What do you all think? Do good and bad decisions get shared out equally over a season. Looking at QPR and Bolton yesterday, Clint Hill had a perfectly good goal ignored for QPR earlier in the season and then yesterday Bolton had a goal allowed when their keeper was clearly fouled by Walters. We have had our share of bad decisions over penalties etc but did that balance out with some equally lucky breaks?
More or less. But to an extent, there's probably a relationship between 'lucky' decisions and the bigger clubs.
Yes. At least to the extent where you can't blame bad luck for being relegated. Bolton went down by a point, if they had played better in any of the games they lost, they could have had several more points. That's much more important than bad luck.
No. There is no such thing as luck, in my opinion. There are mistakes, human errors, good and bad timing and interpretations, call them what you want - call them luck, if you like. This luck certainly doesn't even it self out. A defining incorrect decision may condemn one team to relegation, while another manages to stay afloat, or another to be promoted while one does not. Now can I think of an example..? Actually, I can think of loads, and the latest one appeared in the Stoke v Bolton match where Stoke's first goal was certainly a foul. Their penalty was very iffy too, but we'll allow that one. This means that Bolton would have won 2-1 and QPR would have been relegated. Should a team have an entire season hinged on your so-called luck..? Or is that merely evening the luck out..?
I remember seeing a study somewhere on the 2010/11 season which said that if all the important decisions had been correct (i.e. penalties, off-sides etc), Man Utd would have had 9 points less than they actually had. There is no doubt that certain teams and certain players appear to be favoured. I'm not really blaming the refs, when you have a huge crowd, 11 players and Sir Alex on your back it must be hard to think straight.
The big teams always get 'more luck' (i.e more penalties etc) because they do more attacking. In reality each team probably gets a similar percentage of decisions for and against them, it's just that the more attacking (better) teams are getting that percentage out of a higher number of possible decisions.
