table starting to take shape?

[mattbianco1]

So it's actually the scoreline that's incorrect in the above example, and all the league table is doing is reflecting the untruth of the scoreline.

Ok, what's the answer?

Do we go home from a 90minute game thinking we've won then wake up sunday morning only to see the 3pts wiped from us because the powers that be at the FA have reviewed every controversial incident in all 48 league matches that day (96 teams in the league before anybody wonders where 48 came from), to come up with the conclusion we didn't win 1-0, we actually lost 4-1 because they had 1 goal ruled out for a foul that never was, 1 offside decision that wasn't correct, a penalty turned down and a ball over the line that was missed.

It doesn't "Lie". There is just room for "Human error." Until we get automated robots refereeing the games that only give offside when you're offside and fouls if you're fouled then the league table will always "Lie" if that's the word we're using today.

Until then, some teams are luckier than others. Are England lucky or unlucky? Geoff Hurst, Frank Lampard & Ukraine ALL over the line, only one was given.

 

[moDtheGod]

The League table doesn't set out to reach a conclusion on that argument. It sets out to quantify the results of each teams 46 matches. To that extent it is accurate.

Okay, this is kinda fair enough. Maybe my problem isn't with the phrase itself then, but people applying it incorrectly? People suggesting that, because all the league table has done is simply add up all of the goals scored and points accrued, that it is somehow unquestionable...? It most definitely doesn't factor in all of the freakishness and randomness of the game - and therefore doesn't tell the full story of a season - thus leaving room for debate on the "what if" scenarios and giving us the game that we know and love.

I believe the argument all kicked off the first time around because people said that it wasn't possible to make money by taking on the bookmakers, which is false. If you derive your odds from a league table, and a league table only, you will be overlooking all of the variance which could (arguably) see a team in a false position. It's these subjective matters that lead to the idea of "value" in betting.

 

[moDtheGod]

Ok, what's the answer?

Do we go home from a 90minute game thinking we've won then wake up sunday morning only to see the 3pts wiped from us because the powers that be at the FA have reviewed every controversial incident in all 48 league matches that day (96 teams in the league before anybody wonders where 48 came from), to come up with the conclusion we didn't win 1-0, we actually lost 4-1 because they had 1 goal ruled out for a foul that never was, 1 offside decision that wasn't correct, a penalty turned down and a ball over the line that was missed.

I've addressed all that. I'm happy with the league table system, I never called for it to be re-invented. I am just saying that looking at the league table from the 1925/26 season won't give you the story of the season, just some cold facts about how many legal goals were recorded by referees over a period of time. It doesn't factor in everything, so it doesn't tell the full story.

Until we get automated robots refereeing the games that only give offside when you're offside and fouls if you're fouled then the league table will always "Lie" if that's the word we're using today.

You agree then? Great.

 

[Darren]

Okay, this is kinda fair enough. Maybe my problem isn't with the phrase itself then, but people applying it incorrectly? People suggesting that, because all the league table has done is simply add up all of the goals scored and points accrued, that it is somehow unquestionable...? It most definitely doesn't factor in all of the freakishness and randomness of the game - and therefore doesn't tell the full story of a season - thus leaving room for debate on the "what if" scenarios and giving us the game that we know and love.

I believe the argument all kicked off the first time around because people said that it wasn't possible to make money by taking on the bookmakers, which is false. If you derive your odds from a league table, and a league table only, you will be overlooking all of the variance which could (arguably) see a team in a false position. It's these subjective matters that lead to the idea of "value" in betting.

Yes, it was all do with Olly's mate who reckoned (apparently) he had a system which took into account this random variance and thus allowed him to beat the bookies. I got involved in the argument to say that sort of strategy was incoherent as the whole point of random variance is that it is well - random - and thus unpredictable. I think I challenged the mate, via Olly, to a betting contest where I would just predict results on the basis of the league table and he could use his system and we would see who would do better. I don't think the challenge was taken up.

 

[moDtheGod]

If I remember correctly though, it wasn't taken up because of a misunderstanding about what the system could and couldn't do. I think you were expecting it to basically predict the final table from say, the start of the season, whereas his statistical model is simply designed to pick up on value bets on any given day of the season. This is a very fluid sort of thing - a prediction made today would almost certainly vary compared to the same prediction made three weeks ago.

 

[moDtheGod]

I think if the challenge had been more about making profit from the predictions, rather than actually predicting correct scores, the challenge might have been taken up.

I also think that that Olle's mate wasn't actually allowed to take up the challenge...

