This is going to be my last discussion surrounding this subject, but as I've not really covered my view or reasoning in depth I'm going to take this opportunity to do so in the vain hopes that it gives at least someone involved with the England setup something to think about.
What am I referring to you ask? The selection of Norwich striker Grant Holt for the upcoming friendlies and Euro 2012 squad.
My initial reasoning is simply and easy to understand – he's the highest scoring English striker in the premiership this season behind Wayne Rooney, and has achieved this scoring goals against most of the top 6 sides, and still contributing strongly in the games he hasn't got on the score sheet.
For me, form is extremely important and something we arguably don't give enough respect to when choosing international line-ups. A player may have been brilliant previously, but if they're badly off-form for their club side and missing numerous easy chances or simply being anonymous - how can we justify their selection for the international team? Scoring a hat-trick six months ago is great, but if following this they've performed poorly and spent more time getting the ball back from the stands than the back of the net, then they simply can't be relied upon in what are arguably far more pressurised games, where you're not only looking for perform for your own clubs fans – but those of the whole nation.
On this basis, a player who has consistently and strongly performed across the whole season has be given full consideration, and whilst small blips of 2-3 games of poor form can be tolerated here and there, if this has been the case for the whole season then serious questions have to be asked.
A key example of this is with Liverpool striker Andy Carroll. His big money move to Liverpool has been a virtual disaster so far, and whilst he's shown previously that he can perform strongly, on his current form he shouldn't even be near the changing room, never mind the first 11. Yet Carroll is seen as one of the big 'players for the future', someone who in 2-3 years time could be England's first choice striker – maybe so, but until he stops playing like crap every week for Liverpool, that should be nothing more than a mirage, or some distant goal for him to personally target.
Holt's form over the season HAS been consistent, with the longest spell without scoring being just 4 games, and even when he's been rested as part of Paul Lambert's tactical shuffling, he's never let his head go down or dropped his effort levels.
Holt also holds another potential ace up his sleeve in the fact that he's actually the most efficient English striker in the league, with a shot to goal ratio of 29.3%. Now to put this into context, Wayne Rooney's is sat on 20.6%, Danny Welbeck's is at 15.5% and the aforementioned Andy Carroll has a shocking 8.2% ratio. On this basis Holt would usually score once for every 3 shots (approx), compared to Rooney needing 5 attempts, Welbeck taking 6 and Carroll a lamentable 12. But what about Holt's most similar rival – Peter Crouch? Well Crouch has a 21.3% ratio, so like Rooney he's going to need at least 5 shots to score.
This is of particular interest when you consider that international games tend to have less chances than many domestic league games, and therefore every shot is vital, ergo a striker who converts with less chances is an incredibly valuable asset.
My other main reasoning behind his selection is hinted to in the title of the article, in that if you look at all the other teams in the Euro's, in fact if you look at most international sides, they all have one thing in common – a strong, powerful striker who's skilled in the air or at holding up play somewhere in their squad. Whether it's Giroud for France, Pavlyuchenko for Russia, Bendtner for Denmark or Samaras for Greece, there's always a striker that offers a physical presence and aerial threat. Even Spain who are noted for playing the ball on the floor in their passing/possession game have a striker who is potent in the air with good body strength in Fernando Llorente. Many of these strikers are also highly competent with the ball into their feet, and for those who've watched Holt this season, they'll see that he's no slouch here either.
Having a player of this nature means that if the opposition are cancelling out your normal tactics and things like through balls and possession play isn't working, you can add this physical threat and change your game-plan accordingly. To quote a well known BBC pundit - “You need a Plan B”, and without someone like Holt, our other options are all too similar to be able to do this.
Defoe and Bent are natural strikers with pace and precision, yet neither is great in the air, nor are they the strongest physically. It's a similar situation with younger options like Sturridge and Campbell, and even though Danny Welbeck can perform the role to a certain extent, it's clearly not playing to his strengths, and I'm not even going to suggest restricting Rooney in this role...
