RAWK Goes Into Lockdown 2017/20-18 Edition | LOLis Karius
- Thread starter Snowjoe
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
West Ham are above Liverpool even though they drew and West Ham lost by 4 goals to nil.
Liverpool are perceived to have dropped 2 points in a winnable game, the Hammers didn't have no chance
Projected finishing points now (if in Title Winning Form) - LFC 88pts, West Ham, 89pts - (I think)
<shoots self anyway>
I would buy that in that West Ham (-1) could hope for a draw at best while they expected a win (-2). So an expected outcome basis explains it.West Ham are above Liverpool even though they drew and West Ham lost by 4 goals to nil.
What has me scratching my head is both Liverpool and Watford losing two points when, by definition, they couldn't both win. You can only argue for that being correct on a PL table actual points on the board basis, but that's too sensible.
True to form he injured himself pre season, think I was the Bayern match. Didn't look serious, prob a
strain and a few weeks off, plenty of time to pick up something more long term.
They've probably developed new ways of doing it, one of these is doing it to each other
Alt. Tables work on the basis that teams are trying to win the league, regardless of the previous season's standings. However, expected results are based on the previous season's standings.
Watford were at home, so by default their expected result was a win. Liverpool were away to one of the bottom sides from last season, so their expected result was also a win. They drew, so they're both two points down on expectations.
Ah, but y'see... the comparison is with the form of a mythical Title winning team & not with each other or what happens in reality. Tbf, it's a theoretical model.
My imaginary Scouse mate tells me it's kind of like a golf course where the players are playing different holes. And actually have to because they can never play the same holes. At the end of the day for the model - Watford (away) is clearly a different hole to Liverpool (home).
Although they are climbing the same hill.
You'll Never Wank Alone?
So how do they calculate two similar level clubs who are usually say 10th and 11th every season and are playing each other? Is the 10th place team always expected to beat the 11th place team? What if the 11th team has a better goal difference but is only 1 point behind?
Basically its all contrived bollocks to make them feel better for not winning the title for almost 30 years.
Don't put any thought into it, you'll get nowhere fast.
I understand the basic concept but if Spurs don't get a point for beating Newcastle then how can Newcastle be on -3? Surely that could only be the case if they were expected to win - but then shouldn't Spurs be +3? Sounds mental to me - what's wrong with the actual league table?
Encapsulated the essence of the dipper perfectly. Great post that should have been titled Eau du Dipper
It was all going so well on Friday morning,.
No hes really on loan at Liverpool Football Club. Liverpool hospital is his permanent residence.
Early season contest, what about their heroic conquest of the PL Asia Cup? They had themselves down to take over the world after that highly prestigious victory.
Exactly
It's a common misconception that Liverpool always win their Alt. Table. They never have, because if run properly, which theirs is, it should merge with the real league table as the season finishes.
They definitely use it to make themselves feel better about being behind, especially after seasons like last season where they picked up points in the 'big' games, a number convinced themselves that all was still rosy even after the January collapse.
Where I think the confusion comes from is the separate discussions they had the other year with people posting tables like "if shots that hit the woodwork were goals" and "if the league ran between February and November" which on here often get mixed in with the Alt. Table. Those sorts of criteria are never considered, because as people quite rightly point out, they're nonsense. A number on RAWK do seem to enjoy celebrating the "if we only played the top 6" table and other such shite though.
All of the Alt. Tables I've come across run on the same basic template:
- All teams are separated into groups - roughly Top, Middle and Bottom
- Teams are expected to win all 19 home games, as well as all away games vs the Bottom teams
- Teams are expected to draw all away games vs the Middle teams
- Teams are expected to lose all away games vs the Top teams
I ran one last season where I worked out the positions based on an average over 5 seasons. This season I've simply taken last season's standings, with the newly promoted clubs replacing those relegated. I split mine Top 6, Middle, Bottom 6. As the target is to win the league, the Top 6 only accounts for 10 games for each team, as a team would have to be part of the top 6 to win the league. As such, United, as last season's 6th placed finishers, count as a Middle team for all teams outside of last season's Top 6. Likewise, Palace count as a Bottom 6 team for last season's 15th-17th and the newly promoted sides.
