Is the end result always a fair reflection of the game?

Handsome Bob

Headshot wrote: »

i think what LZ5by5 is trying to get at is

lets say utd dominate a game for 90mins but villa score a goal in extra time and a poster comes in and says

villa were the better team by far

---

sorry if im mistaken LZ5by5

Yup that's it pretty much.

Handsome Bob

Xavi6 wrote: »

But sure so what if someone says Liverpool didn't deserve to win? Why let it bother you? Anyone who watched the game will know it's bollox so if anything the person who posted it has make themselves look like a tool. And by you or whoever biting then they've 'won' for want of a better term. I don't see any reason why idiotic comments like that are replied to, especially in a manner that sees bans or infractions result from it.

Firstly I would like to point out that I rarely rise to the bait of trolls.

Now, I guess the reason why I respond to the bait sometimes is because it is not good enough for me to know that it's BS alone. One worries that others will buy into the BS of others so you feel compelled to respond.

On the flip side, if they were that good they would've won so technically they weren't the better team at all and the 'troll' in fact has a point....

I'm of the attitude that if you dominate posession and create more chances than the other team, then you are the better team.:) The reason one loses in such instances is due to a combination of missed chances by one team and clinical finishing by the other team, as well as having luck on their side.;)

Xavi6

But sure games aren't won on who has the most possession. If it was then every team would have eleven Xavis (drool!) in their team. But that's not the case. The better team is the one that grinds out 3 points at the end of 90 minutes no matter what. And besides, how can a team who has had all of the ball and all of the chances yet still lost be described as being deserved of victory?

_blank_

This is absolutely ridiculous.

How can ANYONE come and say about any match that the team who scored fewer goals than the opposition deserved to win?

Anyone who even has a slight interest in football will tell you that the team that scored the most goals deserved to win. It's a basic tenet of the game. It's the actual reason the game is played. Try to get the ball into your opponents net more times than they get it in yours

It's absolutely moronic to even think that a team with fewer goals deserved to win.

Moronic in the extreme.

Handsome Bob

Des wrote: »

This is absolutely ridiculous.

How can ANYONE come and say about any match that the team who scored fewer goals than the opposition deserved to win?

Anyone who even has a slight interest in football will tell you that the team that scored the most goals deserved to win. It's a basic tenet of the game. It's the actual reason the game is played. Try to get the ball into your opponents net more times than they get it in yours

It's absolutely moronic to even think that a team with fewer goals deserved to win.

Moronic in the extreme.

Pighead

Des wrote: »

This is absolutely ridiculous.

How can ANYONE come and say about any match that the team who scored fewer goals than the opposition deserved to win?

Anyone who even has a slight interest in football will tell you that the team that scored the most goals deserved to win. It's a basic tenet of the game. It's the actual reason the game is played. Try to get the ball into your opponents net more times than they get it in yours

It's absolutely moronic to even think that a team with fewer goals deserved to win.

Moronic in the extreme.

Steady on Desmond! There have been plenty of instances over the years where a team has lost and it would be fair to say that a draw would have probably been a fairer result.
Sometimes a 1-0 defeat doesn't tell the whole story of the game. Sometimes teh losers of the match may have crated enough chances to have deserved teh draw. Nothing moronic about that sonny!

_blank_

Pighead wrote: »

crated enough chances to have deserved teh draw.

This is meaningless.

If the strikers are not putting the chances away, then the TEAM deserve what they get.

Pighead

Des wrote: »

This is meaningless.

If the strikers are not putting the chances away, then the TEAM deserve what they get.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55997648&postcount=31

Boggles

Pighead wrote: »

Steady on Desmond! There have been plenty of instances over the years where a team has lost and it would be fair to say that a draw would have probably been a fairer result.
Sometimes a 1-0 defeat doesn't tell the whole story of the game. Sometimes teh losers of the match may have crated enough chances to have deserved teh draw. Nothing moronic about that sonny!

Found one

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

This is absolutely ridiculous.

How can ANYONE come and say about any match that the team who scored fewer goals than the opposition deserved to win?

Anyone who even has a slight interest in football will tell you that the team that scored the most goals deserved to win. It's a basic tenet of the game. It's the actual reason the game is played. Try to get the ball into your opponents net more times than they get it in yours

It's absolutely moronic to even think that a team with fewer goals deserved to win.

Moronic in the extreme.

lol. I'll avoid sticking a facepalm jpeg in this thread.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

lol. I'll avoid sticking a facepalm jpeg in this thread.

