There are lots of things that bug me in football, few more than general football sayings that aren’t true. Actually that’s a lie, there are a lot of things that bug me more, but still they bug me a lot. I could talk about sayings like “Giggs turned down England” or “Suarez said negorito” or “Gerrard never dives” but those are specific and a bit boring as we all know them. But there are many out there that are general and annoying.
More incorrect decisions going for one team indicates that there is a bias towards it.
Anyone familiar with dice or cards should be alarmed by this idea and how readily accepted it is. If you’re wondering whether people actually think this, try this experiment on people, or do this on yourself by answering the following questions:
Five equally good hospitals in every way, operate on the same number of patients every year, who all have the same problems: heart conditions. Of these five hospitals in one particular year one of them looses 10 patients, one of them looses 7 patients, another 12 a forth 5 and the final hospital looses 8. Which hospital is the best, the one that lost 10, 7, 12, 5 or 8 patients?
If you answered any of the hospitals that lost 10, 7, 12 or 8 patients I have no idea what you’re on about but I think it’s time to stop reading. If you answered the hospital that lost 5 patients, you have made an understandable but not excusable mistake. If you answered they are all the same give yourself a pat on the back, or a hug, or do nothing. But well done anyway.
And that’s when there is no bias to the type of football, if there is a bias towards teams that attack more, or have more possession, or have loader fans, or are nicer to referees the outliers will rise giving one team far more incorrect decisions in a single season. That is the likelihood anyway.
Referring mistakes even out of the course of a season.
We’ve all been told that after enough time chance becomes negligible, which is true, but not after 38 games of football. Even after 38,000 games one team would have hundreds more mistakes go their way, it just wouldn’t make much difference compared to the thousands every team had anyway.
The only way decisions would even out over a single season is if fate, god or the officials deliberately intervened to make this the case. If however we leave it to random chance one team will likely have many more decisions in their favour than the team that has the least. And that’s without any bias. There is no reason for bad decisions to even out for any team, but if there is bias the outliers will be even worse.
The best team always wins the league.
This is obviously the case if you define the team that wins the League as the best team, truly obviously. If you use different ideas however, it should be equally obvious that the best team does not always win the League.
To prove this without offending too many people let’s first look at the 2005 season and take the title race out of the equation. One of my favourite saying’s is that Liverpool weren’t the best team in Europe that year, in fact they weren’t even the best team in Liverpool. It’s fantastic, it makes me laugh, it winds up the Liverpool fans, but it’s also untrue. Liverpool finished 3 points behind their derby rivals which would have denied them Champions League football, but for their Champions League win. It was a fun season to watch Everton, a young Scottish manager improving their team year-on-year until finally breaking into the top 4 at the Pool’s expense. Liverpool however played 13 Champions League games that season, beating Bayer Leverkusen and Juventus over two legs and just about beating Chelsea and AC Milan too. That’s not to mention a difficult group, and they also got to the League Cup final.
So who were the best team that year, Everton who won 18 league games, or Liverpool who won 17 League games, got to a domestic cup final and won the Champions League?
I know this isn’t going to convince everyone, so let’s go back to statistics. Two teams play 38 identical games. One team have a 51% chance of winning any and every game, the other team has 49% chance of winning any and every game. The first team has a 31% chance of drawing any and every game; the second has a 29% chance of drawing any and every game. Regardless of what you think of this idea and its relationship to football, this is very easy to simulate. Do this over 38 "games" and add them up. It doesn’t take too many "years" for the team that should be winning and drawing fewer games to win this simulated league.
Football is a game of chance, of few goals and of big decisions. Football is a game where moments can win games and a few games can win leagues. Football is frustrating, its fun, it’s a game when the worst team can beat the best team after being dominated for 90 minutes. It’s a game when the best team doesn’t always win the game, so there is no reason for the best team to always win the league.
Football is a game of 90 minutes
Sadly this is not the case; games of football last around 58-65 minutes of the game being in-play. This depends on the type of football being played by the team. In the Premier League, Manchester United have, on average, the ball in-play for the most amount of time. Teams that take time over their throw-ins (like Stoke City) have the ball in play less.
Does this indicate that Fergie time is more unfair as United get in more football anyway? Well I’m not sure actually. I think the referee's add on time for stoppages in certain situations, like substitutes or the ball not being given back. Taking time over throw-ins and free kick’s doesn’t automatically add on time I don’t think.