It's by no means a perfect model, but in a scenario where Team A is 6 points clear of Team B with 5 games left, the Alt. Table might show Team B as higher because their remaining games are either at home, or away to the bottom sides, while Team A has to visit 3 of the Top 6 during the run-in. Of course it should be taken with a pinch of salt, but for some it provides an interesting way to look the league as the season unfolds.
Spurs should be expected to win and so winning means they are 'on par' and so they are on zero.
I agree though that Newcastle surely weren't expected to win at home against last season's runners up and so surely they should also be on zero.
Likewise, Burnley surely weren't expected to draw at Chelsea and so should be +3 no?
Red poets society...
Okay, get that... so why are Burnley only on +2 for winning away to Chelsea?
Presumably whoever is compiling that one has a base of being unbeaten, so the expectation was a draw. Only way I can make sense of it. That or a typo.
Who has won the last 5 alternative leagues? I'm assuming they have won a couple and we are mid table?
The actual league winners have won every single one
If Burnley are gonna get 90pts - 1 of them gets got at Chelsea - so they're 2 up on the required schedule, atm.
It's all very straightforward really,
.Every year some on the caf make folls of themselves with the alternate tables. They don't understand them and laugh. They also forgot we had our own "storey-time" table a long time too.
Maybe so, but there is also a perfectly sustainable argument that says they are a load of bollocks.
Yeah but we have the Essien calculator these days.
They're not a perfect model and are certainly not without their flaws, but the line from those who take the piss is often founded in a fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance of how they actually work.
so just the 3 seasons with the 2 best players in the world, in one of the most famous teams in the world, who regularly win League Titles and Champions leagues. On 3 times his current wages as well
Or 3 more seasons at loserpool under flopp
Which will he choose?
The RAWK Mods Poster of the Year Award is in the bag already
GrovellingLittleGit writes
GrovellingLittleGit writes
So basically they can't even win the league they invented and made up their own rules for?
That reminds me of the (surely fake) 'letters from our viewers' that the BBC routinely publishes, year after year:
'Last night's episode of Poldark in Space was worth the licence fee by itself. God bless the BBC!
Signed,
Mrs Ethel Crouton (Iron Cross, WWI)
Surrey'
You probably need to average 2.33 points per game to win the League - it doesn't matter where you get them. 10 out of 38 games are fairly universally perceived as more difficult, they're not evenly spread for teams across the 38 we don't think. But you still need 2.33 pts per game. A simpler examination is needed for me, and I think I know how to do it if we take the discussion somewhere else.
Because we're all going to be banned,
.So basically they can't even win the league they invented and made up their own rules for?
I don't think they made it up. I don't know who did, but the general template and rules are used by many football fans of many different clubs.
It's a statistical model of sorts that balances the league by the difficulty of games played.
The scousers have definitely been guilty of looking at it in September and being overly optimistic about their chances, but it's not something they've made up with rules to favour them.
Well put Sir
West Ham are above Liverpool even though they drew and West Ham lost by 4 goals to nil.
Ermm
Coincidentally, that league was also the invention of someone whose team struggled to win a title.
If a top 6 team lost home and away against the other 5 top 6 teams but won all their other matches, they would have 84 points. Enough to win the league most years, I think, but where would that put them in the Alt league table?
Edit: Also, 2.21 points per game, btw
Wherever they finished in the real table, not accounting for goal difference
@Alex99 Some really good points around the alternative premier league table.
What I dislike about it is that it discounts the psychological effect of having points on the board.
What I dislike about it is that it discounts the psychological effect of having points on the board.
- Status