What, exactly, are you laughing at though?

My post, or Pighead's resurrection of a post which is over a year old?

Can opinions not change in a year?

Or must we stick rigidly to an opinion which we typed that long ago?

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

What, exactly, are you laughing at though?

My post, or Pighead's resurrection of a post which is over a year old?

Can opinions not change in a year?

Or must we stick rigidly to an opinion which we typed that long ago?

I have no idea about Pighead's previous posts or whatever. I just fundamentally disagree with what you posted is all. And to deliver such rubbish with a pompous tone is pretty funny imo. But carry on sure.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I have no idea about Pighead's previous posts or whatever. I just fundamentally disagree with what you posted is all. And to deliver such rubbish with a pompous tone is pretty funny imo. But carry on sure.

So, you actually think that a team which scores more than the opposition sometimes deserve to lose?

Really?

If you really think that, then I genuinely worry for you.

Pighead

Des wrote: »

What, exactly, are you laughing at though?

My post, or Pighead's resurrection of a post which is over a year old?

Can opinions not change in a year?

Or must we stick rigidly to an opinion which we typed that long ago?

It's your delivery of the post which is the problem. You're suggesting it's moronic to even consider opposing your view even though the subject at hand is clearly not as black and white as you are making it out to be.

Handsome Bob

And here's me thinking everyone was going to share Xavi and Des's opinion on my attitude to football.:pac:

_blank_

I think this conversation should be split out to a thread of it's own.

_blank_

Xavi6 wrote: »

how can a team who has had all of the ball and all of the chances yet still lost be described as being deserved of victory?

This sentence sums it up.

It IS black and white.

Simply so.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

So, you actually think that a team which scores more than the opposition sometimes deserve to lose?

Really?

If you really think that, then I genuinely worry for you.

In football, like in many things in life, the end result will not always be a fair reflection of the process that leads up to the result. Results based analysis is incredibly common in all walks of life, but is usually an extremely inefficient way to review events. Over 90 minutes of football, there is an incredible amount of short term luck and variance involved. So yes, a team can go out and play better, win all the little battles over the park and still undeservedly lose.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In football, like in many things in life, the end result will not always be a fair reflection of the process that leads up to the result. Results based analysis is incredibly common in all walks of life, but is usually an extremely inefficient way to review events. Over 90 minutes of football, there is an incredible amount of short term luck and variance involved. So yes, a team can go out and play better, win all the little battles over the park and still undeservedly lose.

This is utter bollox.

Perhaps you should write to FIFA and get them to award points, not for wins, but for possession, tackles won, shots on target.

At the end of the day football is about getting the goals required to win the game.

Short term luck. Variance.

It's not a game of poxy cards, it's a football match.

Pighead

Des wrote: »

This sentence sums it up.

It IS black and white.

Simply so.

Nonsense. Whole games and results can turn on one dodgy refereeing decision, one outstanding save, the width of a post, yet you claim a whole match can be viewed by simply reading the result. You are being Dunphyesque in your simplistic views and to say that the best team always win is a touch ridiculous in my opinion.

Headshot

Pighead wrote: »

Nonsense. Whole games and results can turn on one dodgy refereeing decision, one outstanding save, the width of a post, yet you claim a whole match can be viewed by simply reading the result. You are being Dunphyesque in your simplistic views and to say that the best team always win is a touch ridiculous in my opinion.

lol

ill have to remember that

Des use to be Eamo here on boards

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

This is utter bollox.

Perhaps you should write to FIFA and get them to award points, not for wins, but for possession, tackles won, shots on target.

At the end of the day football is about getting the goals required to win the game.

Short term luck. Variance.

It's not a game of poxy cards, it's a football match.

I am aware of the rules of football, cheers. I am not suggesting a change to the rules, upsets and the possibility of winning a game you are second best in is one of the aspects of football that is great. But, we are entitled to properly and intelligently analyze a game after the fact and comment on whether a victory was a fair result on the balance of play or not. Often, a rational conclusion will be that the result wasn't a fair reflection of the flow of the game.

You are suggesting that if a team gets battered from start to finish, has its woodwork peppered a few times, and gets awarded a blatantly poor penalty decision in the final minute and convert it they deserve to win. That simply isn't a logical conclusion to reach.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That simply isn't a logical conclusion to reach.

Football isn't logical.

That's why we love it.

