42 points needed from 39 games............

[shorehamview]

Funny how you defeat your own argument within your post SV. The league table lies exactly for the reasons you pointed out in bold. The league table contains randomness, because teams don't always get what they deserve from games (for reasons you say in bold). We've been lucky of late (i.e. we've won when we didn't deserve to) and hence we are in an inflated position.

The league table tells you how many points you've got - it doesn't speculate on "luck". You might argue that it lies, but although teams might not get what they deserve the league table only collates the final scores from the end of the game. When points are introduced for hitting the post, men sent off, free kicks awarded and the like then we might have a different reflection, but the league table is purely factual. You saying it lies doesn't mean that it does - it only reflects the bare facts. Saying what a team "deserved" is a subjective matter that cannot be reduced down to a bare minimum of points and goals. You saying that it deals in more than facts is purely down to your own wacky interpretation.

We're not in an "inflated" position - we are where we are. The table doesn't care that we were lucky - it's not designed for that. It might not tell the whole story, but it not having a point of view or a bias doesn't mean it lies.

 

[DuncDisorderly]

Football is about goals. If you score more than you concede then you deserve to win.

Football is one of those sports where the better team (on the day) does get beaten. It is one of the accepted signs of a good team that you can play poorly and win.

Ollies point is too philosophical for me. the league is absolute. Scoring more goals in the game gets you 3 points. They dont give points for trying hard, or being nice, so why put any store in what that means...

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

Football is one of those sports where the better team (on the day) does get beaten.

Please explain to me how that can possibly happen.

The better team is the team that scores the most goals and the team that scores the most goals always wins.

 

[Trigger Blade]

Please explain to me how that can possibly happen.

The better team is the team that scores the most goals and the team that scores the most goals always wins.

Sorry, that's not good enough, if only there were a way of evening things up...........

I've got it! We need a Duckworth-Lewis method for football. It's been very useful in cricket to even things up when outside influences came into play, such as weather, light.

Our need is different. We have other pernicious influences at play and need a mechanism to make the league table fairer and get SUFC to the bottom of the league, where we should apparently be if we're to achieve our ambition of relegation before promotion.

We've had ridiculous situations like Simmo making saves, as he did on Saturday, which is a complete distortion, it meant the oppositiion didn't score. That was compounded by us scuffing a freee-kick in off the post and picking up all three points. Farcical!

I'm no mathematician, but a simple method would be to expunge all our points from the record, that should do it, though other suggestions would be welcome....

 

[B.Lade]

Sorry, that's not good enough, if only there were a way of evening things up...........

I've got it! We need a Duckworth-Lewis method for football. It's been very useful in cricket to even things up when outside influences came into play, such as weather, light.

Our need is different. We have other pernicious influences at play and need a mechanism to make the league table fairer and get SUFC to the bottom of the league, where we should apparently be if we're to achieve our ambition of relegation before promotion.

We've had ridiculous situations like Simmo making saves, as he did on Saturday, which is a complete distortion, it meant the oppositiion didn't score. That was compounded by us scuffing a freee-kick in off the post and picking up all three points. Farcical!

I'm no mathematician, but a simple method would be to expunge all our points from the record, that should do it, though other suggestions would be welcome....

Yeah, that always makes me laugh too... "We were lucky to win because our keeper pulled off five or six great saves!"... Yes, that's his job, he's a keeper. He actually plays for our team too and isn't just there to watch the opposition score...

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Last week we had 2 home games, the first, we had more possession and shots but lost 4-0. The other, we lost on both counts but won 1-0.

Most would say a return of 3 points over the 2 games is fair overall and probably what our play deserved, certain posters have said we lost the first one 4-0 which says it all and were lucky to win the other so deserve nothing.

The table says 3 points.

You don't always get what you deserve but generally, over a season, the luck balances itself out and the league table reflects how a team has performed in relation to the rest. Of course 7, or 5 games under Speed is not enough to give a true picture which is what Olle is saying, although he is happy to re-assess this after our two upcoming away games.

