No that's fair I agree with that to a large extent. Like I say some players may not care as they'll either move on or still get paid at that club. Personally after seeing the team post Liverpool win and the celebrations it seems odd that we now have the situation we had against Burnley. To me that must be pressure/nerves and for whatever reason they had them. Most likely, and I know its a stretch, but its the idea that these players will have to leave and move on again as I've interviewed players before and talked at length with the 'secret footballer'. Footballers hate moving clubs unless the situation is ****, especially those who are later in their career with families. I know the money they get will make this 'hell' easier but to me it seems plausible enough
Fair points made...but still not on a par with "normal" workers. It also grates me when commentators/managers say "he's put in a shift". Thanks for a good debate though. It is possible to have debate without mud slinging.
There are 'normal workers' at Hull City who are worried their employer could go bust, cut jobs, put them on short-time and so on if the club are relegated. I remember when our bogey team was Lincoln. Now Liverpool could say Hull City are their bogey team. It's all relative.
There are three sides that have a 100% win record versus City in the Premier League - Manchester United, Burnley and Southampton.
Interesting article http://www.bettingexpert.com/blog/bogey-sides Premier League Betting: Do "Bogey Teams" Really Exist? Published: 10th February 2015 - Updated: 12th February 2015 Do certain Premier League clubs enjoy a perpetual edge over a rival? Do bookmakers take so called "bogey sides" into account when framing their football betting odds? Today Premier League betting analyst Mark Taylor takes a look at the data to determine if bogey teams really do exist in England's top flight. One of the most persistent ideas in Premier League betting and football betting in general, is the existence of so called "bogey sides". Teams which appear to be able to regularly beat or avoid defeat against a particular opponent over a prolonged period of matches. Head to head records are readily available at such football betting sites as bettingexpert Clash or Soccerbase and it is easy to search such databases to quickly find a team which holds an excellent recent record against another. Match commentators often include reference to such head to head records and it is not uncommon to hear that Team A has failed to beat Team B since 1999, suggesting that a win for the former would be considered a major upset. And this of course has implications for football betting on the game outcome. Assessing The Data In trying to examine whether results in the past, often from the distant past and involving entirely different sets of players, might have an undue influence on a game taking place now, we need to examine historical football betting data. One major concern when presenting apparently compelling evidence for a theory is the danger of cherry picking the data. Selective cut-off points can typically make results appear more unusual than it really is. If a side is quoted as being unbeaten in the previous five games against today’s opposition, it is almost certain that they lost their encounter prior to the start of the quoted five game sequence. The sample is a biased one. A selective run of games, where an entirely natural clumping of wins, draws or losses has occurred has been chosen at a particular starting point within a larger sequence to create an impression that is not representative of the larger sample. And therefore, it may not be representative of what will occur in the immediate future. Similarly, by quoting successful runs in terms of years rather that games, again with a selective beginning, can inflate a claim. A team may be unbeaten against an opponent for twenty years, but many of those seasons may have seen the teams separated by being in different divisions. The twenty year period may only encompass a handful of matches. Sequences may be chosen that are venue specific, including perhaps only home fixtures or they may omit or include cup competitions. Generally, the more conditions that is included to justify the trend, then the more likely that the data has become selective and tainted by bias. Lastly, even if we attempt the reduce sampling bias, perhaps by demanding extended sequences devoid of limiting conditions, we may still simply be seeing randomly occurring sequences that are entirely consistent with the underlying match odds. Examining Head To Head Streaks It is unsurprising that the teams with the most impressive, unbeaten runs are the top Premier League teams, especially when they take on inferior opponents. For example, between 2002 and 2013, Manchester United has recorded at least one run of 10 unbeaten Premier League games against nine different teams, as have Chelsea. Only five other sides outside of the Premier League’s Big Five have recorded a sequence of 10 consecutive unbeaten games against a single opponent over the same period. One such team is Blackburn, who ran up a 10 match unbeaten Premier League Premier League sequence against Manchester City from 2003 to 2008. City’s continued inability to defeat as side of similar quality in Rovers outside of the FA Cup does appear unlikely. However, between 2002 and 2013 there were 1,125 sequences of ten matches played between Premier League teams and although a single run of 10 unbeaten games may be unlikely for a particular team, it is much more likely that such a run will occur somewhere within those 1,125 trials. It just happened to be Blackburn’s apparent domination of Manchester City over a period when both teams had an average finishing position in the Premier League of 12th. Bogey Sides And Randomness So runs that give rise to the perceived existence of bogey teams, may also be another example of entirely natural clumping of results occurring in a random manner, especially if we look at a sufficiently large dataset. These are then mistaken for a predictive pattern that will influence future outcomes. The human brain has great difficulty in recognising what is and what isn’t a random pattern, particularly when random events include prolonged streaks of similar outcomes and in big enough datasets, these runs will occur. So at the moment the evidence supporting bogey teams only occurs after the fact. If we want to cast doubt on randomness being the more likely cause, we need to test the apparent invincibility of the bogey team in new, “out of sample” data. From 2002-03 to 2012-13, 117 sequences of 10 unbeaten games against the same opponent were recorded by ten different Premier League teams, mostly the Big Five. Their average success rate over the ten game period was 0.85. So, on average, the sides won about seven of the ten games and drew the remaining three matches. Record Of Sides In Their Next Meeting When Undefeated Against The Same Opponent In 10 EPL Games. Wins : Expected Wins Draws : Expected Draws Teams Undefeated In Last 10 H2H Matches 64 : 67 32 : 29 In the next game following these impressive unbeaten runs, against the same opponents, the group of bogey teams won an average of just over half of the 117 matches and drew a quarter. Their combined success rate in the 117 games fell from 0.85 when they were considered to be bogey teams for their opponents to 0.68 when this assertion was tested in their next encounter in an out of sample dataset. In addition, the implied probabilities posted about these bogey sides in their next encounter with their victims were in no way unusual. The out of sample games were split almost exactly by home and away matches and 67 wins by the bogey teams were expected from the implied probabilities and 64 were achieved. Conclusion: Do Bogey Sides Exist? Therefore, there is virtually no evidence for the existence of bogey teams. The odds posted about a bogey team appear to be derived from a broader view of the participants, rather than their one sided head to head record, otherwise the odds would be much, much shorter. The odds posted very closely reflect the reality of the combined results of the bogey teams in subsequent, out of sample contests against sides which they regularly defeat or draw against. So siding with a bogey team is a long-term, losing strategy.
More important currently is that we are in a bogey month. We have not won a match in May since 2008 and this must be overcome to possibly see us safe.
I agree mate, I mainly read as well. Even though I don't attend many matches (I watch on live stream) , I still enjoy reading about the reports of the games by the guys on here. I like the off-topic threads (OLM with old piccies or anything associated with Hull and surrounding area).
Perhaps a little bit more running and some harder tackling might have stopped Burnley being our bogey team,