Trying to focre logic on it, trying to make it scientific, is ruining the game.

Stop ruining football.

super_furry

Poor refereeing decisions, both for and against, are part of the thrill of the game. What's better than seeing your team battered by rivals for 89 minutes only to get a dodgy penalty and nick it? It's all part of the drama and specticle that makes the game so attractive, the element of human error is great.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

Football isn't logical.

That's why we love it.

Trying to focre logic on it, trying to make it scientific, is ruining the game.

Stop ruining football.

Well, lol to all of this. So I'm correct then is what you're saying, it's just that you prefer to be deliberately irrational when the subject is football?

Pighead

Des wrote: »

Football isn't logical.

That's why we love it.

Trying to focre logic on it, trying to make it scientific, is ruining the game.

Stop ruining football.

But you are making it scientific with your cold hard analysis. You are looking at a scoreline to tell you everything you need to know about 90 odd minutes of a football match.

What you are doing is akin to watching a film for two hours, loving it all apart from the last couple of minutes and then declaring that it was rubbish. The best team do not always win and as manager of a football team I thought you'd have realised that by now.

_blank_

Pighead wrote: »

The best team do not always win and as manager of a football team I thought you'd have realised that by now.

The best team don't always win, because they don't deserve to.

You can batter your opponents goal for ninety minutes, but if you don't score even one goal, how can anyone say that a win was deserved?

Yes, a ninety-third minute penalty could have been given and you lose, but did you actually deserve to win the game?

No.

Handsome Bob

Des,

Imagine you are watching the team you support. They are absolutely battering the opposition nonstop for thirty minutes, but the opposition scores against the run of play from a dodgy referee decision such as a free kick or penalty.

Your team continues to batter the opposition for the rest of the game, hitting the woodwork countless times, and also missing some glaring chances. The opposition never get out of their own half but somehow manage to cling to their win, a win thanks to a questionable decision.

Are you saying you wouldn't feel even a little hard done by?

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

The best team don't always win, because they don't deserve to.

You can batter your opponents goal for ninety minutes, but if you don't score even one goal, how can anyone say that a win was deserved?

Yes, a ninety-third minute penalty could have been given and you lose, but did you actually deserve to win the game?

No.

Yes, infact. You just got unlucky on the day, you would win the vast majority of the time.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well, lol to all of this. So I'm correct then is what you're saying, it's just that you prefer to be deliberately irrational when the subject is football?

Football, by it's nature, is irrational.

Paparazzo

Pighead wrote: »

Nonsense. Whole games and results can turn on one dodgy refereeing decision, one outstanding save, the width of a post, yet you claim a whole match can be viewed by simply reading the result. You are being Dunphyesque in your simplistic views and to say that the best team always win is a touch ridiculous in my opinion.

Love it!:D

_blank_

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Des,

Imagine you are watching the team you support. They are absolutely battering the opposition nonstop for thirty minutes, but the opposition scores against the run of play from a dodgy referee decision such as a free kick or penalty.

Your team continues to batter the opposition for the rest of the game, hitting the woodwork countless times, and also missing some glaring chances. The opposition never get out of their own half but somehow manage to cling to their win, a win thanks to a questionable decision.

Are you saying you wouldn't feel even a little hard done by?

Feel hard done by?

Yes.

Feel we deserved to win?

Deserved to win after missing a hatful of chances?

Give me a break.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yes, infact. You just got unlucky on the day, you would win the vast majority of the time.

I know that, which is why the best teams win leagues.

But in single games, as you very well know, the underdogs sometimes get you on a day when your strikers couldn't score in a brothel with a fistful of twenties.

Just because you are the better team, doesn't mean you always deserve to win.

If that were the case, why don't we just hand every trophy to Real Madris, and not bother with playing any games.

Pighead

Des wrote: »

The best team don't always win, because they don't deserve to.

You can batter your opponents goal for ninety minutes, but if you don't score even one goal, how can anyone say that a win was deserved?

Yes, a ninety-third minute penalty could have been given and you lose, but did you actually deserve to win the game?

No.

Deserve: –verb (used with object)
1. to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation:

Just because a team doesn't score a goal, it doesn't mean they can't lay claim to not deserving something from the match. From the definition above if that team played great football, worked hard and limited their opponents to hardly any chances then it can be said that they deserved something from the match.

You're wrong Des!

ArmaniJeanss

Des wrote: »

Football, by it's nature, is irrational.

