“but thats what they are. The paranoid ramblings of ABU's.....”
The fact that you use the term ABU means that you yourself could be accused of being the one who is paranoid! Now of course there are some who will want anyone to win bar United… but the vast majority of people will support their own club and not be an ABU. It is easier for you to assume everyone who supports a club different to you is an ABU – and then criticize them for being paranoid – but that simply isn’t the case.
You have clumped the Howard Webb myth in, and tried to lure the conversation to be about Fergie time – why? Because the more myths you claim people believe in the more you can say that their arguments are ABU based rather than being logical.

You believe that decisions even themselves up over the course of the season. Could this not be club bias talking? It isn’t based on any fact or statistic is it? Why do you believe that? Are you a “fool” for believing in something that hasn’t been proven?

“it dosent dispel the myth but it certainly dose nothing to support it”
If you’d read the posts before replying you’d see that from the off not TOOR, Ripley or I ever suggested it supports it. The original suggestion was that the stat proved irrefutably that the myth was false. It does not do that. Yet many fans thought it did – and claimed that anyone arguing it didn’t was an ABU. Now that you yourself have accepted that it does not prove the myth to be false – would you accept that the ones claiming those arguing against it were just ABUs were wrong… and indeed the knee jerk reaction of the ABU claim sounds a lot like paranoid ramblings?

I don't buy into the 'evens itself out' rubbish that United keep perpetuating.
...............................

Me neither, It always amazed me that Liverpool are the worst for moaning about United getting decisions when I really don't know of a team that the referee's favour more.

I can only assume that it is for that very reason that the Liverpool fans complain so much (keep them distracted with someone else)

Mr Mortimer the only problem with you example is Fulham and United have played the same amount of home games (or close enough)

So with 1000 people driving down that road the Mexican one has 15 RDPTP and the New York one has 10 RDPTP, this means simply you are more likely to die on the Mexican road (more likely to get a penalty at OId Trafford)

There could be other factors in play, like superior medical services in new york (stricter refereeing) so the new york road could actually be the more dangerous (the easier place to get penalties)

The simple fact is though that you are more likely to die on the mexican road ( more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford) whatever the factors and reasons are for it.

anyone who beleives in the myth is a paranoid ABU fool. Jesus thats why its called a myth....

Fergie Time....
Penalty Shouts....
Perceived Favourable fixture scheduling....

all part of the same ABU myth

Rafa Benitez was ridiculed in the media for his famous paranoid rant about favouritism to UTD.


KOP on.......

7 T B
The road example is an interesting one… you think it is important they have played the same amount of home games. My illustration shows that the time is not the important factor.

The time is the same on both roads – people dying on the M25 in a year, and people dying in some forgotten back road in a year. The time is the same in exactly the same way the time is equal in the penalty example (similar number of home games).
If a million people use the M25 and 10 die in a year, but 5 people use the backroad and 5 die in the same period. Which are you more likely to die on? The one where not a single soul has survived? Or the one where close to a million have survived and the survival rate is close to 100%?

As a driver the chances of you dying are much higher when driving on the backroad than it is driving on the M25.
Time is not the important factor - because it doesn’t take into account the number incidents (the number of drivers who went down the road or number of penalty claims that should be given).

If the number of people have to be the same in both road examples – then the number of penalty claims need to be the same in the football examples. In giving the statistic for how many have died on a particular road it does not tell how dangerous it is or how likely you are to die when driving down it. Just as giving the number of penalties does not tell how well a team is treated by referees.

Filters – I’m not a Liverpool fan.

You believe in it all evening itself out over a course of a season – this is a myth and is unproven.
You don’t believe in things like Fergie time – do you have proof it doesn’t exist?

Man Utd’s mantra is attack – is this a myth?
United always finish strongly – is this a myth?

How many people do you think are ABUs? Would you class me as one?

Were did I say i beleive it all evens out over the course of a season ?

