Interesting, although this one:
"Goals scored after injury time overran"
is a bad stat to use. Take the Man Utd home game for example. Maguire got a last-ditch equaliser in extra-time-on-extra-time because Chris Smalling went down injured. That's a perfectly legitimate overrunning of extra time.
But anyway, there's always luck to be had in the game. And the game is better for it. Death to VAR.
Double Decker – apologies, just posted about the same article!
Quite a poor choice of parameters
Goals that should have been disallowed
Incorrectly disallowed goals
Incorrectly awarded penalties (that were scored)
Penalties that were not awarded but should have been
Incorrect red-card decisions
Red-card incidents that were missed
Goals scored after injury time overran
Deflected goals
Should have only measured these against the top 4 of that list, definitely the top 3
I've always held to the opinion that you make your own luck in this game - analyses like these prove nothing really. The next thing will be the BBC running an alternative "luck" league table alongside the real one!
I'll end with two quotes:
Gary Player "The more I work and practice, the luckier I seem to get."
Mark Twain (I thnk) "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
I read this article and thought ' What a load of garbage '
Is this the best way that these super achademics spend their time. Time to get them some proper work.
and they get paid for this. I could do it for a lot less ' Gis a job'
Didn't Peter Walton ever make a mistake
and your spot on Dunge full time is when the ref blows the final whistle
More BBC garbage, to fuel the Liverpool v Man U debate.
Rant over
I think the most surprising thing about this is that somebody has been paid to do this - what a waste of money.
It also makes the colossal assumption that nothing would change if the individual 'errors' were corrected, whereas there could be significant changes. For example, we would probably have been hovering around the bottom around Christmas, so it's quite possible Claude would have been out of the door or tried a different style of playing. Whole games could have changed not just one or two key incidents.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Luck
Page 1 of 1
posted on 7/8/18
Interesting, although this one:
"Goals scored after injury time overran"
is a bad stat to use. Take the Man Utd home game for example. Maguire got a last-ditch equaliser in extra-time-on-extra-time because Chris Smalling went down injured. That's a perfectly legitimate overrunning of extra time.
But anyway, there's always luck to be had in the game. And the game is better for it. Death to VAR.
posted on 7/8/18
Double Decker – apologies, just posted about the same article!
posted on 7/8/18
Quite a poor choice of parameters
Goals that should have been disallowed
Incorrectly disallowed goals
Incorrectly awarded penalties (that were scored)
Penalties that were not awarded but should have been
Incorrect red-card decisions
Red-card incidents that were missed
Goals scored after injury time overran
Deflected goals
Should have only measured these against the top 4 of that list, definitely the top 3
posted on 7/8/18
I've always held to the opinion that you make your own luck in this game - analyses like these prove nothing really. The next thing will be the BBC running an alternative "luck" league table alongside the real one!
I'll end with two quotes:
Gary Player "The more I work and practice, the luckier I seem to get."
Mark Twain (I thnk) "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
posted on 7/8/18
I read this article and thought ' What a load of garbage '
Is this the best way that these super achademics spend their time. Time to get them some proper work.
and they get paid for this. I could do it for a lot less ' Gis a job'
Didn't Peter Walton ever make a mistake
and your spot on Dunge full time is when the ref blows the final whistle
More BBC garbage, to fuel the Liverpool v Man U debate.
Rant over
posted on 7/8/18
I think the most surprising thing about this is that somebody has been paid to do this - what a waste of money.
It also makes the colossal assumption that nothing would change if the individual 'errors' were corrected, whereas there could be significant changes. For example, we would probably have been hovering around the bottom around Christmas, so it's quite possible Claude would have been out of the door or tried a different style of playing. Whole games could have changed not just one or two key incidents.
Page 1 of 1