Turn on thread page Beta

The Arsenal Society VI watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    Surprising to hear Wenger is considering taking any risk at all...let alone maybe a 60/40 one. I know it's a massive game but it's only one game. I don't see the point in starting Cesc against Porto if he's not completely 100% fit. Nasri is fine to take his place. I'd leave Cesc on the bench, though.

    And I reckon Gallas is fine. Wenger is just trying to stop the "Why is Gallas dropped?" media stories.
    Or Gallas might still be fragile... hence why Silvestre was played at centerback this weekend.

    PLEASE, please don't tell me you think Gallas is poorer than Silvestre...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    That's the bit that got me. I do agree with the whole not staying 90 minutes bit though. It ******* winds me up when I see people leaving early or when season ticket holders can't be bothered to turn up.
    not a massive surprise sometimes. For some people, they could be travelling long-distances home (insert joke about United fans here :rolleyes: ) and want and need a quick get-away from the stadium, without getting in horrendous traffic outside the ground. Few times outside Old Trafford, from personal experience, and the traffic on some roads close to the ground is just ****ing horrible. I also lack patience and get road rage tbh :o: :mad: Depends upon the context of the game really and what you could miss out on if leaving early. Feel sorry for any United fans in 1999 tbh, against Munich. Must've hurt. I wouldn't be so quick to judge people who leave games a little early, although some people leave games more than a 'little' early and it makes you think, "why pay all that money to see the game when you're only seeing 3/4 of it?"

    crazy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    PLEASE, please don't tell me you think Gallas is poorer than Silvestre...
    He implied that he doesn't pretty strongly here:

    (Original post by Economist)
    There is no way Wenger would play Silvestre over Gallas
    (Original post by Overmars)
    :unsure:

    Obviously.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    Or Gallas might still be fragile... hence why Silvestre was played at centerback this weekend.

    PLEASE, please don't tell me you think Gallas is poorer than Silvestre...
    Of course Gallas is considerably better than Silvestre. My point is that it wasn't really a risk to play Silvestre because we were never not going to win against Burnley. That probably sounds arrogant but we usually breeze past our home bankers these days. If Wenger had played Gallas then he can't not play him against Porto because that'll puzzle a lot of people and bring unwanted attention to it.

    Or maybe Gallas is actually injured...

    But I just think there might be more than we're led to believe. It just sounds quite convenient that Gallas just happens to be out for so long when he was first predicted to be back for the Sunderland game, and at the same time, Sol has surprised a lot of people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you for the construction, Panth, I hadn't read that page and panicked... but I was disturbed to see what seemed to be a suggestion (just below that quote from Overmars) in his post, whereby Wenger was not playing Gallas to hide his fit and readiness for the upcoming Porto clash, just so he could deploy Campbell.

    I was one of the few in here who supported the signing of Sol as a positive move, but I am not so mad as to think that his strong performances might wane and he will struggle against pace... something which Porto do not lack, especially for counterattacks. We could get raped to oblivion by blindly playing Sol. He should be reserved for games against teams like Hull, Wigan and other hoof mess.

    I would support Vermaelen or Gallas going out left, but Clichy is capable of handling the games coming up... I support the continuing first team role for Clichy. He is good enough, and he will show you all... if he hasn't already, that you were wrong to write him off.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Panthalic)
    Not being funny here, but are you suggesting that "proper football fans" are the ones who are too busy to go to games? Seriously?
    I don't mean it strictly :p:

    Obviously a fan who is highly passionate about his club is going to support them any way he can. (Or indeed she as the case may be!)

    I mean the people who use it as an excuse to make a drunken nuisance of themselves or those who do indeed choose to turn up purely 'because it's Arsenal'.