 

[Darren]

If I remember correctly though, it wasn't taken up because of a misunderstanding about what the system could and couldn't do. I think you were expecting it to basically predict the final table from say, the start of the season, whereas his statistical model is simply designed to pick up on value bets on any given day of the season. This is a very fluid sort of thing - a prediction made today would almost certainly vary compared to the same prediction made three weeks ago.

Perhaps, but I still don't see how the system is anything other than subjective. If for example, I thought that, I don't know, Bolton were undervalued in their odds against Wednesday last weekend how would that be anything other than a subjective hunch?

 

[davidpinder]

Perhaps, but I still don't see how the system is anything other than subjective. If for example, I thought that, I don't know, Bolton were undervalued in their odds against Wednesday last weekend how would that be anything other than a subjective hunch?

Especially when Bolton hadn't picked up a point on the road all season and on the other hand the teams were 2 divisions apart last season. Its a funny old game

 

[moDtheGod]

Can a computer be subjective though? What if you punch the numbers in and it says that "X should happen 80% of the time"? I accept that it could be programmed poorly, but it's not really going on an emotional hunch is it?

If the bookies have got it priced up as though they think it will only occur 70% of the time, then you have the basis of a bet.

 

[Bladesway]

Avoiding the question alert!!? I said at the end of the game. And I never said there is a better representation. You say it is the 'truest', but not the perfect. So therefore it must contain some element of randomness.

Aim of the game is to score more than the opposition. Nothing else is actually important. Thats the reflector and thats the stated fact (in lilttle letters for you to digest this time). A game is played over 90 minutes so thems the rules. You score more goals you win the game.

All very simple. The table reflects the rules of the game and hence either in isolation or over a season the league table never lies.

 

[moDtheGod]

The table reflects the rules of the game and hence either in isolation or over a season the league table never lies.

The rules of the game state that when a ball crosses the line, a goal should be given. Tell that to the chap that refereed the Newcastle vs Everton game!

 

[mattbianco1]

Yes, it was all do with Olly's mate who reckoned (apparently) he had a system which took into account this random variance and thus allowed him to beat the bookies.

What's his name? Type it in google he's gotta be a famous millionaire if he's that good at betting.

 

[Ollessendro]

I made it all up. I do not have a friend like this. It was purely to wind Darren up.

 

[Beighton_Blade]

What a load of crock!!!

I do appreciate what both Olle and MoD are trying to say but imho the only valid argument for this "the table is a lie" argument, is when an incorrect judgement is made in a game by the referee etc (a la the "goal" in the reading v watford game etc).

All the other stuff about who "deserves" to win a game/league is not for argument! Olle states the argument that if Team A has 6 goals dissallowed, has 99% possession, hits the bar/post x many times in a game, and then Team B wins the game by the luckiest goal ever conceivable - then that somehow means the team who deserved to win didn't?...

rubbish!

The team who deserves to win a game is the one who scores more than the other. Simple as!! Should one team hit the bar (then thats not deserving of a goal as its not on target), has a goal dissallowed (for an unlawful/offside goal which therefore shouldn't count) and can not score a legal goal from all that possession/efforts then clearly they do not "deserve" to win. The objective of the game is to score more goals than the other team - if you don't do that it is because they could not get the ball in the net more than the other team did, how that is achieved is irrelevant!!!

The only argument against this is in the above circumstance (refereeing error), however in all honesty these are a part of the game and what makes it a "sport" - they also do tend to "even themselves out" over the course of a season, or more likely, start to swing the way of those most deserving i.e. the better sides often get more penalties due to attacking the other teams more frequently (the better sides create their own "luck"). The only argument which even warrents this sort of "lie" mentality would be the absolute extreme circumstance like the ones at Watford which may happen once in a season (if that!) and rarely have such a dramatic effect on the absolute outcome of a teams season.

Accepting all of the above though, it doesn't stop me sometimes leaving a game believeing "we didnt deserve to lose that" or alternatively "we were lucky to beat them", but thats not proof that we do not in fact finish exactly where we deserve to after 46 games of a season!

 

[mattbianco1]

In answer to your question Ollessendro.

Yes, the top 10 will be the top 10 in a different order

 

[boo radley]

I made it all up. I do not have a friend like this. It was purely to wind Darren up.

Don't come with that now. I suspect he's part of the concrete base for your shed

 

[Bladesway]

The rules of the game state that when a ball crosses the line, a goal should be given. Tell that to the chap that refereed the Newcastle vs Everton game!

It also states that the referees decision is final.

 

[Darren]

What a load of crock!!!

