Revealed: Manchester United get more injury time when they need it
Frank Cisco
191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing there was
an average of 257.17sec
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/22/manchester-united-goals-stoppage-time
scoopex
*bumpage* for the truth like.
FAFTBH. :)
DC
"Frank Cisco" <tdyjkdft...@dtyjdtyjdtyjdty.com> wrote in message
news:%LYtm.326342$RV1.1...@newsfe26.ams2...
Any hack that clearly went to the effort of doing a comparison against the
other top four clubs (he mentions in the article united had the least
overall stoppage time of the top four) but decided not to publish their
results for comparison on Win/lose-draw has clearly something to hide.
Oivind
That is one nice piece of journalism.
And didn't we all know it?
JN Andersen
"Frank Cisco" <tdyjkdft...@dtyjdtyjdtyjdty.com> wrote in message
news:%LYtm.326342$RV1.1...@newsfe26.ams2...
Don't you just love it when 'journalists' try to play statiticians.
Concluding anything based on that amount of data is beyond ridiculous.
Just a few objections:
-United had an average of 205 secs of stoppage time, Liverpool 210 secs. Wow
what a significant difference.
-Referees will most often blow the whistle for full time earlier if a team
is up by 3 goals. No point in dragging out the match. Of course if it's a
tight match the ref can't do that. I think data will show that when a team
is up by 3 goals or more, the amount of injury time is on average lower than
when a match is tight. Not just at OT. The difference is that United will
always push for the winner, whereas most other teams will defend their draw.
So it's not really a big surprise that teams going for the title will get
significantly more injury time winners than other teams.
-When United played Arsenal last season, any amount of injury time was not
in United's favour as the 0-0 result would mean the title was won.
-With so little data a single match can easily distort the picture
completely. Let's just imagine that a player breaks his leg, a fan enters
the pitch or whatever. The match is delayed 10 minutes and there will be 15
minutes of injury time. That will change the averages significantly. The
writer doesn't take such events into account. Haven't Chelsea tried that
this season already? That makes comparisons quite difficult.
-The data doesn't say anything about whether the amount of injury time was
justified or not. Maybe Arsenal is the team having gotten too much injury
time even though their average is lower. Impossible to tell from just the
naked data presented in the article. Imagine a match with no stops and no
subs, the ref gives 3 min of stoppage time. Wrong. Another match...6 subs,
many freekicks and 7 goals. 6 min stoppage. Right.
This is just another example of a sensationalist journo with a conclusion at
hand, and then finding the 'evidence' to support that conclusion. Idiotic
use of statistics at it's worst.
Cpl_Carrott
> Frank Cisco wrote:
> > In 48 games when United were ahead, the average amount of stoppage time
> > was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing
> > there was an average of 257.17sec
>
>
> *bumpage* for the truth like.
>
> FAFTBH. :)
oh my god!
you're quoting the guardian now!
how fucking sad are you!
get a fucking life,
Paul C
Afraid of the truth, are we?
Baldoni
"After the controversy over Michael Owen's winning goal in Sunday's
Manchester derby, the Guardian has looked at all of United's league
matches at Old Trafford since the start of the 2006-07 season and
discovered that, on average, there has been over a minute extra added
by referees when United do not have the lead after 90 minutes, compared
to when they are in front. In 48 games when United were ahead, the
average amount of stoppage time was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when
United were drawing or losing there was an average of 257.17sec."
--
Count Baldoni
In hoc signo vinces
SteveH
> "Frank Cisco" <tdyjkdft...@dtyjdtyjdtyjdty.com> wrote in message
> news:%LYtm.326342$RV1.1...@newsfe26.ams2...
> > In 48 games when United were ahead, the average amount of stoppage time
> > was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing there
> > was an average of 257.17sec
> >
> >
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/22/manchester-united-goals-st
> >oppage-time
>
> Don't you just love it when 'journalists' try to play statiticians.
> Concluding anything based on that amount of data is beyond ridiculous.
Of course, it doesn't take into account the fact that any team drawing
or winning at OT will employ time-wasting tactics, which naturally lead
to increased injury time.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
Alfa 156 TSpark Sportwagon Veloce Selespeed - Alfa 75 TSpark Lusso -
Ducati 750SS - BMW R100RT - Toyota Prius T-Spirit
Cpl_Carrott
Well, if the guardian are saying it, then it MUST be a fact.
I mean, The Guardian is well know for it's utterly factual reporting &
refusal to bend the truth, aren't they?
i wouldn't wipe my arse with that left wing rag!!!!
Baldoni
What you do with your arse is your own business but there is no reason
to doubt The Guardian on this point. People had already worked out a
long time ago that Utd have a helping hand at Old Trafford. Look how
the Arsenal were mugged earlier this season at Old Trafford.
SteveH
> What you do with your arse is your own business but there is no reason
> to doubt The Guardian on this point. People had already worked out a
> long time ago that Utd have a helping hand at Old Trafford. Look how
> the Arsenal were mugged earlier this season at Old Trafford.
You're always 'mugged', aren't you...
Baldoni
> JN Andersen <just...@stofanet.dk> wrote:
>
>> "Frank Cisco" <tdyjkdft...@dtyjdtyjdtyjdty.com> wrote in message
>> news:%LYtm.326342$RV1.1...@newsfe26.ams2...
