more penalties given at Old Trafford than at Craven Cottage, only points to the fact that there have been more given. It doesn't say how many should have been given but weren't, how many should not been given but where and even how many times there were attacks in the box. There are many factors in play. The article is a foolish one and only a fool would not understand this. Take them team out of it, take United out of it, then look at it with a fresh mind, you'll then get over the confusion.

Road deaths…
If 5 people died on the M25 in 2011 – and 3 people died on a virtually unused lane over the same period. Then the statistics will show that more people died on the M25. They will not show that you are more likely to die if you drive on that road.
There could have been 5 people that drove on the M25 in that period – so only a small percentage died – whereas all 3 people that used the small lane died. If every user of the lane died – then 100 per cent of people who took that road died. Meaning if you were taking that road in 2011 you were certain to die. If less than 1 per cent of drivers on the M25 died then the statistics clearly show a driver on the M25 is much less likely to die than a driver on the country lane.

So clearly the number of deaths is not enough information to say whether you are more or less likely to die when driving on that road. Just as the total number of penalties given is not enough info to say whether you are more or less likely to get one at OT or not. The time is not a valid measure since the number of instances will be different.

Less people died in the UK last year from wrestling lions than they did from driving a car. Does that mean sticking your head in a lion’s mouth is less dangerous than driving? It is measuring an instance over a period of time. So if you are brave enough to drive a car, it stands to reason you should be brave enough to get in a cage with a lion and punch it in the face – since statistically you think it is proof that wrestling lions is safer!

The article is a foolish one and only a fool would not understand this. Take them team out of it, take United out of it, then look at it with a fresh mind, you'll then get over the confusion.
===================

I agree, it's just as foolish as the imbeciles who say Utd get all the decisions. Idiocy at its finest. They do not factor in the decisions Utd do not get.

Anyone who propogates that myth is an imbecile too

@ manutddaredevil.....

filters=wimps,

Pleae post my comment because TOOR has filtered me although he denies he hasn't

Cheers

Daredevil

Anyone who says United get all the decisions is clearly wrong - as some do go against them.

That is factually incorrect.

Do they get more than other clubs - it seems a lot of fans will say yes, whereas a lot of fans will say no. I'm sure a lot of opponents' fans will cite examples of when decisions went United's way, as I'm sure United fans will give examples of when decisions went against the team. These are anecdotal - but not statistical proof.

Have some decisions gone for United - yes.
Have some gone against them - yes.

That is the same as with any team! Any I think anybody should be able to admit that.

This thread has tried to use statistics to prove the myth wrong - but has unfortunately used the wrong statistic. TOOR, Ripley and I have tried to point out the error in the measurement used but have somehow been attacked for being anti United. We haven't been in the slightest - we have just pointed out that the evidence given is not the right information to prove the myth right or wrong. We have not said the myth is right once - but it seems some posters can't seem to see this and just respond thinking we are being Fergie-bashers.

It's all a bit silly.

comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)

posted 12 minutes ago

The article is a foolish one and only a fool would not understand this. Take them team out of it, take United out of it, then look at it with a fresh mind, you'll then get over the confusion.
===================

I agree, it's just as foolish as the imbeciles who say Utd get all the decisions. Idiocy at its finest. They do not factor in the decisions Utd do not get.

Anyone who propogates that myth is an imbecile too

I have seen countless decisions that have been dubious and have gone in Uniteds favour. Like MrMortimer said everyone can remember being wronged at United at least once and it seems there is an overwhelming sense of agreement that United get the majority of decisions, especially at home.

Javier –
The problem is – anecdotal evidence is different to statistical evidence.
I’m sure fair United fans will accept it when a decision goes their way – and I don’t think any fan would be so blind as to believe they never get the occasional wrong decision in their favour. That is not the point though – the myth is that United get more than other clubs.

This cannot be proved by anecdotal evidence.

It can be proven to be true or false by statistical evidence, but the evidence given in this thread is not enough. For United fans to claim it proves the myth false is completely unfounded. As Ripley points out if you take the stats back another year United would have less penalties than other clubs – but that doesn’t prove they are favoured by refs as the measurement system is flawed!

comment by Javier-Stevie&Aquilani (U7411)

posted 3 minutes ago

I have seen countless decisions that have been dubious and have gone in Uniteds favour. Like MrMortimer said everyone can remember being wronged at United at least once and it seems there is an overwhelming sense of agreement that United get the majority of decisions, especially at home.
=======================

I have seen LFC get the same, more recently Suarez's dive against Arsenal. You still lost though.

The overwhelming sense of agreement comes from people who are dense and are bitter about their clubs failing.

For every decision that you claim has gone in our favour I could name 2 or 3 that have gone against us.

We are the biggest club in the country and the spotlight is on us all the time, creating the impression that we get it all.

We do not. What I find amusing is that when things do not go for us or ridiculous decisions get given against us, none of you bat an eyelid.

That my friends clearly highlights your bitterness and bias and clealry shows why your comments and ideas mean fk all.

We all get decisions for us and we all get decisions against us.