I do appreciate what both Olle and MoD are trying to say but imho the only valid argument for this "the table is a lie" argument, is when an incorrect judgement is made in a game by the referee etc (a la the "goal" in the reading v watford game etc).

All the other stuff about who "deserves" to win a game/league is not for argument! Olle states the argument that if Team A has 6 goals dissallowed, has 99% possession, hits the bar/post x many times in a game, and then Team B wins the game by the luckiest goal ever conceivable - then that somehow means the team who deserved to win didn't?...

rubbish!

The team who deserves to win a game is the one who scores more than the other. Simple as!! Should one team hit the bar (then thats not deserving of a goal as its not on target), has a goal dissallowed (for an unlawful/offside goal which therefore shouldn't count) and can not score a legal goal from all that possession/efforts then clearly they do not "deserve" to win. The objective of the game is to score more goals than the other team - if you don't do that it is because they could not get the ball in the net more than the other team did, how that is achieved is irrelevant!!!

The only argument against this is in the above circumstance (refereeing error), however in all honesty these are a part of the game and what makes it a "sport" - they also do tend to "even themselves out" over the course of a season, or more likely, start to swing the way of those most deserving i.e. the better sides often get more penalties due to attacking the other teams more frequently (the better sides create their own "luck"). The only argument which even warrents this sort of "lie" mentality would be the absolute extreme circumstance like the ones at Watford which may happen once in a season (if that!) and rarely have such a dramatic effect on the absolute outcome of a teams season.

Accepting all of the above though, it doesn't stop me sometimes leaving a game believeing "we didnt deserve to lose that" or alternatively "we were lucky to beat them", but thats not proof that we do not in fact finish exactly where we deserve to after 46 games of a season!

I am going to start a Devil's Advocate argument here.

In 1980-81, we finished 21st in Division 3 and were relegated. That was the last season of 2 points for a win. Had 3 points for a win had applied, we would have finished 18th and stayed up.

Did we deserve "exactly where we deserved to finish" in 1980-81 or is all this talk of some stand alone concept of "desert" which is seperate from the rules that actually apply at the time ultimately meaningless?

 

[Ollessendro]

What a load of crock!!!

I do appreciate what both Olle and MoD are trying to say but imho the only valid argument for this "the table is a lie" argument, is when an incorrect judgement is made in a game by the referee etc (a la the "goal" in the reading v watford game etc).

All the other stuff about who "deserves" to win a game/league is not for argument! Olle states the argument that if Team A has 6 goals dissallowed, has 99% possession, hits the bar/post x many times in a game, and then Team B wins the game by the luckiest goal ever conceivable - then that somehow means the team who deserved to win didn't?...

rubbish!

The team who deserves to win a game is the one who scores more than the other. Simple as!! Should one team hit the bar (then thats not deserving of a goal as its not on target), has a goal dissallowed (for an unlawful/offside goal which therefore shouldn't count) and can not score a legal goal from all that possession/efforts then clearly they do not "deserve" to win. The objective of the game is to score more goals than the other team - if you don't do that it is because they could not get the ball in the net more than the other team did, how that is achieved is irrelevant!!!

The only argument against this is in the above circumstance (refereeing error), however in all honesty these are a part of the game and what makes it a "sport" - they also do tend to "even themselves out" over the course of a season, or more likely, start to swing the way of those most deserving i.e. the better sides often get more penalties due to attacking the other teams more frequently (the better sides create their own "luck"). The only argument which even warrents this sort of "lie" mentality would be the absolute extreme circumstance like the ones at Watford which may happen once in a season (if that!) and rarely have such a dramatic effect on the absolute outcome of a teams season.

Accepting all of the above though, it doesn't stop me sometimes leaving a game believeing "we didnt deserve to lose that" or alternatively "we were lucky to beat them", but thats not proof that we do not in fact finish exactly where we deserve to after 46 games of a season!

We've been through a lot of this earlier in the thread.

You simply see things very black and white. The league table does not reflect how that is achieved, you are right in that element. The problem is that it is subjective as to whether that team should have won. A team could feasibly not have had a shot on target, had 1% possession, got dicked on etc and you think they deserved to win the game. I simply do not. That is where it breaks down and I just cannot see us agreeing on anything. I think that generally if a team has 60% possession and 10 shots on target to the other teams 1, then team A deserves to win. Though I am sure that you will argue that team B were more 'clinical' or sumert. I would counter with Team B being lucky (any random element like their goalie playing a blinder, the spin of the ball bouncing back off the line and taking it away from the striker, the goalie only conceding because the sun was in his eyes, ref making bad decisions).