That leaves 2 viable options IMHO – Holt and Crouch. Holt has scored more goals in less games in the league than Crouch, with a better games to goal ratio (2.13 for Holt vs 2.69 for Crouch), and we've already mentioned that Holt has the better efficiency on top of this. Crouch however has the experience, and with 42 caps already earned over the last 7 years, some would argue this makes him the more natural choice.
I can fully understand this logic, but Crouch has never been prolific with his best return being over a decade ago at Portsmouth, and aside from a recent wonder goal, he's not set the league alight this season either. I'd also like to point out that despite Crouch having a reasonable goalscoring record internationally, he's only done so against the 'poorer' international sides. Goals against Croatia and France are the two real highlights, with the remainder coming against the likes of Macedonia, Jamaica (x 3), Belarus (x2), Andorra (x 2) and Estonia.
Where are the Spain's, the Brazil's, the Italy's, the Argentina's, The Germany's???
Where are the big international teams in his scoring list?
The simple answer is they aren't there, as despite Crouch having played against all of them – he's never managed to get on the score sheet when he did. Part of this may well be down to how England performed as a whole, but the fact remains that he only really scores against relative minnows and does jack all against the big boys.
We have nothing to compare this to with Holt as he's never been up for consideration before, but with 2 friendlies against Norway and Belgium, we have the chance to see how he does against 'lesser' opposition before being thrown in against the real European heavyweights. This is the ideal time to see what he brings to the table instead of Crouch, and strong performances in both games should back his superior league form to give him the nod over Crouch. If not we've always got Crouch there as an option.
The fact is that regardless of anything else, Holt has earned his chance in the national team, but whether or not he would prove to be another Geoff Hurst, or simply another Michael Ricketts – we'll never know unless he's given the chance, and his non-selection in the squad for both the upcoming friendlies will prove once and for all that the big name clubs and big name players get preferential treatment over players who've got the form and work ethic – just not at a fashionable or successful enough club. Let's face it – if he can score against Man Utd and Chelsea whilst playing for Norwich, surely he can score against the likes of Moldova or the Ukraine when playing for England???
Thursday 26 April 2012
Everyone else is doing it so why not England?
Thursday 19 April 2012
Big Clubs, Maybe – Big Fans, Maybe Not
As a Norwich City fan, I was interested to hear that our new kit for the upcoming 2012-2013 season was going to be showcased this week. This along with an extended sponsorship deal with insurance giants Aviva (formerly Norwich Union), should have been a very positive step from the club.
However after watching the relatively uninspiring video, which considering last years excellent one was poor in comparison (despite a nice little section with Stephen Fry), I then found that the same problem which occurred last season, had been repeated again this year - in that apparently fans of my body size aren't welcome to buy the clubs replica kits...
Firstly let me say that I am tall, I am broad, and I am definitely overweight. I make no bones or excuses about this, some people choose to drink, others to smoke or take drugs, whereas instead I simply like to lead a sedentary lifestyle and eat well whilst doing so.
I don't go binge drinking and starting fights on a Friday night, nor do I encourage the illicit drugs trade and steal to keep up a habit, yet in some ways it feels like I get more persecution for my lifestyle choice than either of the above examples.
In response to complaints I've made about being unable to get a football shirt in my size on the regular Norwich City forums, instead of support I've instead received a barrage of abuse about losing weight and offensive terms relating to this. Seriously are people that offended by 'larger' fans that we're treated almost like lepers?
It's not just people who are overweight like I am though, as there are those who are of generally bigger builds, particularly people who work out a lot with weights or take part in some of the more physical sports like boxing or rugby that have this problem. We just can't get the sizes we need to fit our bodies, and whilst I can take a bit of stick about “who ate all the pies”, how about you give the 6ft tall, heavily muscled MMA fighter behind me that hassle instead? No? Thought not...
