QuoteBut it's no less interesting or relevant an opinion...
Especially when FIFA/UEFA have no interest in the likes of us and what we have to say...
...based on a mix of results, stats and fancy, then?Originally Posted by geysir
But it's no less interesting or relevant an opinion...
Especially when FIFA/UEFA have no interest in the likes of us and what we have to say...
At least you have admitted that you haven't seen them play a full qualifier game,
I have just watched a modest 4 full games from their last 10 qualifiers and ... taken notes, only highlights from their other qual games.
But probably Benno has a more rounded appraisal of them as a serious intl team, than me.
To their favour, when the pressure was on in the group, they delivered 2 away wins against teams who were up for the contest.
They have to justify their seeding by performing at the WC and get to the 1/4 finals, that's no small ask.
England getting to the 1/4 finals would be no big shock, getting further would.
Thing is even most Eng.fans would say Switzerland now are a better team...
Most England fans have probably not seen Switzerland play in the WC qualifiers, I doubt your suggestion has much value.
The last time they met in Euro 2012 qualifiers, England were the better team.
I wasn't impressed with what Capello achieved with the England team, I think Hodgson is doing a better job.
Both teams are in a better place than the Eur 2012 qualifiers, but as it stands now England have the baton.
Going on their general attitude and demeanour, the ones I've talked to think they would. Been really talking them down, most would consider the Quarters now as par.
Even their media has piped down, though they could get an 'easy' draw in the Finals which could change their mood...
I've never pretended otherwise, nor felt the need to take any notes, other than those which help to summarise the results of a modest 260 games in the European qualifiers
I did watch the Croatia- Iceland playoff though, as NI had no game. Shame your boys had an off-night but that doesn't detract from their achievement in previous games.
Indeed. Of course I'm not trying to analyse them game by game. You, Benno and others probably didn't sit through 16 hours of NI's qualifiers but won't have any difficulty appraising how rubbish we were.But probably Benno has a more rounded appraisal of them as a serious intl team, than me
Points taken, but in a way the Swiss don't have to justify anything. Their status is as much a reward that reduces the pressure on them, as an onerous addition to it. A reward for two seasons of achievement, not just a random snapshot. After all, much/most of the media, fans etc. in Italy, England and Netherlands won't expect the Swiss to outlast their own teams in the tournament.[Switzerland] have to justify their seeding by performing at the WC and get to the 1/4 finals, that's no small ask...England getting to the 1/4 finals would be no big shock, getting further would
As you suggest, England clearly have some sort of block about quarter finals.They've reached 18 in 30 attempts since 1960- more than every other European team bar Germany- yet have progressed further only four times.
On 13th December, Ireland will be 68th in the world rankings!
Ha not really, mostly into the club game here, but have seen them once or twice. Play well as a team, some decent players, good on the ball but i dont think they would beat an england team. England have the individual players (Rooney, Townsend, etc), game changers.
Like the last time they played England -played them off the park IMHO, but still didnt win.
There's still 8 months for them to lose all sense of rhyme and reason. Luckily there is still an England Algeria Switzerland Yanks draw available for them.
We would not have to have seen NI play to judge them rubbish but we probably would have had to see them and (for example) Luxembourg play to have a more valued opinion on which was the better of the two teams in the last campaign.
Same goes for opinions on what Switzerland and England deserve from their last campaign when it comes to making comparisons between the two.
Or you could have just looked at a league table of six teams playing 10 matches each, rather than jumping to crazily wrong conclusions from having watched one or two games out of those 30.
Whatever, dude. Enjoy the games.Same goes for opinions on what Switzerland and England deserve from their last campaign when it comes to making comparisons between the two
We have a new broken record...
Or just the old broken record that just goes around in circles of wooly-minded arguments.
Somewhat aptly, he does seem to enjoy a rather circular argument...
In my opinion bookies odds need to be firmly based on reality first and foremost and then with some wriggle room built in in order to mitigate against how much money is invested in a certain outcome etc.
For example on a coin toss there is a 50/50 chance. If everyone bets on heads I'm not going to change my odds to say for example 2/1 to entice some money on tails- because then the real punters in the know will put a hoard of cash on that immediately and I'll be broke. Interested in anyone that knows a lot about how bookies really put their odds together.
Anyway I just happen to have the odds that Bet365 offered going back 10 years in the Premiership.
For example Bet 365 has offered 9/4 on a result 958 different times over the period that I have found odds for. 9/4 basically means 9 non-favourable outcomes for every 4 favourable or in other words 4 "wins" out of 13 = 4 / 13 = 0.308. So when bookie gives 9/4 it implies a probability of 0.308 (30.8%). But to build in a profit margin the actual probabily would be a little less (so the bookie is paying out a little less often than he should be if he was being fair).
Now the actual probability is impossible to know but can estimate how accurate the bookies odds were based on reality, by looking at the actual results of those 958 games. And when I do that the actual percent of favourable outcomes were 30%.
Table below shows Bookies implied probability against the actual calculated for the most common odds offered and comes pretty close to reality. Most of the time bookies implied probability are a little higher as you would expect since they want to make a profit. This table is based off the data that I found for Premiership going back to 2002.
odds implied prob actual times seen 9/4 0.308 0.30 958 12/5 0.294 0.28 714 11/5 0.312 0.28 589 23/10 0.303 0.28 470 5/2 0.286 0.27 460 13/5 0.278 0.28 457 3/1 0.250 0.26 388 7/2 0.222 0.19 351 4/1 0.200 0.13 345 11/4 0.267 0.24 327
Anyway, apologies for being so inane!
So, just to be fair - here is the same analysis but only looking at games where Man Utd are involved, which you would consider would attract more casual punters and more uninformed bets! A little more variation from the bookies implied probability and the estimated probability. But they are still close and the difference could be explained because there is maybe not enough data to get a good long run average for the estimated probability.
odds implied prob actual times seen 7/2 0.222 0.21 53 4/1 0.200 0.11 53 9/2 0.182 0.10 52 3/1 0.250 0.33 51 13/5 0.278 0.23 44 11/2 0.154 0.08 40 5/1 0.167 0.10 40 9/4 0.308 0.26 34 5/2 0.286 0.33 33 12/5 0.294 0.16 31
Last edited by davidatrb; 02/12/2013 at 1:24 PM.
We've risen three places to 65th in the latest rankings.
Is that because we have not played?
Scotland are up 15 places to 22nd.
I think this proves finally that the rankings make perfect sense.
What are the UEFA coefficients for us and thon Scotch?
EDIT:
19th in UEFA v 31st in UEFA for themmuns.
Seems about right.
http://www.footballseeding.com/national-ranking-uefa/
Last edited by BonnieShels; 10/04/2014 at 9:09 PM.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks