Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
...the team going second always
playing catch up. How to solve it?
copy the tennis tie break formula.
playing catch up. How to solve it?
copy the tennis tie break formula.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 35
|
By:
No bet.
|
|
By:
Good grief, kenilworth...
If the first penalty is missed, are they still playing catch up ? You do post a fair amount of tripe. |
|
By:
The side going first win 58% of shootouts,
are always favourite to do so, please can you tell me why that happens? |
|
By:
from 2013 ladies tennis tour
when a top player is on the court, the first server wins about 56.3% of the time. 24 of the 35 players in this sample have better winning percentages when serving first than when serving second. |
|
By:
You both need to quantify the statements.
Donny the survey you are quoting doesn't really seem to have enough statistical data to say it is always the case as it only looks at 35 players from one year. Ken things can also change over time, if you look at test cricket the side batting first used to have a real advantage, but since the 70's this has not really been the case. If you take all the data from the sport in one go then it will still show a skewed percentage to batting first being beneficial, although for the last 30 odd years this has not been the case. Also it's all very well stating a figure but that in itself doesn't show any other impacting factors, for e.g. if the higher rated team (with better players) took the first penalty on 58% of occasions, wouldn't this automatically give a very good reason for why the figure is what it is. Same with the tennis example if the top player took the first serve 56% of the time then that's probably the reason. |
|
By:
It's a fact that the side taking the
first penalty win 58% in soccer, tennis cricket etc, I have no opinion other than the fact that in those sports, especially cricket you are almost never |
|
By:
...continued...
comparing like with like. Regards tennis, that is the fairest as both players take turn about every 2 points after the first, a method footie should copy. Regards maggot, I ignore him as he/she just dis- agrees with anything I say. |
|
By:
Eh ???
If that ridiculous statement is true, then you must only post once every 2 months, as I am hardly ever on here.... I repeat... A lot of tripe. |
|
By:
maggot, I really don't mind, just remember
to spell my name right and don't forget the abuse. |
|
By:
Well it's not really a fact if you don't quantify it. Last season in my local football league cup there were 6 penalty shootouts, 5 were won by the team kicking second so your statement doesn't fit. Are you talking professional football? last season? last 20 years? last 100years? Europe? World? England? It just doesn't make any sense unless you do this. I actually 'Googled' penatly shoot out stats and several surveys are noted all with different percentages, the difference is they all quantify their findings within certain parameters.
And then you are not looking at other factors, two off the top of my head are; is the side taking the first penalty the strongest team more than 50% of the time?, or does the goal the referee chooses impact in any way? Two things: 1: the team going second always playing catch up. How to solve it? - not true, if the team going first misses then they are not playing catch up so does this need to be solved? 2: The side going first win 58% of shootouts, are always favourite to do so - not true, in a match where there are two teams of vastly unequal strength, the strongest team will be the favourite. Also even if we agree on the 58% as a "fact" as already mentioned you are failing to take account of other factors that may influence the market one way or other. |
|
By:
thewrongtrousers
yeah, i'd love to see data extended, but suggests there is an advantage in going first football over two legs gives advantage to team at home in second leg, i think about 55% success, iirc...... often this will go to pelanties....does home advantage overcome advantage of kicking first in shoot out ? .... more stats required to answer ! is it pressure or a real advantage, that could not be overcome by strong minded sportsmen ? |
|
By:
playing golf you learn to expect your opponent to hole his putts, so if you putt after him
you do not suddenly find a putt for a win becoming a putt for a draw and prepare yourself to deal with pressure im not sure uk footballers have any coaching to deal with pressure in shootouts, the world would be a different place if england and germany swapped pelanty shootout records its a bit of a joke if they miss and hey ho the germans always beat us on pelanties anyway, does england going first or second against the germans make any difference as we are shirley beat before we start |
|
By:
The wrongtrousers, are you suggesting your one
example cancel everything that has been documented over a maybe 20 years? I think I will leave it at that. GL. |
|
By:
have them taken at both ends of the pitch simultaneously, good for fans at both ends as well
 |
|
By:
No I am not suggesting that at all, did you read further than the first sentence or are you misunderstanding my point. What I am suggesting is that you quantify your statement about the 58%, as in where did this figure come from? You have not said anywhere what it refers to, is it all penatly shoot outs ever in the history of football in every country and in all forms of the game.
