See journo's name!... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ue-averages-lowest-goals-game-ratio-time.html I have to say there's been an extraordinary amount of nil-nils and one-nils so far. What do we think, general standard of strikers in the league dropped, or better defences and organised teams, or a bit of both, or just a one-off freak stat?
It's because the PL is getting weaker <run> It could easily just be an anomoly this early in the season. As the table shows we're only a tenth of the way through the season so it'd make more sense for them to compare the number of goals in the early games to the final average of previous seasons for some perspective on how good of an indicator the much smaller data set is.
Probably early days yet for this season ( < 10% of the fixtures played) . However the last 3 seasons are the ones with the highest averages, and the past 4 seasons are 4 of the highest 5. Given the fight for the top 4 over the past 4 seasons etc perhaps tis a measure of the goals that have to be scored to finish high up the table.
A quick look at the PL tables GD suggest the top 4 nowadays are not caning the rest of the league as much. And with an increase in the total goals in recent times that suggests the other clubs are scoring more now than in the past.
A point I've already raised with our two pens etc and a hope we beat Cardiff by more than one goal. Feet finding I think.
Did you know that if you take a ruler you can line up all the telephone boxes in England. Stats! Did you know that I have used 12.5% less shoe laces than my father. Would it not be more surprising if the PL produced the same number of goals at the start of every season.
Indeed. Lots of the goals will typically come from the top clubs and most have issues early doors: Utd - New manager City - New manager, half a new team Chelsea - New manager, half a new team Arsenal - Not really in transition and scoring at an ok rate (2 per game just in the 'for' column) Spurs - whole new attacking team, lost key player Everton - New manager, lost a key player Liverpool - Missing "best" player
Here's my take on the numbers: Season End '94 and '95: exactly the same amount of goals scored. '95 was an identical season to '94. How boring must that have been? Just like BBC repeats on Dave. Goals scored in '02 were one higher than '03. The quality of the football in '03 was less than '02, possibly because the average temperature was higher that season. Numbers. Numbers in a list. Averages. And bollocks.
United complete the nasty start to the season they've been moaning about with Liverpool after the Manc derby, they then get 5 'easier games'...the games they're normally gifted from week1! I think myself its a one off situation with the unusual amount of big changes at the top clubs this season, only Arsenal have a familiar team with any continuity from last season.
I've been very disappointed by the quality of the Prem this season. NBC, for example, have made an enormous investment in our game, but they'll find selling this product to the Americans very difficult. In fact it won't happen with this level of boredom. Swansea v Pool was a massive step in the right direction, but when so-called 'footballing teams' like Swansea forget all the their principles and play like dull frightened defensive robots as they have on both their Lane visits, it's bad for the game. West Ham under Allardyce are a horrible team to watch, and they along with many other clubs are going a long way towards killing the golden goose before it lays many more humongous eggs. We've played four teams so far in the Prem, only one have come out to give us a proper game, it's not good for the game, though while we keep getting the points I'll be happy, but the ratings won't be. And our games are amongst the best to watch, primarily because of us of course. Being in the Prem is now worth so much, teams are doing their damnedest to stay in it, but unfortunately this too often means strangling the life out of the game. The next round of TV contracts may not be so be money-laden if things continue in this fashion. Still maybe the game needs a bit less money and a bit more passion, though of course we'll be missing some foreign 'superstars' if the cash isn't there.
Inda, the "Quality of football" is an opinion and something abstract which cannot be measured so I don't really understand your point there.
I was. With the resources the Daily Fail have, they should use an expert in statistics. I only have a limited knowledge, and I know that my limited knowledge is dangerous - I'd look an idiot to someone who knows there stuff - so I won't post things about statistic anomalies, margins of errors, graphs with standard deviations, etc. The Daily Fail should know better. I see it all over the internet. Big lists of big numbers with no real meaning behind them. Conclusions drawn from tiny pieces information. Assumptions about chance. It does my head in.
"I see it all over the internet. Big lists of big numbers with no real meaning behind them. Conclusions drawn from tiny pieces information. Assumptions about chance. It does my head in." That is the skill in statistics. To provide INFORMATION from the numbers. I worked on a data analytics system where reams of metrics were gathered, and then correlated with umpteen other variables. Most of the metrics provided little "actionable" information to the end user. And even more so when the correlations were done.
Statistics falls nicely in line with the pathetic human need for a belief. Another 2000 years of bullshit.
I don't think an average of less than 2 goals per game over 1/10th of a season is gonna spawn anything that lasts 2000yrs
It's not very scientific when the sample is 4 out of 38 sets of fixtures, is it? It's not really worthy of comment.