 

[super_pig]

agree with olle.. we need an attacking midfielder or someone to play in 'the hole'.. again.. boy this is boring isn't it

 

[Ollessendro]

I've never understood all this nonsense about "deserving" more or less than what you actually got. Unless there is some kind of obscene refereeing decision or bizarre happening then a football team that wins a match always deserves to win it regardless of what actually happened during the 90 minutes.

If two teams were playing each other and one of them had 99% possession, 50 corners, 50 shots on goal, 20 efforts hit the woodwork and the other team had 1% possession, 0 corners, 0 shots on goal but ended up running up the other end of the pitch in the last minute and scoring in off the keeper's arse in a comical fumble and winning 1-0 then they would have deserved that victory.

Football is about goals. If you score more than you concede then you deserve to win.

Oh contraire. what you have wrote above (in Italics) is the biggest load of nonsese that I have ever read!!?

The league table tells you how many points you've got - it doesn't speculate on "luck". You might argue that it lies, but although teams might not get what they deserve the league table only collates the final scores from the end of the game. When points are introduced for hitting the post, men sent off, free kicks awarded and the like then we might have a different reflection, but the league table is purely factual. You saying it lies doesn't mean that it does - it only reflects the bare facts. Saying what a team "deserved" is a subjective matter that cannot be reduced down to a bare minimum of points and goals. You saying that it deals in more than facts is purely down to your own wacky interpretation.

We're not in an "inflated" position - we are where we are. The table doesn't care that we were lucky - it's not designed for that. It might not tell the whole story, but it not having a point of view or a bias doesn't mean it lies.

What is the table designed for SV?

Football is one of those sports where the better team (on the day) does get beaten. It is one of the accepted signs of a good team that you can play poorly and win.

Ollies point is too philosophical for me. the league is absolute. Scoring more goals in the game gets you 3 points. They dont give points for trying hard, or being nice, so why put any store in what that means...

Dunc gets it in his first paragraph. But then goes onto get the side down. Good teams lose to poor teams, teams that played better than the other lose to them etc etc. This happens and it is part of the game. However football teams do not always get what they deserve at the end of a game. Anyone who thinks that a team gets exactly what they deserve a the end of a game or season, is naive.

I don't argue that the league table isn't the best method, or have any qualms with it. However, it contains randomness. If teams got what they deserved, won when they played better than the other, didn't get bad decisions given against the ect then it would not contain randomness. But, it always will be.

Sorry, that's not good enough, if only there were a way of evening things up...........

I've got it! We need a Duckworth-Lewis method for football. It's been very useful in cricket to even things up when outside influences came into play, such as weather, light.

Our need is different. We have other pernicious influences at play and need a mechanism to make the league table fairer and get SUFC to the bottom of the league, where we should apparently be if we're to achieve our ambition of relegation before promotion.

We've had ridiculous situations like Simmo making saves, as he did on Saturday, which is a complete distortion, it meant the oppositiion didn't score. That was compounded by us scuffing a freee-kick in off the post and picking up all three points. Farcical!

I'm no mathematician, but a simple method would be to expunge all our points from the record, that should do it, though other suggestions would be welcome....

he he, being objectivist again Trig. You mock because you can't get your head around it. I'll bet when you see Richard Dawkins talking on TV (explaining something scientific) you say someting like 'what bollocks is he talking, look at those glasses, giant invisible marshmallow .... there's one at the Lane'.

Yeah, that always makes me laugh too... "We were lucky to win because our keeper pulled off five or six great saves!"... Yes, that's his job, he's a keeper. He actually plays for our team too and isn't just there to watch the opposition score...

Answer these questions and read what you wrote again:

Never come out of a united game thinking we were unlucky?
Did you think we were unlucky to go down in 03/04 and 05/06?
Did South Korea deserve to beat Spain in the quarters of World Cup 02?
Do you think Villa were unlucky against Man U in the CC final last year?
How about France and Ireland last year. Think France deserved to beat Ireland after Henri's goal?