If you don't quantify your blanket statement with documentation / evidence then it isn't a fact. You can't just say 'everything that has been documented over a maybe 20 years'. Is it 20years or not? That is what I did with my example. As I stated earlier there are several studies into why the team that takes the first penalty wins more often and they all have different results because they all use different data from different matches. Also you need to work on the premises to your argument because as I pointed out above both are untrue. If both of your premises are untrue then your conclusion at best will be unreliable, and that is a mathmatical FACT. I am not disagreeing with you that the first team wins the most times, but you don't seem to be answering either mine or other peoples points that are offering explantions as to why this may happen. You asked for explanations but have not replied to any given. |
|
By:
time for a naked group hug methinks
|
|
By:
Teams A and B
Should be taken A B B A A B etc as in tennis etc. |
|
By:
The figures I am quoting from, were from an
article on this subject by a professional sports statistician of considerable acclaim. If you chose to doubt his work that is up to you. Please yourself. GL. |
|
By:
Ken
I really do think that thewrongtrousers has made a valid point. Ignoring him is bad form. Just quote your source then everyone can make their own mind up. |
|
By:
In normal play in a study by Palacios-Huerta a greater proportion of penalties were scored by the team trailing, than the team leading.
|
|
By:
The success rate of each penalty kick changes throughout the competition:
First kick 86.6% Second kick 81.7% Third kick 79.3% Fourth kick 72.5% Fifth kick 80% ‘Sudden death’ kicks 64.3% more stats  |
|
By:
Donny
Yes agree it would be interesting to see which way the data would go if the survey was extended. 56% or thereabouts over 35 players is really not that much it could easily be thought that this was a minor blip and that additional evidence would just see a reversal in the trend. I vaguely remember reading about the tennis study but can't remeber what conclusion they drew from it. Was it just when a top player was playing any player or just another top player? and if so how many times did the higher ranked player serve first compared to the lower ranked player? |
|
By:
i dont really know, but read it as a top player, so not always 2 top players
theres more stuff on this guys blog http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2013/10/24/is-there-an-advantage-to-serving-first/ some great stuff on a quiet day ! |
|
By:
article on this subject by a professional sports statistician
I don't doubt the findings, why would I? All I am asking is what data sample they used and giving you reasons to explain why the conclusion is skewed one way or another. There may be more reasons apparant depending on what the data sample is. You asked the question initially and I'm confused as to why you would ask for an explanation and then when one (or more) are given, ignore them? |
|
By:
Thanks donny, looks good will have a read later.
|
|
By:
Settle it with a game of chess, captain v captain, in the centre circle.
|
|
By:
The perfect example last evening
. Peterboro (3rd level) v WBA (Premier) Shoot out WBA to go first. WBA always in front Posh always chasing, never led, despite scoring twice in front of ther own fans. WBA price 1.78. |
|
By:
wba have some good strikers of a ball, they would be a decent bet against most teams in a pelanty shoot out
but it does illustrate your point very well |
|
By:
team with most shots on target during game goes first maybe ?
no better still, they win the game . Done and dusted ,home and hosed. enough of all this contrived nonsense no penalties - theyre stupid. same as the play offs - theyre stupid most things in life are pretty stupid actually ,but then it's because someone or some group benefits as a result |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
I agree that the tennis tie-breaker style would be fairer, I've started threads on here before about the bias towards the team going first
it is strange how it works, the bias is purely down to the pressure of playing catch-up |
|
By:
the bloob, at last someone who
agrees with me. Thank you. |
|
By:
deuce
|
|
By:
the stats don't lie, 58% vs. 42%
|
|
By:
I'm with Kenilworth on this one - it's obviously an advantage to go first, and those stats are pretty much what I'd have expected - the tennis formula would seem a very good way to redress this a bit - good thinking!
|