The only thing that is proven over the course of a season is who is the best team in the country....




man utd mantra is attack that can be proven

man utd always finish strongly a myth ? I dont know Finish what exactly ? Games ? Cups ? Leagues ?

How many people do I think are abu's. ? I couldnt tell you

Do I class you as one ? I would Do you class youself as one ? obviously not your probably in denial

Do you beleive in the myth ?

Mr Mortimer I would just like to point out I am not saying this stat is definite proof of the referees not being biased to United. In fact as far as I am concerned we seem to have got into an argument over semantics instead...

What I am saying is that the very fact more penalties have been giving at United is proof you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford (over the time frame specified in the article)

Quite simply it is an event that happens more often that an away team getting a penalty at Craven Cottage, so it is a more likely event...

What you are doing is attempting to twist the phrase "more likely to get a penalty" into "more likely to get an individual penalty shout given" which it clearly isn't...

The stats show you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford, what the stats do not show is how likely you are to get a valid penalty appeal turned down at Old Trafford in comparison to other grounds.

....................................
You don’t believe in things like Fergie time – do you have proof it doesn’t exist?
...................................

The burden of proof here rests on those wishing to state it does exist.

................................
United always finish strongly – is this a myth?
...............................

The always word probably makes that false, a better one would be usually finish strongly, as we do. Though that doesn't go back throughout time but is more of a recent thing.

Lastly don't think you are an ABU, at least not the impression I got from this topic...

So you don't believe it evens out over the course of a season?

Is it proven the best team wins? It depends how you measure "best" and whether you allow for injuries to first team players etc. There are a lot of factors which contribute to who wins the league - it isn't always the club with the best 11 first team players in their side.

you class me as an ABU - that's interesting, why? I have said absolutely nothing which is anti-United whatsoever.

It's interesting you think I am though... and if I don't think I am you think I actually am but just in denial... does that sound like a reasonable assessment or deluded ramblings to you?

Errm, you have misread my last post, I specifically said don't think you are an ABU,

Some of the rest of your post sounds a little like deluded ramblings but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that is just because you misread my previous post....

.................................
So you don't believe it evens out over the course of a season?
.................................

I would say it mostly does, probably never works out perfectly.

...................................
Is it proven the best team wins? It depends how you measure "best" and whether you allow for injuries to first team players etc. There are a lot of factors which contribute to who wins the league - it isn't always the club with the best 11 first team players in their side.
.............................................

If you specify team to mean the whole first team squad then I would say generally yes, one team could be very unlucky with injuries whilst another has very few injuries which could make the difference at the end of the day.

Outside of good or bad luck with injuries I would say yes, seen as the league is so long and includes so many games the best will generally rise to the top.

So you don't believe it evens out over the course of a season?

Is it proven the best team wins? It depends how you measure "best" and whether you allow for injuries to first team players etc. There are a lot of factors which contribute to who wins the league - it isn't always the club with the best 11 first team players in their side.

you class me as an ABU - that's interesting, why? I have said absolutely nothing which is anti-United whatsoever.

It's interesting you think I am though... and if I don't think I am you think I actually am but just in denial... does that sound like a reasonable assessment or deluded ramblings to you?

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

Theres this invention call the league table that football associations have been using for a number of years. Whoever finishes at the top of this LEAGUE TABLE are called champions or in the case of the PL the best team in the country.

Now why do I think you are an ABU because funnily enough even though you are a rangers fan in my experiance you seem always to take up a position in articles that would be considered anti utd. As I say thats just my experiance....

Anyway do you beleive in the myth....

I'm going to bring this discussion down to the lowest denominator. That way no one can possibly misunderstand.

The myth that United don't have any decisions go against them is INCORRECT.

The myth that teams never get penalties at Old Trafford is INCORRECT.

The myth that BIGGER teams have an advantage especially when playing at home - NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN.

United - along with the other top clubs - have all benefitted from having decisions fall in their favour. As has EVERY OTHER SINGLE CLUB.