Luck is part and parcel of the game. Be it if it is a bad decision, lucky goal, string of saves etc. Portsmouth deserved to beat us on Saturday from their performance (same as we probably deserved a ppint against Boro). They played us of the park, created more chances, had more possession, more shots on goal and looked better. On another day they'd have won 3-1. Simmo was great, but we hardly deserved to win. (hence we were lucky).

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Luck is part and parcel of the game. Be it if it is a bad decision, lucky goal, string of saves etc. Portsmouth deserved to beat us on Saturday from their performance (same as we probably deserved a ppint against Boro). They played us of the park, created more chances, had more possession, more shots on goal and looked better. On another day they'd have won 3-1. Simmo was great, but we hardly deserved to win. (hence we were lucky).

Applying this criteria, did we deserve anything out of the Scunny game seeing as we had more possession, twice as many shots etc ?

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

Oh contraire. what you have wrote above (in Italics) is the biggest load of nonsese that I have ever read!!?

Why?

 

[Ollessendro]

Applying this criteria, did we deserve anything out of the Scunny game seeing as we had more possession, twice as many shots etc ?

Nope. Any team that concedes 4 goals (especially to a poor side) at home can't really complain about being unlucky.

Good point though Jim but if you look at the stats (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_1/8989642.stm) then they had more shots on target. Our of target attempts off target don't really tell us much other than we are poor at shooting. Its a good point that you make, because if you looked purely at the stats then you would presume that the score line was pretty even. However in extreme cases such as this one (when the result is very one sided, i.e. 4 goals to nil) you simply can't ignore the scoreline.

Why?

read it.

"If two teams were playing each other and one of them had 99% possession, 50 corners, 50 shots on goal, 20 efforts hit the woodwork and the other team had 1% possession, 0 corners, 0 shots on goal but ended up running up the other end of the pitch in the last minute and scoring in off the keeper's arse in a comical fumble and winning 1-0 then they would have deserved that victory."

you are seriously telling me that makes sense?

if you went to the Lane and united were the team that dominated possession (like in your example above) and Wednesday were the team that scored the only goal, would you feel like we deserved to win? More to it, would you say to your Wednesday fans mates/colleagues 'you were lucky'??

 

[DuncDisorderly]

Sorry, but your philosophy of our false position in the league is still crap. You have got confused. The league is absolute, performances however are not...

 

[Ollessendro]

Football is one of those sports where the better team (on the day) does get beaten. It is one of the accepted signs of a good team that you can play poorly and win.

here you accept that the better team on the day can lose (i.e. there is some luck involved - or randomness I prefer to call). Yet below you state that the league table is absolute (i.e. perfect and not containing randomness).

Sorry, but your philosophy of our false position in the league is still crap. You have got confused. The league is absolute, performances however are not...

It's actually your aggressive opinion that is misguided Dunc. But regardless, can you please explain to me how a team can be lucky and win a game when they played worse (i.e. they didn't deserve to) yet the actual league table is absolute???

 

[alcoblade]

here you accept that the better team on the day can lose (i.e. there is some luck involved - or randomness I prefer to call). Yet below you state that the league table is absolute (i.e. perfect and not containing randomness).



It's actually your aggressive opinion that is misguided Dunc. But regardless, can you please explain to me how a team can be lucky and win a game when they played worse (i.e. they didn't deserve to) yet the actual league table is absolute???

During the war.....During the war....During the war....

UTB

 

[DuncDisorderly]

here you accept that the better team on the day can lose (i.e. there is some luck involved - or randomness I prefer to call). Yet below you state that the league table is absolute (i.e. perfect and not containing randomness). It's actually your aggressive opinion that is misguided Dunc. But regardless, can you please explain to me how a team can be lucky and win a game when they played worse (i.e. they didn't deserve to) yet the actual league table is absolute???

