So 89% of teams that had a man sent off when they were level went on to either draw or lose? That sounds like a big disadvantage to me.
That's only before the hour mark PNP,there are other stats in the same report of how many teams went on to win with 10 men after the hour mark etc and it comes to more than 11% Read the link,it bears out what I'm posting.
Sorry if I've offended, TMT but this is just crazy. I mean - here's the first few paragraphs of the very article you cite to support your theory: ---------------------------------------- "The idea that it that may be harder to play against 10 men than 11 has been a cliché so long that there's even a Beyond the Fringe sketch about it. It is also palpably untrue. Events at the weekend, when Barcelona, Liverpool and AlmerÃa all won despite playing the bulk of the game a man down – along with Manchester United's performance after the dismissal of Nani last night – suggest it may be that playing against 10 men is not as easy as it used to be. It depends, of course, when you mean by "used to be". Figures produced by Opta and Castrol Performance Analysts suggest the impact of red cards has changed only a little over the past 20 years. In the Premier League between 1992 and 2000, for instance, a side that was drawing when they had a man sent off went on to win the game 11.8% of the time if the red card happened in the first hour, 3.7% if it happened between 60 and 80 minutes, and 4.5% if it happened after 80 minutes. Looking at the top divisions in England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France since the start of 2006-07, those figures are 13.4% for up to an hour, 8.1% for 60-80 minutes and 4.9% for after 80 minutes. Between 1992 and 2000 in the Premier League, teams losing when they had a man sent off went on to draw or win 11.1% of the time if the red card happened before the hour, 5.9% if it happened between 60 and 80 minutes, and 4.8% if it came after 80 minutes; in the top five European leagues since the start of 2006-07, the figures are 11.5% for a red card in the first hour; 11.4% for a red card between 60 and 80 minutes; and 2.7% for a card after 80 minutes. So there is a slight but distinct trend suggesting having a man sent off is no longer quite such a negative as it was." -------------------------------------- I mean - everything there - every sentence, every stat seems to indicate that having a man sent off is a negative thing - a disadvantage if you will. Here's the final two paragraphs: -------------------------------------- "It may be less of a handicap than it once was, but having a man sent off is still a major disadvantage. Italy's win over Nigeria game remains the only World Cup fixture in which a team, having a man sent off, has come from behind to win. Similarly, since that Chelsea win over West Ham, only once in the Premier League has a team come from behind having had a man sent off (ignoring games with more than one red card): Arsenal's 3-2 win over Bolton in March 2008. The Castrol statistics show that on more than half the occasions a team in one of Europe's top five leagues has had a player sent off while winning or drawing with more than 10 minutes remaining, their result has worsened. Red cards are still significant, and four cherry-picked results in the past few days don't change that. What is apparent, though, is that those results are part of a wider trend: teams are better at playing with a man down that they used to be. ------------------------------------- I'm just not sure where your argument is going. Apart from the obvious common-sense conclusion that having eleven men is better than ten (and ten is better than nine and nine is better than five) I would be absolutely amazed if any analysis of any stats come to the conclusion that teams do not find it harder to win games if they have less men on the pitch than the opposition. The article you quoted is basically arguing that there is some evidence to say that teams' results when they get a man sent off are getting slightly better than they used to be. But "slightly better" does not mean "there is no longer any disadvantage". The stats here show quite the opposite.
For all the statistical twaddle, the blog writer completely undone his-self at the end... "Perspective It may be less of a handicap than it once was, but having a man sent off is still a major disadvantage. Italy's win over Nigeria game remains the only World Cup fixture in which a team, having a man sent off, has come from behind to win. Similarly, since that Chelsea win over West Ham, only once in the Premier League has a team come from behind having had a man sent off (ignoring games with more than one red card): Arsenal's 3-2 win over Bolton in March 2008." ...or in terms everyone should understand, the rest of that link is a load of ol bollox!
