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

Paul Tergat

Xavi6 wrote: »

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.



Well yes, it kinda is all that matters.

Have you never watched a city game and felt that you either didnt deserve to lose/deserved a draw out of what was really such a tight game?

It matters in the sense of who gets the 3 points or goes through to the next round but in terms of judging whether or not the result was fair its most certainly not all that matters and i'm quite surprised at some posters short-sightedness on the matter.

Warper

Someone just change the title to - "Is life always fair"

Xavi6

p_larkin99 wrote: »

Have you never watched a city game and felt that you either didnt deserve to lose/deserved a draw out of what was really such a tight game?

December 28, 2004. Home to West Brom, them down to 10 men early on, Dunne scores an OG in the last 5 mins to give them a point. It was their only effort on goal for the entire 90 minutes.

However, we didn't do our job so therefore didn't deserve to win.

It matters in the sense of who gets the 3 points or goes through to the next round but in terms of judging whether or not the result was fair its most certainly not all that matters and i'm quite surprised at some posters short-sightedness on the matter.

But sure what's the be achieved by saying "Ah yeah we lost 2-0 but we played great football"? The phrase "too good to go down" springs to mind with this topic.

ShooterSF

The only time I feel a team has a right to complain about a result is the ref making a cock up that cost's them.
Other than that and even though when I'm emotional about United getting caught by a team sitting back and soaking up pressure the answer is that the team that deserved to win won. They did so because they managed to score goals and stop their opponents from equaling how many goals they scored. Simple.
So what if you have 10 times as many chances. You should have converted them. So what if you hit the target more often, you must not have found a spot to beat the keeper or the other teams keeper outperformed yours on the day.

Iago

p_larkin99 wrote: »

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?

Well it would be the fairest result because team B scored and team A didn't.

The game is about attack and defence:

Team A didn't manage to score so their attack scores 0
Team A didn't manage to stop the opposition scoring so their defence scores -1

Team B scored a goal so their attack scores 1
Team B stopped the opposition scoring so their defence scores 1

Team B were more effective as a whole and therefore deserved to win, it really doesn't matter as to whether they had 1 shot or 100 shots all that matters is how many of those counted.


Have I ever felt hard done by in a game I was playing/watching; only for the briefest moment until I realised that if we'd done what we should have done then the ref/dodgy bounce/deflection/missed tackle/fluffed shot etc wouldn't have mattered.

Paul Tergat

Xavi6 wrote: »

December 28, 2004. Home to West Brom, them down to 10 men early on, Dunne scores an OG in the last 5 mins to give them a point. It was their only effort on goal for the entire 90 minutes.

However, we didn't do our job so therefore didn't deserve to win.

But sure what's the be achieved by saying "Ah yeah we lost 2-0 but we played great football"? The phrase "too good to go down" springs to mind with this topic.

Well of course in the short term i.e. that one game you played you haven't achieved anything but the issue is about what was deserved. I guess its just a case that what you and I see as being a fair reflection of the game is judged by very different criteria.

As I said before I think there are certain ways of thinking and you and those who feel that its just down to goals are looking at a short term, results based thinking approach which I believe to be wrong.

Xavi6

p_larkin99 wrote: »

As I said before I think there are certain ways of thinking and you and those who feel that its just down to goals are looking at a short term, results based thinking approach which I believe to be wrong.

But if it's so wrong then why is it the method used to decide the game?

Paul Tergat

Iago wrote: »

Well it would be the fairest result because team B scored and team A didn't.

With no disrespect meant here I can ignore the bits after this as is just boils down to a different way of thinking and we seem to be on opposite ends of the scale here.

Iago wrote: »

Have I ever felt hard done by in a game I was playing/watching; only for the briefest moment until I realised that if we'd done what we should have done then the ref/dodgy bounce/deflection/missed tackle/fluffed shot etc wouldn't have mattered.

I have to take your word on this but not sure I really believe it.

Again, I just think it boils down to a different way of thinking. I see grey areas where you see just black/white.

meh

Kess73

It is quite simple. The team who has played the better football can be the team that lost the game, but the team that scores the winning goal is always the team that deserves the win.


I'm a Liverpool fan and saw many games last season where Liverpool dominated possession or had a huge amount of shots on target, but the game still ended 0-0. Now I can say that Liverpool played the better football on the day or that they have the better of the possession/shots etc., but I would also have to say that the end result of the game was deserved as they failed to score, which means the other team's defence did their job, and the strikers were not clinical enough on either side.


As a fan you can make comments about a team that states on the balance of play the team should have done better, but the result will show that they did not, and that the result is a reflection of that.


At the end of the day all that is remembered in time is who won the league or cup, not how many shots did not go in.

Paul Tergat

Xavi6 wrote: »

But if it's so wrong then why is it the method used to decide the game?

Any other way is too subjective.

Paul Tergat

Kess73 wrote: »

At the end of the day all that is remembered in time is who won the league or cup, not how many shots did not go in.

100% agree and this is a long term thing not something over 90 minutes where we have variance. Over the long term Variance will bring about results that reflect the performances properly


Last post on this as I reckon I dont have anything more to add

opr

This thread is ridiculous and some of the people on it have to be leveling.

Football at the highest level in which games are decided by very small margins have huge elements of luck involved. Whenever luck is involved in anything it means the actual result can sometimes not be a fair reflection on what happened.

Opr

LuckyLloyd

p_larkin99 wrote: »

100% agree and this is a long term thing not something over 90 minutes where we have variance. Over the long term Variance will bring about results that reflect the performances properly


Last post on this as I reckon I dont have anything more to add

Sure there is little point anyway!! This subject touches on the philosophy / way in which people perceive and evaluate a lot of things in their life, not just an individual football match. One thread is not going to change such attitudes.