[video=youtube;ZUatnbaNfEo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUatnbaNfEo[/video]

If you've ever noticed, my signature is "Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".

Time to take my own advice, methinks...

 

[shorehamview]

The table never lies. It doesn't tell the whole story, but it doesn't lie either.

For example. A man walks down the road and, trips over a cat, falling into an open sewer. He gets out smelling of poo and other nastiness. He gets home, and his wife asks him what happened for him to be in such a state. He replies "A cat tripped me up." This is true, but it doesn't tell the whole story. He hasn't lied.

Similarly the league table only tells you how many games have been played, goals scored and conceded, and points gained. It doesn't tell all of the truth, but what it does tell you isn't lies. This is the point I am trying to get at, with greater or lesser success. It doesn't factor in all the variables, but it's not lying. It tells you how many points you have, not how many you deserve according to the views of some observers.

 

[Ollessendro]

If you've ever noticed, my signature is "Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".

Time to take my own advice, methinks...

Good one. Pathetic jibe because I tripped you up in your argument and you can't handle it. So you use your 'get out of jail card'. I'm sure most can see through your signature as simply a poor way of trying to get out of an argument when you are getting beaten.

---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------

Similarly the league table only tells you how many games have been played, goals scored and conceded, and points gained. It doesn't tell all of the truth, but what it does tell you isn't lies. This is the point I am trying to get at, with greater or lesser success. It doesn't factor in all the variables, but it's not lying. It tells you how many points you have, not how many you deserve according to the views of some observers.

It doesn't tell the truth, but it doesn't lie. Hmmmm, ok.

Well we are starting to get somewhere. So you accept that it contains some randomness then? Even if it doesn't lie, then it must contain some randomness, if it is the not the abosulutr truth?

(I appreciate some some constructive argument from the likes of SV. It's better than our 'chief clapper' not being able to handle an argument and losing by default because he gets insulting ).

 

[Ed Chevans]

The table never lies. It doesn't tell the whole story, but it doesn't lie either.

For example. A man walks down the road and, trips over a cat, falling into an open sewer. He gets out smelling of poo and other nastiness. He gets home, and his wife asks him what happened for him to be in such a state. He replies "A cat tripped me up." This is true, but it doesn't tell the whole story. He hasn't lied.

That's a mighty fine analogy

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I think they're both back tracking somewhat. And so are you from your original supposition that the league table lies.

We are not in a false position. We are not there through a referee giving us an unwarranted last minute penalty, we are not in this position due to another team having docked points. We are in the position that we are in because the team has deserved the points it got, through scoring goals, and conceding as few as possible. Nothing less, nothing more.

What SV is trying to tell you, is that the league table doesn't deal in opinions. If you think we don't deserve to be in the position we are in, or or scunny ('The worst team in the league')don't deserve to be in the position that they are in, then that's your opinion. If the league finished today, history won't record your opinions, it will record the facts. And the fact is, we've got 10 points from a possible 21. Not great, but not awful either.

 

[Trigger Blade]

I think they're both back tracking somewhat. And so are you from your original supposition that the league table lies.

We are not in a false position. We are not their through a referee giving us an unwarranted last minute penalty, we are not in this position due to another team having docked points. We are in the position that we are in because the team has deserved the points it got, through scoring goals, and conceding as few as possible. Nothing less, nothing more.

What SV is trying to tell you, is that the league table doesn't deal in opinions. If you think we don't deserve to be in the position we are in, or or scunny ('The worst team in the league')don't deserve to be in the position that they are in, then that's your opinion. If the league finished today, history won't record your opinions, it will record the facts. And the fact is, we've got 10 points from a possible 21. Not great, but not awful either.

I agree. I see things wrong at the club, but my objection has always been to those who do nothing but beat the club with a negative stick. Banging on about the shortcomings of the league because we're higher up it than they'd like because it doesn't suit thier argument is a new low.

If we'd lost a few games to last minute goals, dodgy pens and were now bottom, would those same people be bemoaning our luck and saying we deserve to be better placed? I don't think so.