No - the figure is less the later in the game the sending off happens. (Bear in mind that these stats are only when a team is already behind so it is natural that teams who are behind with ten minutes left draw or win less often than teams who are behind with thirty minutes left). With the stat you quote the corresponding stat for going down to ten men when behind and drawing/winning, if the sending off comes after 80 mins, is 5%. 5% being considerably less than 11%.
11% before the hour lenny. Anyway what I stated originally that having a player sent off is not always an advantage to the other team so wanting a player sent off doesn't always reap rewards does it? As I said we went 4-0 down to Inter and came back to 4-3 with 10 men. I know it's only supposition but what would have happened had we gone to 4-3 10 minutes earlier? It's possible with the momentum we had we could have drawn,and with 10 men. I stand by my original statement PNP. You said that a player should have been sent off,well....................! There was a match just recently when a lower division team won with 10 men. Calm down notso. It doesn't always follow that having a man sent off means that that team will lose.
Yes - 11.1% before the hour. 5.9% between 60 and 80 mins. 4.8% after 80 mins. You were implying that the numbers increased elsewhere in the stats: "That's only before the hour mark PNP,there are other stats in the same report of how many teams went on to win with 10 men after the hour mark etc and it comes to more than 11%" But they don't - they go down. Besides I think that the crucial fact that you're ignoring is that teams/individuals may still succeed despite there being a disadvantage. Simply because they succeed it does not follow that there was no disadvantage. If I throw a dart with a blindfold on but flukely hit the bullseye that does not imply that the blindfold was therefore not a disadvantage. A team may be hugely disadvantaged but still win. Sport and life in general would be pretty dull if that was not the case! No-one is saying that a team going down to ten men guarantees that they will lose. You seem to think they are.
TMT, you're making a great big deal out of something everyone knows anyway, we've all seen 10 men do well...on the odd occasion. Just where do you get the impression I need to calm down?? the blog is just filling a page full of nothing new, we're all asking what excites you so much!
You're the only one who's asked that notso. PNP stated that a player should have been sent off as if to say that that would help us in some way and I disagreed with the want of it and that's all. Saying that the article was bollox suggested to me that you're angry and I couldn't see why. Anyway I've said my bit. No lenny,it was PNP who said a player should have been sent off thereby SUPPOSEDLY giving us an advantage when it's not always the case and often isn't so why want a player sent off? Ok that's about it.
?! OK - I don't think there's any more logic or stats or definitions I can throw at this one! You seem to be wedded to a certain, personal definition of the word "disadvantage". I'm just surprised that you would be 100% OK with Spurs having a man sent off and not feel that it was any disadvantage. But there you go...
No - as I keep saying a disadvantage does not guarantee failure. You are saying that going down to ten men is not a disadvantage. I am saying that it is a disadvantage which (like all disadvantages) can, very occasionally, be overcome. All the stats in that article confirm that it is considerably harder to get a result with ten men. Therefore having only ten men is a disadvantage. One-off results do not change that general rule.
One of football's overly used myths, I think. Having a man less is a disadvantage- 100% of the time. The fact that teams have overcome that disadvantage on some memorable occasions doesn't alter that. Most 10 man teams fight a rearguard action. They play a narrow 4-4-1 and hope not to concede. If prior to the sending off, they had played a more attacking formation, then the change in the pattern of the game could adversely affect the strategy of their opponents, but by and large, a 10 man time will tire more quickly, the game will become more stretched as it nears the end and the 11 man team will prevail- or will have every chance to do so.
So Luke why when a team is disadvantaged by losing a player does that disadvantage not manifest itself by defeats every time? The disadvantaged team goes on to win a surprising number of times. If ever a player gets sent off against us I'm always cautious in case a repeat of what's happened before happens again. Also if we get a player sent off I think "well come on Spurs,10 have beaten 11 before so you can do it." So in the case of the former I never want an opposition player sent off because it doesn't always result in a defeat for his team. I can add no more.