    I am striving to eventually visit the Emirates, but I just don't have the time. And I'm fed up of people saying to me that just because they've seen them once or twice that somehow makes them a 'better' fan than me. As well as those who say to me 'Oh you've been to see Exeter City loads, why don't you support them instead?'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    It just sounds quite convenient that Gallas just happens to be out for so long when he was first predicted to be back for the Sunderland game
    Arsenal player in Out For Longer Than Expected shocker!?! Bloody hell mate, if you can base conspiracy theories on that then I'm pretty sure I can convince you that the world is flat.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Panthalic)
    Arsenal player in Out For Longer Than Expected shocker!?! Bloody hell mate, if you can base conspiracy theories on that then I'm pretty sure I can convince you that the world is flat.
    Fair point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Panthalic)
    They probably looked at you like that since no result in the second leg will ever lead to a 2-1 loss being better than a 0-0 draw. It's not about trying to score points or anything like that, it's just that mathematically, 0-0 is better than 1-2. Of course, a high scoring draw is better than a shutout and 1-2 is better than 0-1, but to say 1-2 is better than 0-0 is just... wrong.
    To me, that is insane.

    Psychologically I truly believe the importance of the away goal in the second leg context is radically underestimated and even overrides raw first leg mathematics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hubert Poo)
    To me, that is insane.

    Psychologically I truly believe the importance of the away goal in the second leg context is radically underestimated and even overrides raw first leg mathematics.
    How? Because it shows that you can score against them away so you should be to at home? Flip it around and it shows that you can keep a clean sheet away and so should be able to at home.

    Away goals are important yes, and they are generally better than home goals, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the winner in football is the one who scores the most goals at the end of it. Losing simply cannot be a better result than drawing, and I can't see how having a bigger hurdle to overcome is a psychological boost.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Porto will be a walkover, despite the frothing hope of tha tabloids to see the nasty anti-Englanders crash out... and I'm not talking about the Portuguese... unless it's Ronaldo, who apparently winked once, which is worse than stamping on someone's ****.

    One day I will find Rupert Murdoch, freeze him cryogenically and smash him to pieces with a hammer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hubert Poo)
    To me, that is insane.

    Psychologically I truly believe the importance of the away goal in the second leg context is radically underestimated and even overrides raw first leg mathematics.
    Why you say that? Interesting point tbh..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    unless it's Ronaldo, who apparently winked once, which is worse than stamping on someone's ****.
    :rofl:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    Porto will be a walkover, despite the frothing hope of tha tabloids to see the nasty anti-Englanders crash out... and I'm not talking about the Portuguese... unless it's Ronaldo, who apparently winked once, which is worse than stamping on someone's ****.

    One day I will find Rupert Murdoch, freeze him cryogenically and smash him to pieces with a hammer.
    lol, so true. Ronaldo took all the **** from the media and fans nationwide whilst Rooney got off scot-free. Rooney could quite easily have made his victim incapable of successfully sperming a female partner.

    hoof mess? ****ing rofl, where do you get this stuff from? It's an inspirational use of the English language.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overmars)
    It's a stupid term and one I really shouldn't have bothered using. It was supposed to be a fairly non-serious post but since everyone's crying over it let me explain:

    For some people, to be considered a top player or 'world class' player or whatever you want to call it, you have to be in the top x amount of players in the world or the top x number of players in your position.

    For me, it's not like that. It's about a level you reach. And I have this predetermined level from watching players over the years.

    Rosicky is useless if he's injured -- you're right. Also, you can have all the talent in the world and still be useless if you don't work hard enough. So in that sense, my view of what is a 'top player' or 'world class player' is useless too. But every time Rosicky's on the pitch, you know you're getting a top performance from him. And, for those taking notice, he'll be one of our best 3 performers in every game. If we're widely regarded as a top 8 club in Europe (and we are comfortably ranked there on CL seed-rankings), even by others' definitions, being a top performer for us has to pull you quite close to that tag.
    Fair point. I do wonder how players too good for their team, but stay because of loyalty, fare in this definition. I'm thinking of Roma with Totti, although it doesn't help with Roma's strength fluctuating over the years. I'm not totally convinced that Cech should be considered world class so may be I have a subjective definition that is more strict than others?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I'm not totally convinced that Cech should be considered world class so may be I have a subjective definition that is more strict than others?
    It's a BS term. Actually, it's not a BS term but people attach way too much importance to it. To me, it's no different from saying he's a "top player" or "great player". But no-one kicks up a fuss if you say a player is "great"...not sure why this is so different.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Panthalic)
    How? Because it shows that you can score against them away so you should be to at home? Flip it around and it shows that you can keep a clean sheet away and so should be able to at home.