Objectivity, that's what they need.

 

[Bayingblade]

If ever a match underlined the need for new players it was yesterday.
You can see what he is trying to do but he's painfully short of the right tools. More performances like yesterday will see us heading towards the bottom three.

So more 1 nil wins will see us heading towards the bottom 3 Len??

I don't know how you've worked that out. Rocket science?

 

[shorehamview]

It doesn't tell the whole story......

It doesn't tell all of the truth, but what it does tell you isn't lies..

It doesn't tell the truth, but it doesn't lie. Hmmmm, ok.

Well we are starting to get somewhere. So you accept that it contains some randomness then? Even if it doesn't lie, then it must contain some randomness, if it is the not the abosulutr truth?

It doesn't contain any randomness. All I am saying is that it doesn't lie. It doesn't tell ALL of the truth. Not that it simply doesn't tell the truth - it's a limited truth, but it's still the truth.

Here's another helpful example. Get yourself a bucket, any size will do, and go to the seaside. Scarborough is nice. Go down to the sea, and have a paddle. Now, get your bucket, and fill it up, making sure you get a creature or two in there. Take a good look in your bucket. There's a small crab, and a little fishy of some kind. That's the league table there for you. Crabs and fishes, goals and points.

Now, the league table does not tell you the whole story about the season, just as your bucket dosen't tell you the whole truth about the North Sea. North Sea, Championship. Are you still paying attention at the back there? Your bucket of sea water will simply tell you about the water in that bucket. It tells you nothing about the other stuff - the sharks and whales, bits of flotsam and jetsam, lobsters, seaweed, oilrigs, ferries to Holland, stray swimmers and those funny fluffy white mice that swim just off Filey Brigg with the brown sewer trouts.

This is the league table in a nutshell. It only tells you about the points and goals, because that's all it's there to do. The bucket isn't lying to you just because it doesn't contain a nuclear submarine, half a trawler net or seven big fat haddocks. It's just telling you all that it can. It's not lying, because you know about the other fishies in the sea, it's just that the bucket cannot tell you that, because that's not it's job.

 

[Ollessendro]

I think they're both back tracking somewhat. And so are you from your original supposition that the league table lies.

We are not in a false position. We are not there through a referee giving us an unwarranted last minute penalty, we are not in this position due to another team having docked points. We are in the position that we are in because the team has deserved the points it got, through scoring goals, and conceding as few as possible. Nothing less, nothing more.

What SV is trying to tell you, is that the league table doesn't deal in opinions. If you think we don't deserve to be in the position we are in, or or scunny ('The worst team in the league')don't deserve to be in the position that they are in, then that's your opinion. If the league finished today, history won't record your opinions, it will record the facts. And the fact is, we've got 10 points from a possible 21. Not great, but not awful either.

I'm not back tracking at all. My opinion is that the league tables lies.

So you think that we deserved the points against Preston and Pompey? In the game where Pompey had more possession, more shots on goal and created more chances(http://www.sufc.co.uk/page/MatchReport/0,,10418,00.html). If you believe that a football team gets exactly what it derserves at the end of the game, then we may as well just agree to disagree. How anyone can discount luck from a football game I'll never know, but if you want to then go for it.

Your historical relevance has no point whatsoever. However, we can get into an argument about it if you want. Have you read any Orwell Highbury? He cleverly points out that even if a lie is written down then it becomes history. So the league table lies, but it still becomes history.

I agree. I see things wrong at the club, but my objection has always been to those who do nothing but beat the club with a negative stick. Banging on about the shortcomings of the league because we're higher up it than they'd like because it doesn't suit thier argument is a new low.

If we'd lost a few games to last minute goals, dodgy pens and were now bottom, would those same people be bemoaning our luck and saying we deserve to be better placed? I don't think so.

Objectivity, that's what they need.