With obesity being a growing problem not just in the US, but very much in the UK as well, I'd have thought that simple economics would come into play here, in that supply is highly related to demand, and if there's more people needing bigger shirts, then surely more clubs should be able to supply them?
Instead of taking advantage of this area of the market, the message we're actually getting is “tough shit”.
How can some highly intelligent, highly skilled marketing and economic experts who work for the clubs get this so badly wrong? I don't expect the club to order in 10,000 shirts each of size 6, 7 or 8XL, but what the hell is wrong with actually assessing potential demand of these larger sizes with the fans and then simply ordering a small amount of each in based upon this feedback?
We know that this would likely come at an extra cost (both due to needing more material and with having lower order numbers per batch), but in most cases we'd be happy to pay a bit more to be able to wear our clubs shirt with pride whilst helping them financially in the process.
When I first raised the issue 2 years ago, you could go online and buy Chelsea shirts up to size 8XL without a problem, so why could they cater for the larger fan and not us?
I'm sure that we've all also seen the large, bald Newcastle fan who seems to attend every game without his top on – maybe in reality it's because they don't offer a shirt that fits...
This really shouldn't be about whether or not you agree with people being overweight, heavily muscled or simply having an unusual build, but about all fans being given the same chance to support their team, and instead of this the message appears to have become “Fatties and Fighters not welcome”...
Thursday 5 April 2012
What makes a 'big' club?
Earlier this week I received a link to another blog where a table claiming to show who the 20 biggest teams in the league were, I was automatically sceptical before even looking and unfortunately my hunch was proven correct when I saw the list which contained a number of 'dubious' inclusions.
But I then paused because in actual fact NONE of the selections were dubious, because they were all conforming to some unknown factor that the author had established to decide what made a 'big' club, and this is where the inherent flaw in the article lay.
Everyone has a different opinion about what makes a club 'big', is it attendance? Trophies won? League History? Ground size? Finances????
How do you pin down all these potential factors to come up with a fair guideline to mark clubs against? In my honest opinion – you can't, all you can do is come up with a subjective opinion which clearly defines why you feel this is the case and provide relevant evidence to support that opinion.
Indeed, many of possible criteria themselves hold pitfalls for the unwary. Take average attendance for example, some may say that the higher the average attendance – the bigger the club. But what about competition in the local area? Many of the larger cities have 2, 3 or even more clubs who regularly play at the top level, so in those cities where there's only 1 club with high attendances is it due to the size of the club or a lack of options?
Leeds are a prime example of this, coming in 4th in the Championship's overall average attendance table this season with 23,451 per game, but would that be lower if there was another decent side in the area for fans to choose between, or would be see a closer split?
This is the problem that the Sheffield clubs have faced in that's there's a number of clubs in close vicinity to provide competition, with Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Doncaster Rovers, Rotherham United and Barnsley all within 15-20 miles of Sheffield itself, and whilst the two Sheffield clubs have the lions share of the supporter base, you have to wonder whether their averages of 20,424 and 18,150 would turn into 38,574 if there was only a single club in the City.
The counter to this would be places like Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham and London, where their respective competing sides regularly manage high attendances despite the high level of competition and quality of their local rivals.
So already on the first potential criteria point we're getting further factors to consider...
I also don't place as much value on history as other supporters may do, as I genuinely don't see what relevance winning the league in 1907 has in relation to the size of a club at the moment. More modern success however plays a stronger factor, as having won leagues, cups and European glory in the last 15-20 years is much more relevant to me, than a side having done it 40 years ago, but being pretty poor since.
What this would mean is that sides like Preston, Burnley and Huddersfield would be marked much lower by myself than others who more strongly consider their league titles and history, whereas teams like Arsenal and Man Utd would be much more highly marked due to their recent success and performances.
