Goal difference

[jockdodds]

We beat Hull city to promotion under Porter field many moons ago.
It Doasnt come to goal difference most of the time but in a tight race like this season it could be worth a point.Wed once beat us to promotion on goal difference.

Actually it was goal average in the days when Wednesday pipped us to promotion in the fifties. I think I am right in thinking that if goal difference had been in place then, we would have gone up instead of them.

 

[coaxingstar71]

I am when we beat Wigan 6-0 but was disappointed to draw 4-4 with them at the Lane. The real sickener though was the 4-3 home defeat by Preston.

It was great to win 4-2 at Rotherham and 2-1 at Ipswich though.

 

[Pinchy]

It was great to win 4-2 at Rotherham and 2-1 at Ipswich though.

I feel an alternative league table coming on. Wouldn’t surprise me if we were top two, given our away record.

 

[coaxingstar71]

I feel an alternative league table coming on. Wouldn’t surprise me if we were top two, given our away record.

I thought that too, however we've not scored in 3 of our 4 away defeats...

0-3 Boro
0-1 Bristol City
0-1 Forest

However, we would have got a 2-2 at Derby.

I think we'd be much worse off in home games.

 

[Pinchy]

I thought that too, however we've not scored in 3 of our 4 away defeats...

0-3 Boro
0-1 Bristol City
0-1 Forest

However, we would have got a 2-2 at Derby.

I think we'd be much worse off in home games.

Goal difference would be really good though, and that’s worth a point...








Oh.

 

[coaxingstar71]

Goal difference would be really good though, and that’s worth a point...








Oh.

It's a daft football saying just like away goals count double in European two leg ties, however of course it's handy if you finish on the same number of points.

 

[Westran]

How many times, let’s say this century, has a promotion or relegation place been decided on goal difference? “It’s worth a point” is a major fans’ fallacy. It isn’t.

So you bring up the 'goal difference can be worth a point' quote, only 1 person actually argues that it can be, but then you argue with everyone who just says it is advantagous. Why be so antagonistic? Surely you agree that it's better to have than not to have and that if teams are equal on points it gives you an advantage?

I don't think anyone is arguing that goal difference is actually worth a point, it is just a figure of speech.

 

[Pinchy]

Surely you agree that it's better to have than not to have

I do. See #27.

 

[Westran]

I do. See #27.

Why argue with everyone who clearly had the same opinion as you anyway then?

 

[Boxer Blade]

I’d recognise Don Revie’s thumb anywhere...

Its Steve bruces, taken this morning at midland station.

 

[Brian Deane]

It could be a lot worse. Imagine if we missed out on the automatic spot due to getting a "massive" 3pts forra win instead of the old 2pts........ To keep on topic though I'd prefer a healthier GD to a lesser one

 

[Pinchy]

Why argue with everyone who clearly had the same opinion as you anyway then?

So they should. It’s encouraging. I’m working on the ‘early crosses’ noise and nonsense now.

 

[anglian blade]

Goal difference is usually a good guide as to whether a side is in a sustainable position.

Last year ours was poor and we faded away. This year it's looking a lot better after the last 3 games

 

[8lade]

Not sure how many times, but it is an undeniable fact that goal difference can we worth a point.

I'd say superior goal difference was definitely worth half a point.

 

[LJBlade]

Higher, of course but It happens so rarely I give it very little thought. Goal difference is not ‘worth a point’.

The issue ranks in importance alongside ‘we’re crap at throw-ins’, ‘early crosses’ (noise and nonsense) and other such inconsequential matters.

Why would you want it to be higher if it isn’t worth anything?

 

[ucandomagic]

So they should. It’s encouraging. I’m working on the ‘early crosses’ noise and nonsense now.

Tufty himself said on Monday “putting it in a but quicker is something that we talk about, but we don’t want to be just lumping hopeful balls into the box”.

There is obviously a balance between early crossing and quality crossing, but there is no denying that a quality cross put in early is more effective than one that is delayed.

 

[wizadry]

Nobody says goal difference IS worth a point, they say it CAN be worth a point and that’s the difference.

 

[Sharrow Snuff Mill]

Remember the old goal average fellas? You had to be Einstein to work out who had what in those days. Go on then, someone work out the goal average (from the old rules) of the present top 6 as my old brain has forgotten how to do it.

Here you are :- Leeds 1.57 , Norwich 1.41 , Blades 1.61 , West Brom 1.59 , Middlesboro 1.56 , Derby 1.19 .