BUT - the BIGGER clubs will benefit from having such decisions go in their favour MORE than the smaller clubs will.

BUT - those decisions may not be KEY decisions. Those decisions will be just an extension of the kind of decisions that ANY club gets when playing at home.

In short, Let's at least attempt to draw a line under this discussion (that has gone on for days), in the hope that some common ground can be reached. The myth about United - it will remain exactly that - a myth. No United fan has countered it. No non-United fan has proved it.

The more sensible, intelligent contributors to this thread will understand exactly what is being said. The not-so-intelligent contributors will not. Those that belong to the latter will never get the point, so no matter how clear you think you are expressing your opinion, it will not be understood because the people you are expressing it to do not have the capability of understanding it.

The not-so-intelligent contributors will not. Those that belong to the latter will never get the point, so no matter how clear you think you are expressing your opinion, it will not be understood because the people you are expressing it to do not have the capability of understanding it.

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

Are you listening all you ABU's

Because to believe in the myth about UTD just proves an underlying dislike, hatred ,resentment, bitterness or jealousy regarding UTD's success..

Now there is no problem feeling this way and quite frankly i would expect most UTD fans couldnt give a monkeys. But dont deny it and hide behind some facade of non bias.
Putting forward accusations and theorys like the so called UTD myth will just blow up in your face. Just ask Patrick Viera..

Thats the beauty about football...

“Theres this invention call the league table that football associations have been using for a number of years. Whoever finishes at the top of this LEAGUE TABLE are called champions or in the case of the PL the best team in the country.”
Again you have missed the point made. How are you judging the best? The league table proves who got the most points, but a lot of people believe there is more to football than just picking up points…

Also the fact the season is so long brings another aspect to the discussion. Say a team had the 11 best players in the world – the best goalkeeper, defenders, midfielders and strikers… that could be seen as the best “team” – however if the team suffered a massive injury crisis and 7 of those players were out for the season… then 3 players were suspended for large periods – then it would depend how good the squad players are, not just the first 11. So it’s not just the best first 11 that wins the league.
It depends on definition.

It’s like when fans talk about playing the “best” football… what does the term best mean? Bolton a few years ago played long ball… they gained more points than a lot of other teams – does that mean their football was better than other styles? Wigan and Swansea get a lot of credit for playing “good” football – even when they lose. Now surely as the aim is to win, good football is successful football? To many people it would appear that that is too simplistic a definition.

Look at Barcelona this season – many people are still saying they are the best side in the world… but the chances are they are going to lose La Liga this season – so can they be the best side in the world without being the best side in Spain? Some fans are clinging to the head to head record and saying this proves Barca are still the best… is that true though?
Last season Celtic fans claimed they were better than Rangers because they had a better record in the head to heads… this season so far Rangers have a better record in the head to heads. So on the match day we have been a better side, but over the course of the season Celtic have been better. What does this mean?

If you look at the league table so simplistically – then why not take each game with the same mentality. For example United vs Blackburn tonight… if Blackburn win – are they the better side? Surely the best side will win?


“Now why do I think you are an ABU because funnily enough even though you are a rangers fan in my experiance you seem always to take up a position in articles that would be considered anti utd. As I say thats just my experiance....”
I haven’t said one anti-United thing in this thread – nor to my knowledge in any other on this board. I have actually been neutral and spoken about pure reason and logic in this discussion – stating simply that x cannot prove y… regardless of the teams involved. You have taken this to be anti-United, showing a complete incapacity to see beyond your own club bias on the matter. It is a joke that you talk about myths and conspiracy theories… yet you come out with claims of ABUs… to you such a claim doesn’t seem ridiculous because it’s actually how you see the world, to everyone else it just sounds a touch paranoid.