Actually Trig you are mistaken. I argued that the league table lies some time go in another thread (http://www.s24su.com/showthread.php?17344-Championship-ratings-(and-Blades-over-rated)&highlight=). Many members will remember Darren and I going hammer and tongues on this issue.

If we were bottom and didn't deserve to be then I would be saying that we were in a defalted league position. So once again you misjudge things and get it wrong Trig. I'm pretty sure that is NOT what being objectivist means.

It doesn't contain any randomness. All I am saying is that it doesn't lie. It doesn't tell ALL of the truth. Not that it simply doesn't tell the truth - it's a limited truth, but it's still the truth.

Hang on a minuted, you are backtracking. I care little for your analogy's that repeat the same point over and over in a patronising way.

I think you need to make up your mind. Tell me which option you believe:

a) the league table does not lie. It is absolute and hence tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

b) the league table doesn't tell the home truth. This means that it contains randomness and luck features in it.

You've tied yourself up in knots before trying to say that both a and b are true, but now is your time to give an answer. Save the analogies because i'm sure most can see it is because you've contradicted yourself and are trying to get away from the rack.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I'm not back tracking at all. My opinion is that the league tables lies.

So you think that we deserved the points against Preston and Pompey? In the game where Pompey had more possession, more shots on goal and created more chances(http://www.sufc.co.uk/page/MatchReport/0,,10418,00.html). If you believe that a football team gets exactly what it derserves at the end of the game, then we may as well just agree to disagree. How anyone can discount luck from a football game I'll never know, but if you want to then go for it.

Your historical relevance has no point whatsoever. However, we can get into an argument about it if you want. Have you read any Orwell Highbury? He cleverly points out that even if a lie is written down then it becomes history. So the league table lies, but it still becomes history.

Why do you insist on stating your opinion as fact?
Pompey didn't score their chances, we did. That's what the league table will record. The league table will record that we scored one more goal than them. That isn't opinion, it's not a lie, it's an utterly incontrovertible fact.

 

[Ollessendro]

Why do you insist on stating your opinion as fact?
Pompey didn't score their chances, we did. That's what the league table will record. The league table will record that we scored one more goal than them. That isn't opinion, it's not a lie, it's an utterly incontrovertible fact.

Don't get techy. Do you want me to put imo after every single point? You seem to skirt over my questions (presumably because they make you feel uncomfortable) so i don't know why I'm bothering.

The league table will not record that Portsmouth were the better side and didn't deserve to lose the game (although they did). If you think that we deserved all the results that we did (which you seem to) then you will obviously think that the league table is absolute. If you are naive enough to think that at the end of every football game that each team gets exactly what they deserve then there is no hope.

 

[DuncDisorderly]

Good one. Pathetic jibe because I tripped you up in your argument and you can't handle it. So you use your 'get out of jail card'. I'm sure most can see through your signature as simply a poor way of trying to get out of an argument when you are getting beaten.

---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------

I think I will refer you to the answer I gave earlier, and my musical clue.

There is no point in trying to argue this one out because you are just spinning around trying to prove that SUFC are in a false league position because we did not 'deserve' the points we have gained, but this is just confused nonsense Ollie.

Performances is one thing. Results is another. We all know that broadly speaking a good performance will end up in a good result, but there are times when a poor performance will deliver a good result, and a good performance will deliver a poor result. The rest is your opinion dressed up as 'fact'.

NB. This is not me 'not being able to handle an argument', but me not seeing the point of persisting with attempting to unravel yet another bunch of complex and tortured logic which has been constructed by your good self to 'prove' that we are still shit...

 

[shorehamview]

Hang on a minuted, you are backtracking. I care little for your analogy's that repeat the same point over and over in a patronising way.

I think you need to make up your mind. Tell me which option you believe:

a) the league table does not lie. It is absolute and hence tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

b) the league table doesn't tell the home truth. This means that it contains randomness and luck features in it.

You've tied yourself up in knots before trying to say that both a and b are true, but now is your time to give an answer. Save the analogies because i'm sure most can see it is because you've contradicted yourself and are trying to get away from the rack.