>>> In 48 games when United were ahead, the average amount of stoppage time
>>> was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing there
>>> was an average of 257.17sec
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/22/manchester-united-goals-st
>>> oppage-time
>>
>> Don't you just love it when 'journalists' try to play statiticians.
>> Concluding anything based on that amount of data is beyond ridiculous.
>
> Of course, it doesn't take into account the fact that any team drawing
> or winning at OT will employ time-wasting tactics, which naturally lead
> to increased injury time.
The only thing that surprised me at the end of that game was that the
ref did not throw his arms above his head and jump with glee when the
final whistle was blown.
Great game nonetheless !
MH
Yes, I saw that. The article goes on to say that average amount of time
added ("injury time") is lowest at Old Trafford , followed by Anfield,
the Emirates, and then Stamford Bridge among the top four clubs (might
have the details/order slightly wrong, sorry if I do).
What the article does not say is if there was the same discrepancy (time
added when winning vs. not winning) for the other clubs, or indeed for
home teams in general. This fact is kind of necessary in order to prove
or disprove that Man Utd receives special benefits in this way. In
other words, the research, while it produces interesting facts, is
shoddy in terms of being able to draw conclusions.
I could well believe that when any strong team is playing at home, and
dominating play, but not winning, that the opposition is more likely to
be making slow subsitutions, dawdling to take GKs and corners, feigning
injury, etc. All teams do this when it suits them, and referees are
justified in adding extra time because of this. It may, or may not
account for the difference identified in the Guardian article -we'd need
a full set of numbers for all teams to be able to tell.
Bottom line is that the game lasts until the final whistle, and the
exact length of the game is still (unwisely, perhaps) left to the
discretion of the referee.
>
ste...@totalise.co.uk
You get more time added on when you're not winning because referees
are scared of Fergie. Here's some pictures if you've forgotten why
taht is:
Fergie's just as much of a cheat as Eduardo was when he dived. End of
story.
Paul C
What an unimpressive response to the facts presented to you.
Futbolmetrix
news:4AB911B8...@ucalgary.ca...
>
> Yes, I saw that. The article goes on to say that average amount of time
> added ("injury time") is lowest at Old Trafford , followed by Anfield, the
> Emirates, and then Stamford Bridge among the top four clubs (might have
> the details/order slightly wrong, sorry if I do).
>
> What the article does not say is if there was the same discrepancy (time
> added when winning vs. not winning) for the other clubs, or indeed for
> home teams in general. This fact is kind of necessary in order to prove or
> disprove that Man Utd receives special benefits in this way. In other
> words, the research, while it produces interesting facts, is shoddy in
> terms of being able to draw conclusions.
Here is some research done on the subject:
For Serie A:
Sciacca, Vincenzo. "Are subjective evaluations biased by social factors or
connections? An econometric analysis of soccer referee decisions", Empirical
Economics, August 2008
For La Liga:
Garicano L, Palacios-Huerta I, Prendergast C (2005) Favouritism under social
pressure. Review of Economics and Statistics 87(2):208-216
For the Bundesliga:
DohmenT(2005) Social pressure influences decisions of individuals.Evidence
from the behavior of football
referees. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 1595
Sutter M, KocherM(2004) Favouritism of agents: the case of referees' home
bias. Journal of Economic Psychology 25:461-
469
From the conclusion of Sciacca's article:
Our results on referee favouritism are qualitatively similar to those found
by
Garicano et al. (2005) and Sutter and Kocher (2004) and Dohmen (2005),
respectively,
for the Spanish "Primera Liga" and the German "Bundesliga". However, even
though there is rather strong evidence of favouritism towards home teams,
Italian and
German referees can be judged as being comparatively better than Spanish
referees:
Garicano et al. (2005) find that injury time added at the end of thematch is
about 2min
greater if the home team is behind. Results for Italian "Serie A" show that
"only" half
a minute is added by referees. A similar figure is found by Sutter and
Kocher (2004)
and Dohmen (2005) for German referees.Moreover, similarly to the latter
authors we
do not find evidence of referees also favouring home teams who are ahead by
one
goal by shortening the game, while, Garicano et al. (2005) on the other
hand, also
found this kind of favouritism in Spain.
Even if they do their best, none of these articles can really accurately
control for systematic time-wasting by the visiting team.
It also seems that what matters most in Serie A is whether the stadium has
an athletic track. The proximity of the fans puts pressure on the referee to
favor the home team. He also finds that big teams are more likely to have
injury time added, but the effect is not statistically significant.
D
MH
Thanks for posting these. Good stuff. There was also something in
nature (I think) about referee bias in the English league a while ago. I
am pretty sure I mentioned that on RSS before, but I am getting old and
senile so perhaps not. That particular study was not based on actual
results, but on a test done on referees where they split them up into
two groups and showed them various controversial incidents with and
without the sounds of noisy home fans. The conclusion was that referees
systematically favoured home teams due to the pressure put on them by
fans. I will try and dig it up some time.
The athletic track bit is especially interesting.
In light of this research, one wonders why visiting fans are allowed as
a big block behind one of the goals. Surely one could neutralize
visiting fans by splitting them into a number of smaller blocks on the
goal line !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Frank Cisco
they're known. It's a human thing. The only way there'll be no argument is
when the game is ref'd by computers and then we wouldn't have an
argument...computer says 128.3 seconds of injury time. The manc derby
shouldn't have gone that late - 5 minutes plus is only when there's a
serious injury. Man City where cheated in my opinion.