“Anyway do you beleive in the myth....”
I’m not even sure I should answer this seeing as you’ve decided to ignore 90% of the questions I’ve asked, but I will.
I believe big clubs get more decisions than smaller clubs. There are probably a combination of factors for this, the fan pressure (if 50,000 fans shout for a penalty that can sway a perception in a referees mind), the public scrutiny afterwards (whereas we normally say referees need to be 100% certain before giving a penalty I think normally it is closer to around 75%, in bigger games I think this does go up closer to 100%), the occasion, even the simple fact they may know the players better so have a personal rapport with them and will judge incidents differently because of that.
None of that suggests that referees are impartial though, and that does not question their integrity at all. A referee could give decisions which favour a club – without them actually wanting that team to win. Last season Celtic complained about refereeing in Scotland and they claimed there was a conspiracy against them… this was actually quite laughable as both Old Firm clubs get a huge number of decisions that other clubs wouldn’t simply because we are the biggest clubs.
For those that do believe big clubs get more decisions – there is no statistical evidence to prove it. For those who don’t believe it, or believe that decisions even themselves up over the course of the season – there is no statistical evidence to prove it.

“Are you listening all you ABU's”
Again I think you missed Ripley’s point.

“Because to believe in the myth about UTD just proves an underlying dislike, hatred ,resentment, bitterness or jealousy regarding UTD's success..”
It really doesn’t. One can be perfectly happy about United’s success and yet still believe the club gets preferential treatment. The two are not mutually exclusive.

“Now there is no problem feeling this way and quite frankly i would expect most UTD fans couldnt give a monkeys. But dont deny it and hide behind some facade of non bias.”
If everyone’s club loyalty blinded them to reason then the world might be simpler – but unfortunately there are some fans that can support their team whilst still looking at the bigger picture. At the moment you can’t, or you refuse to, but maybe in time you will. Can I be rude and ask how old you are?

What a fizucking long winded hypocrit you are....

so lets ignore your nonsense on best teams and cut to the chase

its not a UTD myth but a BIG CLUB myth. Its big clubs that ARGUABLY get most of the decisions and in my opinion singling out UTD for their own special myth displays an obvious resentment toward the club...

Its funny when Celtic complain about a conspiracy about them last season its laughable but its not laughable that UTD have their own special myth concerining favorable decision toward them..

Cue another bout of written diarrhea from the rangers ABU

Moron....

“What a fizucking long winded hypocrit you are....”
I don’t see how you have read into it that I’m a hypocrite. I know you want me to be – it would be much easier for you to understand if I was – but unfortunately I am not, I haven’t said anything hypocritical.


“so lets ignore your nonsense on best teams and cut to the chase”
Is it not a valid point?

“its not a UTD myth but a BIG CLUB myth. Its big clubs that ARGUABLY get most of the decisions and in my opinion singling out UTD for their own special myth displays an obvious resentment toward the club...”
Do you believe big clubs get more of the decisions?


“Its funny when Celtic complain about a conspiracy about them last season its laughable but its not laughable that UTD have their own special myth concerining favorable decision toward them..”
I think Celtic complaining about prejudiced referees is a little laughable since Rangers and Celtic both get decisions those outwith the Old Firm do not. There is a distinct difference as well as Celtic claimed it was a deliberate and premeditated sectarian motivated conspiracy. If there was a conspiracy against Celtic as some would believe then it must just about be the worst ever since they have I believe the second highest number of domestic titles of any team anywhere in the world.

The United claim is quite different. Again I haven’t said the myth about United is correct or incorrect – I have however stated I believe big clubs get more decisions than other clubs. That is statistically unproven… just as saying they get the same amount is.

“Moron....”
Why the need for insults? Is your argument so poor that you have to resort to that?

right on cue....

with a condecending and patronising shot to the bhoys included...

suppose a rangers fan would have to look to other criteria of who the best team is this season after your points deduction....

give me a few minutes will ye I am still cleaning up after your last load of bullturds...

Why can't you people understand a simple point?