What I am trying to get across is that the league table doesn't lie. Not telling all of the "truth" is different to lying. I've not contradicted myself. The league table doesn't lie - I've said that in every post. What I am saying is that it takes no notice of factors other than goals and points. It's not snowed today in Sheffield. That's not a lie. I've not covered the weather in California or Tibet, just the Sheffield weather. Another analogy for you, for free.

Until the league table does accomodate factors such as luck, referees and pies it can only tell us the goals and points. I know what you are trying to point out - the league table doesn't factor in "luck", but it can't - it's not designed to. All it is designed to do is give an accurate account of goals scored and conceded and points won. It does exactly that, so how is that lying? It reports only what it can - how is that lying?

The OED definition of lying is as follows -

To lie =df to make a false statement with the intention to deceive.

That's lying.

The league table does not make a false statement with the intention to deceive, and therefore it does not lie. It can't lie. Unless of course we haven't got the number of points it says we have, in which case I'll concede that it is lying, which it hasn't, and therefore isn't. It hasn't ever done that yet, but there's still that small chance to cling to.

And was I patronising? (That means to talk to people as if they are stupid, by the way.) Sorry.

At the end of the season the league table will show who is top, who is bottom, and all those inbetween. It won't mention the merits of the sides and the places they should have been in, it'll just tell us where we are. Truthfully.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Don't get techy. Do you want me to put imo after every single point? You seem to skirt over my questions (presumably because they make you feel uncomfortable) so i don't know why I'm bothering.

The league table will not record that Portsmouth were the better side and didn't deserve to lose the game (although they did). If you think that we deserved all the results that we did (which you seem to) then you will obviously think that the league table is absolute. If you are naive enough to think that at the end of every football game that each team gets exactly what they deserve then there is no hope.

I'm not being techy(sic)

If my bonus at the end of the year is based on me hitting my sales target of x, and i bust a gut doing it, but fail due to the economy tanking/any other random variable, then it matters not if my hard work deserved it. If my colleague happened to be working on the day that the rich oil sheik came in and bought the shop's entire content which resulted in him hitting his targets then ce la vie. Unfair? Possibly. My CEO probably won't think so.

History will record him as having better sales than me. There will be no footnote on my sales targets for that year, saying "worked hard, but tough break." I will not be able to put on my CV "If x hadn't happened then i would have beaten my sales for that year!"

It's all about results, results, results. Anything else is just excuses, and we all know how you feel about managers giving excuses.

And i'm skirting over your questions because they bear bugger all relevance, just as historical records apparently don't. Did we deserve to win against Pompey? Who cares? We won. Will you be complaining at the end of the season if those three points mean the difference between staying in this division and not?

History is full of tragic stories of people trying incredibly hard to achieve but not quite making it. George Mallory probably scaled everest nearly 30 years, and with vastly inferior equipment before Norgay and hillary, but he didn't make it back. Hillary and Norgay did, and that's why they're remembered, because they got the results.

 

[shorehamview]

League Table Volume XXVIII

It doesn't lie.

Does it tell you how many yellow cards or how many red cards were issued to each team? No.

Does it tell you the crowd size? No.

Does it tell you the players that played, including substitutes? No.

Does it tell you the weather at the time? No.

Does it tell you how the goals were scored, including the information of who, when, and if it was a penalty or an own goal? No.

Does it tell you the number of throw-ins or corners conceded? No.

Does it tell you if a goal was a tap-in, a thirty yard screamer, a result of a mazy run or a series of ricochets around a penalty area? No.

Does it tell you that the team that won only had one shot on target, but the losers peppered the winners' goal with shot after shot? No.

Does it tell you how each player performed? No.

Does it tell you how the match officials performed? No.

Does it tell you that the crowd were behind their team, or booed from start to finish? No.

Does it tell you how many passes went awry? No.

Does it tell you how many fouls were conceded. No.



