'Lucky' Leicester

[Buce]

 

In a new study examing 'luck' and incorrect refereeing decisions, it is deemed we should have finished 14th due to scoring late in games that overran.

 

No surprises that Man Utd were the luckiest.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45087444

Edited 7 August 2018 by Buce

[Jattdogg]

25 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

In a new study examing 'luck' and incorrect refereeing decisions, it is deemed we should have finished 14th due to scoring late in games that overran.

 

No surprises that Man Utd were the luckiest.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45087444

 

I cant say this makes full sense. Sure we can determine mistakes after the fact but even if you made the correction what impact would that have on the game? 

 

 

To me its great to know how, when or where a ref dropped a bollock on a call  but that doesnt account for the rest of the game had the call been made correctly. The assumption is everything would be the same  but thats not necesarily true or something we can measure.

 

 

Edited 7 August 2018 by Jattdogg

[Guest ttfn]

Scoring late after injury time overruns is a crazy metric to use. 

 

Putting to one side the fact that there’s never enough injury time anyway, it doesn’t take any account of time lost in injury time itself.

[Yes N'Didi]

27 minutes ago, ttfn said:

Scoring late after injury time overruns is a crazy metric to use. 

 

Putting to one side the fact that there’s never enough injury time anyway, it doesn’t take any account of time lost in injury time itself.

This. The three goals it refers to are Bournemouth (H), Man United (H), and Brighton (A). Brighton we were already winning 1-0 so it didn't affect the outcome of the game, and the other two I think we remember how much actual time wasting both visiting teams did, even during the additional time added on (I think Bournemouth stopped around three minutes of play during time added on for another 'injury') so I'm not entirely sure how useful/serious this 'study' is.

[LinekersApples]

30 minutes ago, ttfn said:

Scoring late after injury time overruns is a crazy metric to use. 

 

Putting to one side the fact that there’s never enough injury time anyway, it doesn’t take any account of time lost in injury time itself.

“Injury time” is now called time added on and the board shown states a minimum. Therefore it’s idiotic to use it.

 

however, if I’ve read the table properly, we have the biggest point deduction and we’re the luckiest team last year! Didn’t feel like it.

[ealingfox]

In no way whatsoever did the Bournemouth game 'overrun'. We were due another 3 or 4 minutes at the very least.

[Guest TaggertvsWise]

There is no such thing as luck, just science.

[rn9013]

As has been pointed out, added time is a 'minimum of...'. 

 

To be honest I actually think most games that are tight should really over run if the referee is on the ball, as the winning team usually wastes time in the added on time, so theoretically the referee should rightly add extra time onto the minimum. 

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, ttfn said:

Scoring late after injury time overruns is a crazy metric to use. 

 

Putting to one side the fact that there’s never enough injury time anyway, it doesn’t take any account of time lost in injury time itself.

 

That's exactly what I was going to come and post. 

 

It's a minimum, it'll obviously be swung if there's further time loss during that period. 

[Fox92]

No such thing as 'luck' anyway.

[kingcarr21]

24 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

No such thing as 'luck' anyway.

Disagree.

 

The wife was one lucky lady for me to choose her  

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, kingcarr21 said:

Disagree.

 

The wife was one lucky lady for me to choose her  

 

"You're a lucky lady!"...... reminded me of a blast from the past:

 

 

[Suzie the Fox]

Why is this a new thing, its been happening since the start of football. There has and always will be controversial decisions and yes there has been mistakes. But over the course of the season some will go for you and some against.

 

Until the rules change and its not down to one man making the important decisions it will continue. VAR made a difference during the world cup to alleviate this and albeit it wasnt perfect it did go some way to reducing the mistakes. 

[fox in the sox]

Why are Man Utd the 'luckiest' when they gained 6 points and we gained 7?

[Max Wall]

9 minutes ago, fox in the sox said:

Why are Man Utd the 'luckiest' when they gained 6 points and we gained 7?

Because everyone hates them. No facts can distort that. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

5 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

I cant say this makes full sense. Sure we can determine mistakes after the fact but even if you made the correction what impact would that have on the game? 

 

 

To me its great to know how, when or where a ref dropped a bollock on a call  but that doesnt account for the rest of the game had the call been made correctly. The assumption is everything would be the same  but thats not necesarily true or something we can measure.

 

 

 

The article explains that in addition to looking at specific decisions etc they also modelled what would have been the likely result, based on form and in game form. 

[Wdywd]

How have they justified putting United in the headline 

Edited 7 August 2018 by Wdywd

[Max Wall]

2 minutes ago, Wdywd said:

How have they justified putting United in the headline 

 

It's from the BBC. Employees are docked wages if they don't shoehorn those two words into the headline I think.

[filbertway]

I will never understand how a person interested in football can't grasp the concept of "a minimum of x minutes"

[The Doctor]

With the exception of offside, which is black and white, that's all handwaving anyway. Penalties missed that should have been awarded aren't nailed on, they're going to be whoever put that together going "eh, I'd have given it". Added time is possibly the worst thing to look at as well - Ulloas penalty v West Ham in the 15/16 run in was beyond the end, because West Ham took so long protesting, despite being awarded before. Might as well say that the keeper can pick the ball up, boot it out of the stadium and if you don't get it back in time, tough shit if you're counting that as lucky.

[Arriba Los Zorros]

I do have to agree with this to an extent, things seem to go more for us than they ever did in the past - maybe that's the legacy of winning the title and being 'bigger'.

 

We did seem to be one of the unluckiest teams around in the old PL days and at times in the Championship though 

 

Plus the teams you'd usually consider to be lucky / jammy - Man U and Burnley notable culprits - have also won 'lucky' points on this metric

[Golden Fox]

What a stupid study... in addition to the list of incidents they have tried to account for, what about these incidents that can have a big impact that I would think of as lucky or unlucky:

- hitting the post

- a ricochet in the box falling for 1 team or the other

- a player falling over or miskicking at an unfortunate time

- even a penalty as to whether the goalkeeper guesses the right way or not

 

And you can't underestimate player's reactions to incidents: games can play out completely differently after a goal is scored or not: there is no way to model that.

 

I'd be interested to see how Assistant Professor Thomas Curran from the University of Bath is getting his funding, as to this is just a waste of time that he will have been paid to do!

[Max Wall]

2 minutes ago, Golden Fox said:

What a stupid study... 

It's close season. Have you seen some of our threads? People are just filling time.

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The article explains that in addition to looking at specific decisions etc they also modelled what would have been the likely result, based on form and in game form. 

Thats the beauty of sport though. You can model all you want. Anything can happen in football. A team can  collapse,  a team can score 2 quick goals out of nowhere, not enough ET etc. You  can make a baseline/model but its all statistical guess work. I do agree that modelling can point you in a certain direction but for sport just too many factors can change a definite outcome. Its almost impossible to account for the individial human thought process during a football match and how they could alter the game. 99% of models could be similar but that 1% outlier  could be the actual outcome. 

[Golden Fox]

5 minutes ago, Max Wall said:

It's close season. Have you seen some of our threads? People are just filling time.

My point is that he isn't filling in time: he's being paid to write it, and then to publish it - even claiming that it "demonstrates" results.

 

Unless we do get paid for our threads on here & I'm missing out as I didn't tick the "pay me for my insightful comments" box when I signed up???