Its the most difficult sport to score in, hence it leads to irrational results where the team that plays best doesn't win.
This leads to the philosphical question which is being discussed.
If a team played best and deserved to win...but didn't win... then did they actually deserve to win at all?
As said its a philospophy question, not the pure black and white issue which Des (in particular) is making it.

Contrast football with other sports where because scoring is so much easier (rugby, basketball, gaa etc) that the most deserving team wins 99+% of the time.

_blank_

Pighead wrote: »

Deserve: –verb (used with object)
1. to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation:

Just because a team doesn't score a goal, it doesn't mean they can't lay claim to not deserving something from the match. From the definition above if that team played great football, worked hard and limited their opponents to hardly any chances then it can be said that they deserved something from the match.

You're wrong Des!

So, the defence did well, the wide men and the playmakers. Good stuff.

But the strikers couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo.

Do the strikers not count as part of the "team".

The whole team didn't do their job on the day.

The other team, on the other hand, frustrated the strikers, keeper pulled off a string of saves, they create just one chance at the other end and stick it in.

I know which team I think deserved to win.

opr

Des wrote: »

I know that, which is why the best teams win leagues.

But in single games, as you very well know, the underdogs sometimes get you on a day when your strikers couldn't score in a brothel with a fistful of twenties.

Just because you are the better team, doesn't mean you always deserve to win.

If that were the case, why don't we just hand every trophy to Real Madris, and not bother with playing any games.

You seemed a little mixed up in this post. No one is suggesting the better team on paper always deserves to win. The point being made is that the better team on the day (which may actually be the underdog) may have got nothing from a game in which they deserved to have.

Opr

Pighead

Des wrote: »

So, the defence did well, the wide men and the playmakers. Good stuff.

But the strikers couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo.

Do the strikers not count as part of the "team".

The whole team didn't do their job on the day.

The other team, on the other hand, frustrated the strikers, keeper pulled off a string of saves, they create just one chance at the other end and stick it in.

I know which team I think deserved to win.

The two strikers were unfairly sent off in this match. Which team do you think deserved to win now?

Warper

When you throw in un-predictables like human error - eg ref, linesman mistakes of course there will be instances where a team deserved to win but didnt e.g. a team had the ball in the net 3/4 times but due to the officials not seeing the ball cross the line or offside errors, never allowed the goals.

Likewise a team might have zero chances yet the ref gives them a penalty for nothing.

PiE

Pighead wrote: »

The two strikers were unfairly sent off in this match. Which team do you think deserved to win now?

Getting sent off is their own fault. (Missed the "unfairly" bit - but meh).

Do the strikers not count as part of the "team".

The whole team didn't do their job on the day."

I think a better scenario is that the entire lesser team played rubbish football throughout, consistently letting the better team through on goal only for their goalkeeper to save everything and they then go on to win the game via an OG.

Does the entire lesser team deserve to win because the goalkeeper performed miracles?

Pighead

Pighead wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55997648&postcount=31

LOL, fine detective work Pighead :pac:

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

Football, by it's nature, is irrational.

This isn't true at all. Football is just a sport. The fact that it is played with the same rules all over the world, with recorded stats for every major league makes analysis possible. You can compare stats, parallel situations, draw from historic occurrences and previous precedent. There is plenty there to enable one to think about the course of an individual season in a logical fashion.

The idea that football is irrational by its nature is false. Most people choose to be irrational when it comes to football. Because it is an escape from normal lives, because it allows grown men to recapture a sense of childhood freedom and simplicity, because it is an activity they enjoy / pursue with their mates. They want it to be as simple as possible, to not have to think about it too hard or in too nuanced or detailed a fashion.

These urges are compounded by the failings of media pundits, journalists and voices that get paid to cover and opine on the game. The culture of giving such positions to former players, when professional football requires participants at the highest levels to eschew formal education from an early age, means that the general quality of such critical contributions tends to be intellectually shallow and insipid. And their employers, be they a newspaper, TV or radio broadcaster are aware of what the majority of fans desire from the game as explained above, so have no problem pandering to that lowest common denominator.

So, football isn't irrational. Rather, fans approach it irrationally.

gustavo

PiE wrote: »

Does the entire lesser team deserve to win because the goalkeeper performed miracles?

Yes because the goalkeeper is just as much a part of the team as the other 10 men

spockety

The end result is not always a fair reflection of how a game has gone.

The end result is also not always fair, in cases where an official has made obvious mistakes which have cost a team points.

