Match Day Thread 2016/17 Premier League, Cups & Euro Watch

Some people on some footie websites like to put a bit of effort in ..... good for them I say.

 

I kind of agree. although what they have done is **** as you don't think of what the existing teams have but what teams have gotten in their past season as a better marker.

 

Which is why the table means **** all until March really.
I don't put any stock in us being top now, more that our form looks good and I hope it continues.
If we had won 6 on the bounce but were sitting 3rd I'd be happy.

Football isn't a formula
if A > B and B > C, that doesnt mean A > C.

That's not how football works.
What they are doing is taking a very unscientific, chaotic game and trying to apply logic to it. It's pathetic.
Logically speaking, there is no way you guys should have lost to Burnley, who had 19% possession. A team with 19% possession would not be expected to get a point, let alone a win, but they did.

 

You obviously didn't read the OP of that thread where it's all explained.

 

No they're not. Did you read the OP on the thread?

 

Nope, couldn't be bothered to read RAWK. What was the logic?

 

Very long winded but yes he was right it's sad...

Doesn't really matter who you've played so far in the season the league table doesn't lie and there's no such thing as playing no marks etc...

Burnley beat you 2-0 you will probably stuff them at home but they are still capable of beating you?

Each and every game should be treated individually all these guess tables/charts and Astro graphs are just sad ****e with twisted figures etc to suit the persons agenda?

Take a look at the proper league table it's all there for you...... That's why Rawk and Astro don't do the official table as they are full of **** ffs

 

I just cannot believe that people will do all sorts of things to put a rosier glow on things when it is simpler and more straightforward to just look at the league table.

 

Obviously and no ones saying religiously that it means this will diff hsppen. All stats are done on assumptions... can never predict with 100% accuracy but we use things that are more likely to happen and to do that you take previous info and use that as a base point.

Its like saying prob won't get 3 points v Leicester as they won the league, but this year been poor so you look at results this year and use that to get your average etc.

Its just spmething to disfuss and shows how teams do against similar opponents.

 

Yes, they are, like Astro, arbitrarily deciding what opponent is worth what amount of points depending on their perceived "rank" of said team

 

By the look on it you'll be hours knocking the common sense door on this board mate lol

 

But you don't mind criticising it without reading it?

I've never seen it as I don't look at rawk but I followed the link and read the OP and it's just an interesting idea -

For those of you who are new to the APLT, or those who need a reminder of the model, the APLT makes an assumption that in order to win the league title, a team needs to win 90 points for the season. This can be achieved by winning all home matches, the seven ‘easiest’ away matches (the three promoted teams and the 14th-17th ranked teams from the previous season) and draw the 12 remaining away matches. I refer to these as the ‘par results’. As in golf, par will be achieved more often than not, but sometimes points are dropped or gained in relation to par.

 

Completely wrong.

 

If people actually do and follow that it is really sad I'm sorry...

That's astroesque

 

Would
you not agree that having 9 points after 3 games against city Arsenal and Spurs is better than 9 points against Sunderland Swansea and hull? Table says both teams have 9 points from last 3 fixtures but we all know that it's easier to pick up 9 points in later fixtures than former.


Its it's not meant to be anything more than a look at how teams do against others.

Like i said, some people are very analytical and love looking at things like that and making predictions. Yes football isn't a straight forward formula, but it'll more often give you a better indiciayion using stats than gut feeling. Hence why the bookies make more money than average punter.

 

That's not what they are doing either

 

Assessing Football performances like Golf? Par and under Par.

One of the weirdest and saddest things I've come across. A golf course has got holes of fixed and defined degrees of difficulty (par 3 to par 5). How the **** can we assess how easy or difficult Watford Burnley or Leicester is going to be this season? Leicester better than Watford = 100% wrong. The mancs better than Everton or vice versa?

Talk about making a simple game more complicated...

 

No, that's exactly what they are doing, maybe YOU should read the OP.
They are deciding how many points an opponent is worth to others based on "Par". Whereby they calculate the accumulated total number of points that the defeated teams of Liverpool have gotten and their current league ranking, to determine where in their "League" that teams rightful place is.
It's a convoluted mess.
It does not take form into account at all.
Or injuries and suspensions.
Or just the randomness of football in general.

 

At least the RAWK table is based on actual teams and results

IMO the saddest thing in football is taking a team game, picking who you consider to be the best players, putting them into an imaginary team and then deciding how many points they deserve on a week by week basis to check how you imagine your imaginary team would do compared with other people's imaginary teams

 

It's clear nobody bothered to read the OP on that thread which to sum it up is basically looking to see who's on target and staying on target to getting the 90 points needed to win the league [90 points decided as posted above]. I find that a bit of fun if others don't fair enough but calling it 'sad' is ... well .... sad