Finance is a tricky one to consider, as being able to attract the best talent is a strong indicator of the size of a club, but frankly this tends to be split into four areas – money, history, team quality and manager quality. That being said, a player may like the club, their current squad and even the existing manager, but if you're offering them a relative pittance to what they can get elsewhere, you're likely to find they'll take the money in most cases. Money talks in the modern game, and therefore the teams with money to burn have to score higher here than those living on past triumphs. Hence why Man City and Chelsea are likely to top the marking chart here.
I could go on all day with things to take into account, but in truth you'd get bored (and so would I eventually), and we'd still probably be no closer to making a definitive list.
In my mind, we should only be looking at a time span of a generation (25-30 years), as beyond this we're verging too much into history without enough modern relevance, therefore I'd put my cut-off at 1982. I totally appreciate that this removes a number of classically brilliant teams such as the Busby Babes and the great club sides of the 50's, 60's and 70's, which helped establish the 'size' of the modern clubs we now follow, but the game itself has changed since then, and the likes of Messi, Ronaldo and Rooney aren't likely to give a damn about whether you won the league and European cup in 1952 when considering a potential move...
I also think that results speak more strongly than attendances, so winning a league or cup title means more than having a high attendance for the season, which again means that sides like Newcastle and Sunderland could be lower in the rankings due to their relative lack of success despite great support.
Anyway, enough about that, here's my highly subjective list of the top 20 teams in the football at present:
Man Utd
Arsenal
Man City
Chelsea
Spurs
Liverpool
Newcastle
Aston Villa
Everton
West Ham
Norwich
Blackburn
Leeds
Fulham
Birmingham
Stoke
Sunderland
Bolton
Middlesbrough
West Brom
There's bound to be some raised eyebrows with some selections (especially Norwich in 11th), but this is purely my personal opinion, using the factors I consider important when considering the size of a club, chances are you (and half the footballing world) won't agree, but that's the fun of it, there is no right or wrong answer, just each persons view which gives us something to tirelessly debate in the pub after the match...
But I then paused because in actual fact NONE of the selections were dubious, because they were all conforming to some unknown factor that the author had established to decide what made a 'big' club, and this is where the inherent flaw in the article lay.
Everyone has a different opinion about what makes a club 'big', is it attendance? Trophies won? League History? Ground size? Finances????
How do you pin down all these potential factors to come up with a fair guideline to mark clubs against? In my honest opinion – you can't, all you can do is come up with a subjective opinion which clearly defines why you feel this is the case and provide relevant evidence to support that opinion.
Indeed, many of possible criteria themselves hold pitfalls for the unwary. Take average attendance for example, some may say that the higher the average attendance – the bigger the club. But what about competition in the local area? Many of the larger cities have 2, 3 or even more clubs who regularly play at the top level, so in those cities where there's only 1 club with high attendances is it due to the size of the club or a lack of options?
Leeds are a prime example of this, coming in 4th in the Championship's overall average attendance table this season with 23,451 per game, but would that be lower if there was another decent side in the area for fans to choose between, or would be see a closer split?
This is the problem that the Sheffield clubs have faced in that's there's a number of clubs in close vicinity to provide competition, with Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Doncaster Rovers, Rotherham United and Barnsley all within 15-20 miles of Sheffield itself, and whilst the two Sheffield clubs have the lions share of the supporter base, you have to wonder whether their averages of 20,424 and 18,150 would turn into 38,574 if there was only a single club in the City.
The counter to this would be places like Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham and London, where their respective competing sides regularly manage high attendances despite the high level of competition and quality of their local rivals.
So already on the first potential criteria point we're getting further factors to consider...
I also don't place as much value on history as other supporters may do, as I genuinely don't see what relevance winning the league in 1907 has in relation to the size of a club at the moment. More modern success however plays a stronger factor, as having won leagues, cups and European glory in the last 15-20 years is much more relevant to me, than a side having done it 40 years ago, but being pretty poor since.