    Away goals are important yes, and they are generally better than home goals, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the winner in football is the one who scores the most goals at the end of it. Losing simply cannot be a better result than drawing, and I can't see how having a bigger hurdle to overcome is a psychological boost.
    The key is not in terms of what "boost" it provides, but in something any bloke studying military tactics at Sandhurst will immediately recognise as initiative. Whether we like it or not, this does apply in football as the aims are the same; two opposing forces attempt to defeat the other with strategic and tactical mechanisms.

    Initiative isn't some abstract term - it's very concrete. It's about ensuring you have control of the strategic direction both sides are taking; if you are able to do that, you are much more likely to succeed in correctly predicting both attempt and outcome, not to mention tailor your own actions accordingly, and reduce the probability that surprise will be something you face as opposed to something you enact. Psychologically it's a defunct reasoning in actuality. It's ******* psychosomatic it's that real.

    The away goal has a practical and very real effect. We all know that. But you have to look at it in strategic and not tactical terms. These matches are won over two legs, not one. To inefficiently gauge your tactical output in the first leg in favour of strategic output in the second is to make a fundamental error of engagement. Again, in military *** chess terms, you have no particular desire to sacrifice the pawns of your forward rank, but if you have to, you make a strategic decision that the loss of a pawn outweighs either loss of initiative, counter strike ability, or even a more important piece.

    To suggest, in theoretical terms, that 0-0 is a superior away result in the first leg is to advise nothing more exotic than that - if you are to concede anything, let it be something that allows you to maintain or regain initiative. It is efficient strategy. If you go whacking your Bishop's jizz all over the place in the opening gambit you rightly will have completely misjudged what it's all about, and get badly beaten for it by a more efficient and more strategic opponent. It is about the value of time, of patience, and of knowing how to use it to gain control over them as much as of yourself.

    How does 2-1 do that in favour of 0-0? Again, it's really quite simple. The scorelines are deceptive when the away goal is factored in, and the psychology of it underpins how initiative works in this context. A win is not always a win. A loss is not always a loss. Even a draw can be deceptive. The initiative is given up not in the amount but the worth of the goals as analysed individually.

    In an away first scenario, I would advocate a 0-0 as inferior to a 2-1 defeat on account of the fact, very simply, that you are automatically conceding the initiative not in the first leg, but in the second. You have no possibility of gaining an away goal, whereas they still do, and the psychology of that pressure should not be underestimated when looking at the importance of initiative. You must feel in strategic control - tactical control is unimportant relatively speaking. To have lost 2-1, you are behind. So much is quite true. And yet you hold the initiative going into the second leg - the goal differential is but one, you have home advantage, and they have not yet scored an away goal, and indeed may not. When you stretch the differentials and make it a 3-1 away loss or a 2-0 loss things look decidedly more negative, but a one goal differential allows easy retention of strategic initiative. With 0-0, it may appear as if the tie is ultimately even, that it is virginal. It isn't. It is again deceptive. A home score draw sees you exit the competition, and that reduces the window of opportunity to defeat them. This in turn reduces your manipulative control over the strategic and tactical psychology, and finally in turn the actual environment upon which it all in combination fundamentally acts, whether for aye or nay.

    Initiative my dear boy. Initiative!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Posted a very small part of this in the CL thread, but I think it warrants more discussion.

    Going from 1984-1985 to last season in the Champions League, I determined the percentage of the time each team went through in a knockout stage based on the result of the first leg.

    The first column is score, second is the percentage of the time that the team playing the first leg at home wins the tie, thrid column is the number of times that happened. BTW if any matches were forfeited, I excluded them. I also excluded any matches where either team scored more than 3 in the first leg. There weren't that many of these, and the overwhelming majority were matches where one team just killed the other team and the loser scored no goals. I also have included all observations where teams were seeded by performance in group stage and so the better teams were playing away in the first leg. This isn't all that many observations, but there is the problem that the away teams in the first leg will be better on average. For the statistically inclined, the standard errors are about 5%, so a lot of things are significantly different from .5.

    score HW% n
    0-0 33.33 78
    1-0 55.56 81
    2-0 89.83 59
    3-0 88 50
    0-1 10.71 56
    0-2 3.13 32
    0-3 0 14
    1-1 38.46 65
    1-2 11.11 27
    1-3 0 13
    2-1 53.7 54
    2-2 12.5 24
    2-3 0 11
    3-1 78.79 33
    3-2 35.29 17
    3-3 11.11 9

    Overall there were 623 matches and the team playing first at home won just over 43% of them (268 times the home team went through versus 355 for the visitors). I'm sure if we removed the seeding issue, it would still be about the same - maybe 44 or 45%.