You also cast aside the poor refereeing/officiating element and ignore the basic statistics (things do not even themselvres out over 46 games! You need a much bigger sample size). Toss a coin 46 times and see if it splits 23. Then throw in a host of other variables and see if they split 50 for each side. You can have bad or good luck that effectively dictates your season.

 

[moDtheGod]

The team who deserves to win a game is the one who scores more than the other. Simple as!!

But you also have to remember the context in which the original discussion was framed - betting. If you take that view into gambling professionally, you will lose all of your money, a statement that I'm sure you'll agree with.

 

[shorehamview]

Oh dear. Do we have to go through this again? This just suggests that you never got your head around in it the first place.

The league table is something we have to work with, regardless of whether you think it lies or not. I actually think it is pretty representative at the moment (as my opening post suggest).

I stated that the league table doesn't lie. There's no need for me to get my head round your waffle. You stated that it lies - I have repeated that it doesn't. Can you get your head around that?

 

[shorehamview]

Dear oh dear Shoreham. You save Ollie's quotes from last year?

How sad is that?

No, I did a search using the search facility this forum comes with. Fancy not knowing about that.
The league table lying malarkey is more of a mutual wind-up between Olle and me where we both have enough of a sense of humour to get the joke.

 

[KenMcnaughtsNuts]

Long way to go but id expect us, mk donuts and notts county to challenge for top 2. swindon, preston, stevenage probably making up the top 6.

i wouldnt rule out tranmere though, theres usually 1 team nobody expected, and they keep winning. even when they drop off theyll have a lot of points in the bag already at this rate. crawley look the only other team to challenge for top 6. i dont fancy brentford, be top 10 i think. doncaster dont have a prayer, they arent remotely good enough to challenge and could even go down. nobody else looks a danger. obviously no idea what will happen in january, which always can change things.

 

[Ollessendro]

Long way to go but id expect us, mk donuts and notts county to challenge for top 2. swindon, preston, stevenage probably making up the top 6.

i wouldnt rule out tranmere though, theres usually 1 team nobody expected, and they keep winning. even when they drop off theyll have a lot of points in the bag already at this rate. crawley look the only other team to challenge for top 6. i dont fancy brentford, be top 10 i think. doncaster dont have a prayer, they arent remotely good enough to challenge and could even go down. nobody else looks a danger. obviously no idea what will happen in january, which always can change things.

Yep, agree with a lot of that. Tranmere will be interesting. Like I said before Moore is a decent manager and they went on a hell of a run towards the end of last season. The big question is whether they can sustain it. A lot seems to be resting on their 2 strikers, who have fired them to the top. If they keep both of them fit and they stay in form, you never know. As KMN says, there is often a surprise package.

I stated that the league table doesn't lie. There's no need for me to get my head round your waffle. You stated that it lies - I have repeated that it doesn't. Can you get your head around that?

I've got it SV. Good work by the way. Smashing and grabbing (a bit like we did at Yeovil) or 'dropping a bomb' as Swiss calls it. That is putting in a controversial post and getting the fuck out of there. Returning a day or so later and see there are 100 posts relating to that post. Micalijo used to be good at these, but has lost his touch/been worked out.

 

[broomhillblade]

No, I did a search using the search facility this forum comes with. Fancy not knowing about that.
The league table lying malarkey is more of a mutual wind-up between Olle and me where we both have enough of a sense of humour to get the joke.

Touché. There are probably a number of things about this site that I haven't discovered. After all, I am a senile old git...

 

[scouseblade]

You haven't mentioned Swindon

I think once they've found their feet in this new division, they'll be up there.

They have as many points as we have from an indifferent start

your right I didnt mention Swindon! Oops! Tranmere fans starting to gloat in work, its October lads I tell them but then remember Charlton....

 

[blade too long]

http://www.sheffieldunited-mad.co.uk/snapshot_tables/2011_2012/1/oct/sheffield_united/index.shtml
a year ago we had 20 points after 11 games , were 6th, so we are a tad better off

 

[JohnDenver]

Tranmere will be interesting. Like I said before Moore is a decent manager

Today's crime against football. ^^^^^^^

Have a word, Pinchy.

 

[Pinchy]

your right I didnt mention Swindon! Oops! Tranmere fans starting to gloat in work, its October lads I tell them but then remember Charlton....

....were by far better than Tranmere, who will not be close to the top two after 46 games.

 

[Pinchy]

Today's crime against football. ^^^^^^^

Have a word, Pinchy.

I would JD, but he's promised to buy us all a pint of Fostenstellaberg. I wouldn't want to jeopardise such a rare treat!