Saying how many decisions have been given, does not prove or dis-prove the myth. You have to take into account, how many decisions were fairly given and how many unfairly given. You'd have to do this for the rest of the clubs and produce a percentage. You'd also have to put in place an allowance for human area and then and only then would you have anything remotely resembling prove that the myth has been proven or dis-proven.

Any other stats are simply wrong and furthermore, stupid. They have been used by somebody who has an agenda, he's trying to prove a point and to do so, he's taken as many years possible, that proves the point, without going that one bit further, which would make his argument stupid.

You have to open your eyes to what the writer has did here, he's used the wrong stats, being too lazy to actually compile the stats that would make a difference and felt that the stupid public will fall for it and boy did they on this board. Open your eyes, these stats don't prove anything. They simply say how many have been given, not that it is easier to get a decision at United than anywhere else.

As for claiming people are ABU's for saying this, just smacks of paranoia. This is common sense stuff, people are too easily led by the media and this is even easier when they say something you want to hear. Open your eyes, make your own opinions, don't blindly follow the idiots, like sheep.

It's a myth that you don't get penalties against United at Old Trafford.

That should do it.

“right on cue....”
I don’t think you have the power to see into the future – I think it was fairly obvious when you wrote that I would reply. That’s how these things work. It’s like the classic gag of mumbling “only ***’s say what” then when someone says “what” it means they are ***.

“with a condecending and patronising shot to the bhoys included...”
Not a condescending shot to the bhoys at all.

“suppose a rangers fan would have to look to other criteria of who the best team is this season after your points deduction....”
Not at all – as Walter Smith said recently winning a title isn’t about the 11 on the pitch at any one time, it is a test of the club as a whole. This season Rangers have let themselves down on the pitch at times, but more importantly they have been poor off it. Celtic have been very good on the pitch as well as keeping themselves in order financially so they thoroughly deserve to be champions. This season they have been the best.
I can say that in spite of being a Rangers fan… it doesn’t make me any less of a fan to admit that.

My point about what makes the best team was clearly lost. Let’s take Rangers as an example though and put it into your theory.
The best team is top of the league. Rangers could be top of the league going into the last game – but then they go into administration. Despite winning the last game – they aren’t champions and Celtic pick up the title. Who is the better team, Rangers or Celtic?
Celtic are top of the league – but Rangers won more points, they had some disallowed for an off field issue.
In this example would the best team have won the league?

Clearly Rangers on the pitch were the best, but outside factors mean Celtic are top of the league.

What is the conclusion? External factors can disrupt the league table. Injuries and suspensions can play a huge part… so it’s not always the best team in terms of first 11 that wins the league, it’s the entire squad and the entire club. Therefore just narrowly limiting it to the team I think is problematic. It’s a definition thing only – again I wasn’t being anti-United.


“give me a few minutes will ye I am still cleaning up after your last load of bullturds...”
Again why the insults?

The post nearly man - if that was the myth then the myth would be proved wrong.

I don't think that is the myth though... I think it's a more general one about United's decisions - and that cannot be proved by such a simple statistic.

TOOR - exactly!

So you've got a circular argument with no possible resolution.

Best just to state an opinion and justify it as best you can. Mine would be that big clubs appear to get more favourable decisions at home as percentage wise they have a lot more of the play so refereeing errors against them don't have such an impact on the final outcome.

Smaller teams appear to be hard done by as they have a much smaller window of opportunity away to the big clubs, and any refereeing errors are magnified as they might have been their only key opportunity in a game (e.g. Fulham's penalty shout gets far more press than United's).

In lieu of any meaningful stats that's as good an opinion as any.

That's obviously not the myth, as everybody knows that at least one penalty has been given at Old Trafford and if this was the case, the writer wouldn't have went to such great effort to go back using five or six seasons of stats(wrong one's I may add), as he just needed to prove that one was given.

Wake up, don't be sheep, led by the propaganda machine that is the media.