    It's a small sample for them, but the most surprising thing is that when the first leg was a nil-nil draw, the home team went on to win a third. When it was a 1-1 draw, the home team actually did better winning 38.46%. These aren't statistically different, but it's surprising because I expected the home team in the 0-0 case to do better due to having not conceded the away goal. My thinking here is that maybe the 0-0 draw at home will often come when the away team is much better than the home team. It's much more likely that the teams are about evenly matches when each team scores a goal. If you are not as good as your opponent it is easier to get a goalless draw than any other sort. 2-2 and 3-3 however, are much worse than either as the home team has only won three times out of 24 for 2-2 and one time out of 9 for 3-3.

    Overall you have to keep in mind that while the scores in the first leg are somewhat random in that there is going to be variance in outcomes when two teams play each other, the same factors that affect the outcome are present in the second leg. Basically what I'm trying to say is that if team A wins the first leg, that indicates that they are likely better than B so it shouldn't be surprising if they win the tie. This is similar to the observation that when running back X gets over 100 yards, his team usually wins the game. In reality, him gaining that yardage is mainly due to the team winning than the other way around. To get the true advantage of just being in a situation we would need to have UEFA just randomly state the scores for the first leg and not actually play the games.

    Similarly, if the home team has won the first leg 1-0 then they won over 55% of the time (45/81). It dropped less than 2 percent for a 2-1 win (29/54). A 3-2 win happened 17 times and the home team only won 6 of them. So historically a 1-0 win isn't much better than a 2-1 win, but both are much better than a 3-2 win. Again, I think it's a lot more a signal of team quality. A team that wins 3-2 likely has problems at the back. Given that teams tend to be less potent away, their attack isn't likely to make up for it when they play the second leg.

    Since I didn't go up to 4 goals (there wouldn't be much of a sample here anyway), I only have 2 2 goal difference scores. Teams that win 2-0 went through just under 90% of the time (53/59), those that won 3-1 went through less often, just under 79% of the time (26/33). This makes sense given the away goal advantage. With this sample size they aren't quite significantly different, but I think they very likely are.

    Home teams are in deep [censored] if they lose. For one goal losses, teams losing 0-1 went through just 6 times out of 56 (10.71%), teams losing 1-2 went through 3 times out of 27 (11.11%), teams losing 2-3 lost the tie all 11 times it happned. Teams losing by 2 were obviously in even worse shape. Only one team of 32 went through after losing 0-2 while none of the 13 teams that lost 1-3 went through. The 14 times a team lost 0-3 they didn't advance.

    Ignoring the actual score (though excluding the few matches, most all of which were blowouts, where a team scored more than 3 goals), if the home team won the first leg they went through 69% of the time (203/294), if the first leg was a draw then the home team won 31.25% (55/176) of the ties, winning just 6.53% of the time that they lost the first leg (10/153).

    Jared
    http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/prin...2498&type=post
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hubert Poo)
    Initiative my dear boy. Initiative!
    You're massively overcomplicating something that isn't complicated. There is absolutely no conceivable strategy you could possibly undertake in the second leg that wouldn't be in either a more positive position or a equally advantageous one for it building upon a 0-0 aggregate score. If there is, please tell me what it is because I'm not seeing it at all.

    Away goals are only important in the event of an aggregate draw. Should a result after a 2-1 initial result in an aggregate draw then the away goal would come into place. However should that exactly same result occur after an 0-0, progression would still be assured. No initiative is lost, there is no ground to occupy in football, no strategic positioning of strength and resources, there is only goals. A better balance of goals mathematically is better ultimately.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Indeed the value of a goal has been completely overlooked. A one goal lead is a one goal lead. Interesting to note that the "weaker sides" play at home first in the first knockout round (instead of it being random), but 2-1 is still shown to be a far superior first leg score to 0-0.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.