What this would mean is that sides like Preston, Burnley and Huddersfield would be marked much lower by myself than others who more strongly consider their league titles and history, whereas teams like Arsenal and Man Utd would be much more highly marked due to their recent success and performances.
Finance is a tricky one to consider, as being able to attract the best talent is a strong indicator of the size of a club, but frankly this tends to be split into four areas – money, history, team quality and manager quality. That being said, a player may like the club, their current squad and even the existing manager, but if you're offering them a relative pittance to what they can get elsewhere, you're likely to find they'll take the money in most cases. Money talks in the modern game, and therefore the teams with money to burn have to score higher here than those living on past triumphs. Hence why Man City and Chelsea are likely to top the marking chart here.
I could go on all day with things to take into account, but in truth you'd get bored (and so would I eventually), and we'd still probably be no closer to making a definitive list.
In my mind, we should only be looking at a time span of a generation (25-30 years), as beyond this we're verging too much into history without enough modern relevance, therefore I'd put my cut-off at 1982. I totally appreciate that this removes a number of classically brilliant teams such as the Busby Babes and the great club sides of the 50's, 60's and 70's, which helped establish the 'size' of the modern clubs we now follow, but the game itself has changed since then, and the likes of Messi, Ronaldo and Rooney aren't likely to give a damn about whether you won the league and European cup in 1952 when considering a potential move...
I also think that results speak more strongly than attendances, so winning a league or cup title means more than having a high attendance for the season, which again means that sides like Newcastle and Sunderland could be lower in the rankings due to their relative lack of success despite great support.
Anyway, enough about that, here's my highly subjective list of the top 20 teams in the football at present:
Man Utd
Arsenal
Man City
Chelsea
Spurs
Liverpool
Newcastle
Aston Villa
Everton
West Ham
Norwich
Blackburn
Leeds
Fulham
Birmingham
Stoke
Sunderland
Bolton
Middlesbrough
West Brom
There's bound to be some raised eyebrows with some selections (especially Norwich in 11th), but this is purely my personal opinion, using the factors I consider important when considering the size of a club, chances are you (and half the footballing world) won't agree, but that's the fun of it, there is no right or wrong answer, just each persons view which gives us something to tirelessly debate in the pub after the match...
Sunday 1 April 2012
Foul Play At The Top?
Earlier this week following the Man Utd vs Fulham game (where Fulham had a clear penalty shout turned down), we saw comments from Patrick Vieira suggesting that there is an advantage that Man Utd are given by referees in regards to penalties against them. This is something that many neutral fans have believed for a long time, and not just about Man Utd but all of the 'Big 4' sides, the question is – Is there any truth to the suggestion?
In order to examine this I compiled stats from the 02/03 season, all the way up the the current season, to establish how many pens each side had been given, both for and against, and then compared this against the league average. Understandably there were some strong variances especially with sides only playing a single season or two in the Premiership skewing the odds slightly, but not enough to make a massive difference overall.
So who has the least penalties given against them on average?
Q.P.R.
The problem here is that so far they've only played 30 games in the top flight, so even a single penalty given either way can cause a big variance, which would make their percentage increase from approx 5.3% to around 7.9%
So taking this into account, who's next?
Man Utd
Now, there's a surprise...
Yes, what the rest of the footballing world thought is quite correct, Man Utd statistically get less penalties given against them than any other premiership side – and that's based on 10 years worth of games as well. Man Utd have a penalty awarded against them in just 6.8% of games, so approx 2.6 penalties against them each season (which would have to be rounded up or down to 2 or 3 per season). Their current total of 3 against so far this year suggests that they're bang on target, and in actual fact another penalty against them would put them above their usual average – wonder if it will happen?
So how about the rest of the traditional big four? (I'll add Spurs & Man City in as well)
Chelsea – 7.4%
Liverpool – 8.9%
Arsenal – 10%
Man City – 10.5%
Spurs – 11.3%
The league average is 11.98% which puts every one of the top 5 sides under this, meaning they have less penalties given against them compared to their opponents.