It tells you none of these things. But it doesn't lie about what it does tell you? How can it lie? How are any of the facts it reports lies? The facts or opinions that it omits may be essential information for some, but the act of omitting any extra information is not the same as lying.

 

[Ollessendro]

What I am trying to get across is that the league table doesn't lie. Not telling all of the "truth" is different to lying. I've not contradicted myself. The league table doesn't lie - I've said that in every post. What I am saying is that it takes no notice of factors other than goals and points. It's not snowed today in Sheffield. That's not a lie. I've not covered the weather in California or Tibet, just the Sheffield weather. Another analogy for you, for free.

Until the league table does accomodate factors such as luck, referees and pies it can only tell us the goals and points. I know what you are trying to point out - the league table doesn't factor in "luck", but it can't - it's not designed to. All it is designed to do is give an accurate account of goals scored and conceded and points won. It does exactly that, so how is that lying? It reports only what it can - how is that lying?

The league table does not make a false statement with the intention to deceive, and therefore it does not lie. It can't lie. Unless of course we haven't got the number of points it says we have, in which case I'll concede that it is lying, which it hasn't, and therefore isn't. It hasn't ever done that yet, but there's still that small chance to cling to.

And was I patronising? (That means to talk to people as if they are stupid, by the way.) Sorry.

At the end of the season the league table will show who is top, who is bottom, and all those inbetween. It won't mention the merits of the sides and the places they should have been in, it'll just tell us where we are. Truthfully.

Ya di ya. Are you trying to bore me to defeat in this debate with your long winded replies.

Fist you state that the league table doesn't lie. Second you state that it doesn't tell all the truth. 3rd you say that it doesn't tell the whole picture and CAN't factor in luck. That in my book is randomness. The table is designed to reward good footballing performances and roughtl speaking show how good teams are or have been playing. It falls short because it only measures goals and results. I have no qualm with that (I can't think of a better system) but I believe that for this reason it contains randomness. If you are looking for a representation of how well teams have played (i.e. the table) then the fact that it can't factor in luck, bad decisions etc then it is lying.

I'm not being techy(sic)

If my bonus at the end of the year is based on me hitting my sales target of x, and i bust a gut doing it, but fail due to the economy tanking/any other random variable, then it matters not if my hard work deserved it. If my colleague happened to be working on the day that the rich oil sheik came in and bought the shop's entire content which resulted in him hitting his targets then ce la vie. Unfair? Possibly. My CEO probably won't think so.

History will record him as having better sales than me. There will be no footnote on my sales targets for that year, saying "worked hard, but tough break." I will not be able to put on my CV "If x hadn't happened then i would have beaten my sales for that year!"

It's all about results, results, results. Anything else is just excuses, and we all know how you feel about managers giving excuses.

And i'm skirting over your questions because they bear bugger all relevance, just as historical records apparently don't. Did we deserve to win against Pompey? Who cares? We won. Will you be complaining at the end of the season if those three points mean the difference between staying in this division and not?

History is full of tragic stories of people trying incredibly hard to achieve but not quite making it. George Mallory probably scaled everest nearly 30 years, and with vastly inferior equipment before Norgay and hillary, but he didn't make it back. Hillary and Norgay did, and that's why they're remembered, because they got the results.

Similarly to SV you seem to think that irrelevant analogies and long winded replies that do not address my points or the issues wil somehow bore me into backing down.

If you CEO's system is designed to reward hard work then it is flawed. Why? Because it doesn't account for randomness. You could be sick, lucky, unlcuky, oil shieks could come in, economy hit a recession or whatever. Only your magic figure matter, as you correctly point out. Just like the league table the system you talk about contains randomness. Does your CEO care about randomness? Probably not. Does the FA care about randomness, luck etc? I doubt it too. I am not saying it should (this is where you are missing the point of what i'm saying). I can't think a better system and am perfectly happy with it. However, the fact that it can't account for luck and only accounts for results means that it contains randomness (if the table is looking to reward teams for playing well/how good they are).