However I would say that notwithstanding the incompetence of officials, the end score is a fair result, no matter how well or how bad a team performed at doing everything else on the pitch outside of putting the ball in the net.

PiE

spockety wrote: »

The end result is not always a fair reflection of how a game has gone.

The end result is also not always fair, in cases where an official has made obvious mistakes which have cost a team points.

However I would say that notwithstanding the incompetence of officials, the end score is a fair result, no matter how well or how bad a team performed at doing everything else on the pitch outside of putting the ball in the net.

I think everyone agrees with that - hence why people grudgingly accept match results rather than starting riots.

It's the pigheaded black/whiteness that's got this thread going.

Iago

When all is said and done football is an incredibly easy sport. The only yardstick that matters is how many times you managed to score a valid goal over the course of the match.

Everything else in a match from possession to tackles to passes to corners etc is all part of the build-up in ensuring that you score more goals than your opposition.

You could argue that if one team has 25 chances and doesn't score and their opposition has one chance and does score then the opposition were by far the better side in terms of effectiveness. You can't say "if they played that game 100 times Team A would have won" because they wouldn't, either the games would be identical, or so many variables would change as to make the result unpredictable. Granted "on paper" Team A is probably the team you would expect to win but that's not always the way it works.

The sole requirement in football is to score more goals than your opponent, regardless of how that comes about the team that does it is the one that deserves to win.

Paul Tergat

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In football, like in many things in life, the end result will not always be a fair reflection of the process that leads up to the result. Results based analysis is incredibly common in all walks of life, but is usually an extremely inefficient way to review events. Over 90 minutes of football, there is an incredible amount of short term luck and variance involved. So yes, a team can go out and play better, win all the little battles over the park and still undeservedly lose.

This sums it up for me.

Over a bigger sample i.e. a season the best team will win the league.

Over one game occassionally a team who creates more chances/gets a bad call etc etc can lose one game.



I cannot understand how anyone could say yes to the question in thread title. Generally yes, the result will be a fair reflection of the game but ALWAYS certainly not!

Paul Tergat

Iago wrote: »

When all is said and done football is an incredibly easy sport. The only yardstick that matters is how many times you managed to score a valid goal over the course of the match.

Everything else in a match from possession to tackles to passes to corners etc is all part of the build-up in ensuring that you score more goals than your opposition.

You could argue that if one team has 25 chances and doesn't score and their opposition has one chance and does score then the opposition were by far the better side in terms of effectiveness. You can't say "if they played that game 100 times Team A would have won" because they wouldn't, either the games would be identical, or so many variables would change as to make the result unpredictable. Granted "on paper" Team A is probably the team you would expect to win but that's not always the way it works.

The sole requirement in football is to score more goals than your opponent, regardless of how that comes about the team that does it is the one that deserves to win.

In the instance you gave, and ok lets apply what youre saying and say that having 25 chances and being ineffective then, do you not think the end result that would have BEST fairly reflected the game be a draw? (imo it would be win for chance creators)

Not that one team has to win but the fair result would be a mix of team A creating and missing a load of chances and team B defending really well - how would that amount to the fairest result being a win for team B?


When I read the OP i must admit I thought it would be a very short thread and every single person would say no to the question, I cant believe that some people are saying that EVERYtime yes. Have you never felt having played/watched your team that you didnt deserve to lose?

event

where do own goals come into this then?

Team A has around 6 shots in a game, 2 hit the post, one is actually over the line but ref doesnt give it, 2 are great saves and one is actually stopped on the line by a teammate.

Team B has no shots the whole game. In the last minute, the centre half for Team A is making a pass but horribly slices it and it end up in the net

how can people say thats a fair reflection and that Team B deserved to win?

Mr Alan

this topic is nonsense, I'd hazeard a guess Des doesn't even believe half the things he is saying!

of course the end result is not always a fair reflection on a game.

Paul Tergat

event wrote: »

how can people say thats a fair reflection and that Team B deserved to win?

because apparently all that matters is that the ball went into the back of the net and the goal was given :rolleyes:

Xavi6

Luck is just, imo, a poor excuse from a team who couldn't get the job done.

Games are decided on goals ultimately. I don't think any team can claim they deserved to win if they didn't achieve that.

p_larkin99 wrote: »

because apparently all that matters is that the ball went into the back of the net and the goal was given :rolleyes:

Well yes, it kinda is all that matters.