But let's also be fair and look at the counter-argument to the stats, which is that each of the top sides in general have better quality defenders who are generally less likely to foul opponents in the box giving cause for a penalty. However there's a problem with this, and that is that other sides have managed similar stats (albeit for less seasons overall), despite having generally having 'poorer' defenders on show.
QPR as already noted are lowest, filling up the gap below the average are:
Blackpool – 7.9%
Swansea – 7.9%
Middlesboro – 8.7%
Everton – 8.7%
Southampton – 8.8%
Bolton – 10.5%
Derby – 10.5%
Fulham – 10.5%
Hull – 10.5%
Leicester – 10.5%
Wolves – 11.2%
Blackburn – 11.6%
Not exactly the cream of the defences is it?
How about the other angle? How many penalties are the top sides given in their favour?
The league average is 11.5% and the big four again beat this...
Man Utd – 14.5%
Arsenal – 14.2%
Liverpool – 14.2%
Chelsea – 13.7%
Man City – 12.1%
Spurs – 11.3%
Notice however that Spurs are actually just below the average compared to their title rivals.
The argument here would be that these sides have better strikers, therefore with the opposition having worse defenders there's more chance of being given penalties - but again the other sides in the equation disprove the theory:
C.Palace – 31.6% !!!
Blackpool – 21.1% !
Burnley – 15.8%
Swansea – 15.8%
Hull – 13.2%
Sheffield Utd – 13.2%
Aston Villa – 12.9%
Newcastle – 12.3%
Blackburn – 11.6%
Again, we're not talking about world beating strikers at these clubs, so the previous argument regarding the quality of striker vs defender doesn't hold too much water relatively speaking.
There are only 7 sides in the period analysed that beat the averages in both the for and against columns and they are:
Arsenal
Blackpool
Chelsea
Hull
Liverpool
Man Utd
Swansea
If we then take out the sides with only a single season, or just 2 seasons in the top flight and you get:
Arsenal
Chelsea
Liverpool
Man Utd
So the 'big four' sides all appear to get more penalties given in their favour and less against them – again not something most fans will probably find difficult to believe.
The sides that really don't have things go their way:
For Against
Charlton – 9.5% 13.2%
Norwich – 7.9% 13.2%
Reading – 9.2% 15.8%
Sunderland – 10.2% 16.5%
Watford – 7.9% 15.8%
West Brom – 7.5% 14%
Wigan – 10.2% 14.3%
So my own team Norwich City, have some of the worst 'luck' in regards to penalties overall (something I've also suspected for a long time) - The same with many 'small' clubs...
What this illustrates is that over a single season, a side with 'lesser' players can occasionally get some sort of parity with the big sides, but the general rule of thumb seems to be that the top sides get more penalty decisions go their way on average - with Man Utd leading the pack.
This is also the case this season, with Man Utd leading the overall table, which if we convert %'s into decisions, gives them +4 beneficial decisions overall in regards to pens (based on them being given 9 penalties for instead of their 5 penalty average, and them being bang on with their against tally).
So the next time a Man Utd fan tells you that it's just an urban myth that their side seems to get preferential treatment in regards to pens – direct them to these stats – and then smile to yourself...
In order to examine this I compiled stats from the 02/03 season, all the way up the the current season, to establish how many pens each side had been given, both for and against, and then compared this against the league average. Understandably there were some strong variances especially with sides only playing a single season or two in the Premiership skewing the odds slightly, but not enough to make a massive difference overall.
So who has the least penalties given against them on average?
Q.P.R.
The problem here is that so far they've only played 30 games in the top flight, so even a single penalty given either way can cause a big variance, which would make their percentage increase from approx 5.3% to around 7.9%
So taking this into account, who's next?
Man Utd
Now, there's a surprise...