 

[Pinchy]

Tufty himself said on Monday “putting it in a but quicker is something that we talk about, but we don’t want to be just lumping hopeful balls into the box”.

There is obviously a balance between early crossing and quality crossing, but there is no denying that a quality cross put in early is more effective than one that is delayed.

He also quite categorically said the early delivery stuff was “noise and nonsense. That is precisely the phrase he used. S2 folk only hear what they want to hear it seems.

Early, direct. Music to the ears for the Bassett generation.

 

[Pinchy]

Tufty himself said on Monday “putting it in a but quicker is something that we talk about, but we don’t want to be just lumping hopeful balls into the box”.

There is obviously a balance between early crossing and quality crossing, but there is no denying that a quality cross put in early is more effective than one that is delayed.

Why isn’t there? Only in S2. Anywhere else quality is the sole measure.

 

[Pinchy]

Why would you want it to be higher if it isn’t worth anything?

#27. You really should read all my published works, not a mere selection.

 

[LJBlade]

#27. You really should read all my published works, not a mere selection.

I read that. It didn’t answer my question. Why would you want a higher goal difference than the team who you finish level on points with if it isn’t worth anything?

 

[Pinchy]

I read that. It didn’t answer my question. Why would you want a higher goal difference than the team who you finish level on points with if it isn’t worth anything?

Because, in those very rare circumstances, you would finish higher than that team. It still isn’t worth a point.

As we’re dealing in riddles:

Why, apart from the limited attention span in S2, is a quality late cross inherently less desirable than a quality early cross?

 

[snootyfenooty]

With United's tactics, i.e. 3-5-2, goal difference is not part of the plan. It is set up to win games and the target is 3 points per game. Goal difference is a consequence of that, not the aim.

 

[LJBlade]

Because, in those very rare circumstances, you would finish higher than that team. It still isn’t worth a point.

As we’re dealing in riddles:

Why, apart from the limited attention span in S2, is a quality late cross inherently less desirable than a quality early cross?

I’m not sure why you’re asking me about crosses, I’m not talking about that. Possibly because you know you’re wrong and you’re trying to change the subject?

Anyway, rare as it may be (something which nobody has denied) it seems that you fully agree with the assessment that a better goal difference is worth something. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and just admitted you got it wrong from the start.

 

[wizadry]

Because, in those very rare circumstances, you would finish higher than that team. It still isn’t worth a point.

As we’re dealing in riddles:

Why, apart from the limited attention span in S2, is a quality late cross inherently less desirable than a quality early cross?

My attention span is fine when I’m not bladdered but to answer the question, it’s because an earlier cross gives the defence less time to prepare than it does a late cross, I hope that’s a reasonable answer to your good self?

 

[Grappler]

89-90 season, Leeds go up as League Champions, on goal difference, we go up as the bridesmaids.

Just saying..........

 

[ucandomagic]

As we’re dealing in riddles:

Why, apart from the limited attention span in S2, is a quality late cross inherently less desirable than a quality early cross?

Ask the defender who’s 5 yards out of position for the early cross, but back in position for the late cross. Watch Man City and see how quickly they whip it across once they get round the back.

Nobody is talking about lumping forward balls into the box, but when a wing back is round the defence and then turns back inside his defender the whole of the defence gets back and faces the play. A ball going across between a defender and his own goal is a nightmare to deal with - see our third goal yesterday.

 

[Pinchy]

My attention span is fine when I’m not bladdered but to answer the question, it’s because an earlier cross gives the defence less time to prepare than it does a late cross, I hope that’s a reasonable answer to your good self?

How early should we cross it Wiz? Half-way line? What did you think of Flecks cross (after a multi-player passing move) for our third against Blackburn?

I’ve always understood and it was borne out by my (limited) playing days, that by far the most dangerous crosses are those pulled back from the goal-line. By what definition that is an early cross is a mystery to me.

Sometimes it might be right to get it in early; often another touch or pass will create a better angle or more space. There is no immutable rule, just the Neanderthal S2 desire to Gerritintbox as soon as humanly possible.

It does not invalidate your opinion of course, but both our manager and his assistant emphatically disagree with you. Noise and Nonsense, said Wilder.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

Why, apart from the limited attention span in S2, is a quality late cross inherently less desirable than a quality early cross?

Have a guess.

It's not hard to work out.