I’m not even certain substitutes in added time add on time. Sadly.
Any of this matters
It doesn't matter. Champions are champions, winners are winners.
More incorrect decisions going for one team indicates that there is a bias towards it.
Anyone familiar with dice or cards should be alarmed by this idea and how readily accepted it is. If you’re wondering whether people actually think this, try this experiment on people, or do this on yourself by answering the following questions:
Five equally good hospitals in every way, operate on the same number of patients every year, who all have the same problems: heart conditions. Of these five hospitals in one particular year one of them looses 10 patients, one of them looses 7 patients, another 12 a forth 5 and the final hospital looses 8. Which hospital is the best, the one that lost 10, 7, 12, 5 or 8 patients?
If you answered any of the hospitals that lost 10, 7, 12 or 8 patients I have no idea what you’re on about but I think it’s time to stop reading. If you answered the hospital that lost 5 patients, you have made an understandable but not excusable mistake. If you answered they are all the same give yourself a pat on the back, or a hug, or do nothing. But well done anyway.
And that’s when there is no bias to the type of football, if there is a bias towards teams that attack more, or have more possession, or have loader fans, or are nicer to referees the outliers will rise giving one team far more incorrect decisions in a single season. That is the likelihood anyway.
Referring mistakes even out of the course of a season.
We’ve all been told that after enough time chance becomes negligible, which is true, but not after 38 games of football. Even after 38,000 games one team would have hundreds more mistakes go their way, it just wouldn’t make much difference compared to the thousands every team had anyway.
The only way decisions would even out over a single season is if fate, god or the officials deliberately intervened to make this the case. If however we leave it to random chance one team will likely have many more decisions in their favour than the team that has the least. And that’s without any bias. There is no reason for bad decisions to even out for any team, but if there is bias the outliers will be even worse.
The best team always wins the league.
This is obviously the case if you define the team that wins the League as the best team, truly obviously. If you use different ideas however, it should be equally obvious that the best team does not always win the League.
To prove this without offending too many people let’s first look at the 2005 season and take the title race out of the equation. One of my favourite saying’s is that Liverpool weren’t the best team in Europe that year, in fact they weren’t even the best team in Liverpool. It’s fantastic, it makes me laugh, it winds up the Liverpool fans, but it’s also untrue. Liverpool finished 3 points behind their derby rivals which would have denied them Champions League football, but for their Champions League win. It was a fun season to watch Everton, a young Scottish manager improving their team year-on-year until finally breaking into the top 4 at the Pool’s expense. Liverpool however played 13 Champions League games that season, beating Bayer Leverkusen and Juventus over two legs and just about beating Chelsea and AC Milan too. That’s not to mention a difficult group, and they also got to the League Cup final.
So who were the best team that year, Everton who won 18 league games, or Liverpool who won 17 League games, got to a domestic cup final and won the Champions League?
I know this isn’t going to convince everyone, so let’s go back to statistics. Two teams play 38 identical games. One team have a 51% chance of winning any and every game, the other team has 49% chance of winning any and every game. The first team has a 31% chance of drawing any and every game; the second has a 29% chance of drawing any and every game. Regardless of what you think of this idea and its relationship to football, this is very easy to simulate. Do this over 38 "games" and add them up. It doesn’t take too many "years" for the team that should be winning and drawing fewer games to win this simulated league.
Football is a game of chance, of few goals and of big decisions. Football is a game where moments can win games and a few games can win leagues. Football is frustrating, its fun, it’s a game when the worst team can beat the best team after being dominated for 90 minutes. It’s a game when the best team doesn’t always win the game, so there is no reason for the best team to always win the league.
Football is a game of 90 minutes
Sadly this is not the case; games of football last around 58-65 minutes of the game being in-play. This depends on the type of football being played by the team. In the Premier League, Manchester United have, on average, the ball in-play for the most amount of time. Teams that take time over their throw-ins (like Stoke City) have the ball in play less.
Does this indicate that Fergie time is more unfair as United get in more football anyway? Well I’m not sure actually. I think the referee's add on time for stoppages in certain situations, like substitutes or the ball not being given back. Taking time over throw-ins and free kick’s doesn’t automatically add on time I don’t think.
I’m not even certain substitutes in added time add on time. Sadly.
Any of this matters
It doesn't matter. Champions are champions, winners are winners.
This tickled me, but fair enough.