Yes, what the rest of the footballing world thought is quite correct, Man Utd statistically get less penalties given against them than any other premiership side – and that's based on 10 years worth of games as well. Man Utd have a penalty awarded against them in just 6.8% of games, so approx 2.6 penalties against them each season (which would have to be rounded up or down to 2 or 3 per season). Their current total of 3 against so far this year suggests that they're bang on target, and in actual fact another penalty against them would put them above their usual average – wonder if it will happen?
So how about the rest of the traditional big four? (I'll add Spurs & Man City in as well)
Chelsea – 7.4%
Liverpool – 8.9%
Arsenal – 10%
Man City – 10.5%
Spurs – 11.3%
The league average is 11.98% which puts every one of the top 5 sides under this, meaning they have less penalties given against them compared to their opponents.
But let's also be fair and look at the counter-argument to the stats, which is that each of the top sides in general have better quality defenders who are generally less likely to foul opponents in the box giving cause for a penalty. However there's a problem with this, and that is that other sides have managed similar stats (albeit for less seasons overall), despite having generally having 'poorer' defenders on show.
QPR as already noted are lowest, filling up the gap below the average are:
Blackpool – 7.9%
Swansea – 7.9%
Middlesboro – 8.7%
Everton – 8.7%
Southampton – 8.8%
Bolton – 10.5%
Derby – 10.5%
Fulham – 10.5%
Hull – 10.5%
Leicester – 10.5%
Wolves – 11.2%
Blackburn – 11.6%
Not exactly the cream of the defences is it?
How about the other angle? How many penalties are the top sides given in their favour?
The league average is 11.5% and the big four again beat this...
Man Utd – 14.5%
Arsenal – 14.2%
Liverpool – 14.2%
Chelsea – 13.7%
Man City – 12.1%
Spurs – 11.3%
Notice however that Spurs are actually just below the average compared to their title rivals.
The argument here would be that these sides have better strikers, therefore with the opposition having worse defenders there's more chance of being given penalties - but again the other sides in the equation disprove the theory:
C.Palace – 31.6% !!!
Blackpool – 21.1% !
Burnley – 15.8%
Swansea – 15.8%
Hull – 13.2%
Sheffield Utd – 13.2%
Aston Villa – 12.9%
Newcastle – 12.3%
Blackburn – 11.6%
Again, we're not talking about world beating strikers at these clubs, so the previous argument regarding the quality of striker vs defender doesn't hold too much water relatively speaking.
There are only 7 sides in the period analysed that beat the averages in both the for and against columns and they are:
Arsenal
Blackpool
Chelsea
Hull
Liverpool
Man Utd
Swansea
If we then take out the sides with only a single season, or just 2 seasons in the top flight and you get:
Arsenal
Chelsea
Liverpool
Man Utd
So the 'big four' sides all appear to get more penalties given in their favour and less against them – again not something most fans will probably find difficult to believe.
The sides that really don't have things go their way:
For Against
Charlton – 9.5% 13.2%
Norwich – 7.9% 13.2%
Reading – 9.2% 15.8%
Sunderland – 10.2% 16.5%
Watford – 7.9% 15.8%
West Brom – 7.5% 14%
Wigan – 10.2% 14.3%
So my own team Norwich City, have some of the worst 'luck' in regards to penalties overall (something I've also suspected for a long time) - The same with many 'small' clubs...
What this illustrates is that over a single season, a side with 'lesser' players can occasionally get some sort of parity with the big sides, but the general rule of thumb seems to be that the top sides get more penalty decisions go their way on average - with Man Utd leading the pack.
This is also the case this season, with Man Utd leading the overall table, which if we convert %'s into decisions, gives them +4 beneficial decisions overall in regards to pens (based on them being given 9 penalties for instead of their 5 penalty average, and them being bang on with their against tally).
So the next time a Man Utd fan tells you that it's just an urban myth that their side seems to get preferential treatment in regards to pens – direct them to these stats – and then smile to yourself...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)