Mr.Nice Guy

Interesting debate but my own opinion is that the end result is always a fair reflection of the game. Of course teams can dominate a match, create a hatful of chances and not put them away whilst the other team could sit back, defend for most of the ninety minutes and then score a deflected goal and win. Does the latter team deserve its victory? Yes because they stuck the ball in the back of the net and that is the objective of football.

Luck at the end of the day is all relative. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Y2J_MUFC

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.

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.

Have to agree with LuckyLloyd. Fundamentally disagree with all of Des'.. perhaps "moronic" in his opinion, but look at it logically... There are plenty of situations where a team controls the game, hits the bar, hits the post, but just can not make the break through. Football does involve a large amount of luck... Deflections, refereeing decisions, many variables which can go either way.


If a team get awarded a goal when the ball clearly isn't over the line, do they deserve to win? No. They didn't score, so why do they deserve it?

Do you deserve to win a game because the ref awarded a goal in error? No. Thats just luck.

If a team have score a goal thats not awarded when the ball has crossed the line (Roy Carroll anyone?), then the team who benefits deserves a draw even though they have conceded? No They deserve a draw on the basis of a decision of a poor decision, even though they have scored a perfectly good goal.

There are plenty of cases where teams can get a fortunate break to win the game that they wouldn't get 9 times out of 10.

Luck is a part of life, luck is a part of football.

flahavaj

opr wrote: »

This thread is ridiculous and some of the people on it have to be leveling.

Football at the highest level in which games are decided by very small margins have huge elements of luck involved. Whenever luck is involved in anything it means the actual result can sometimes not be a fair reflection on what happened.

Opr

Exactly. The black and white way in which some people on this thread are looking at the subject is unbelievably stupid to be perfectly honest. There will always be rules and generalisations that hold up 99% per cent of the time in life. But they would be pointless if there waren't certain exceptions to those rules. Anyone who can't see that is just looking for a rise.

JPA

Luck does not exist.

MisterAnarchy

Football can be a cruel game.
As its so low scoring compared to other sports ,where one score,one split second can decide a match,one incident in 5400 secs ,the end result can often not be fair.

For example
Played a match lately where we scored first.1-0
Scored a second,ball 2 feet over the line ,goalie pulls it out ,ref doesnt give if.
Score another good goal but incorrectly disallowed for offside.
The other team can barely get out of their half,hardly muster a shot in the first half.
In the second half they get a free kick about 30 yards out ,hits our centre back in the back and deflects into the net.
Match finishes 1-1 ,is that a fair result ?:)
Football can be a cruel game.

ShooterSF

Y2J_MUFC wrote: »

Have to agree with LuckyLloyd. Fundamentally disagree with all of Des'.. perhaps "moronic" in his opinion, but look at it logically... There are plenty of situations where a team controls the game, hits the bar, hits the post, but just can not make the break through. Football does involve a large amount of luck... Deflections, refereeing decisions, many variables which can go either way.


If a team get awarded a goal when the ball clearly isn't over the line, do they deserve to win? No. They didn't score, so why do they deserve it?

Do you deserve to win a game because the ref awarded a goal in error? No. Thats just luck.

If a team have score a goal thats not awarded when the ball has crossed the line (Roy Carroll anyone?), then the team who benefits deserves a draw even though they have conceded? No They deserve a draw on the basis of a decision of a poor decision, even though they have scored a perfectly good goal.

There are plenty of cases where teams can get a fortunate break to win the game that they wouldn't get 9 times out of 10.

Luck is a part of life, luck is a part of football.

Take ref decisions and other officials' mistakes out of the equation. Assume a match happened where 1 team dominated but couldn't score and the other's managed to score on the break, defend well and win the game. How about that?

Racing Flat

Iago wrote: »

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.

@ those who feel that the team that scores more than the other, regardless of how the game went, deserve to win....

Graham Taylor took this approach, where he looked at the stats and found that the majority of goals were scored via corners, free kicks, long balls, etc. and so he adopted the long ball approach, to statistically increase his teams chances of scoring and therefore winning.

If scoring is the only important thing in football, should not every team adopt this approach? If so, why did Taylor and Charlton's teams receive such criticism? Xavi6 you mentioned that if you're team didn't score it wasn't doing its job, Des you said something similar about strikers I think. Should your teams adopt a long ball approach to increase their chances of scoring and so do their job better?

LuckyLloyd

JPA wrote: »

Luck does not exist.

Statistical improbabilities occur every day in a wide variety of situations.

Mr.Nice Guy

Racing Flat wrote: »

@ those who feel that the team that scores more than the other, regardless of how the game went, deserve to win....

Graham Taylor took this approach, where he looked at the stats and found that the majority of goals were scored via corners, free kicks, long balls, etc. and so he adopted the long ball approach, to statistically increase his teams chances of scoring and therefore winning.

If scoring is the only important thing in football, should not every team adopt this approach? If so, why did Taylor and Charlton's teams receive such criticism? Xavi6 you mentioned that if you're team didn't score it wasn't doing its job, Des you said something similar about strikers I think. Should your teams adopt a long ball approach to increase their chances of scoring and so do their job better?

I don't understand your point. Surely most teams, with the exception of minnows like San Marino etc, take the approach that the team that scores most deserves to win? I don't get why that would require a Graham Taylor style attitude? Barcelona for instance take to the field looking to score goals and don't do it the long ball way.

JPA

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Statistical improbabilities occur every day in a wide variety of situations.

And they are.....Statistical improbabilities.

Racing Flat

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I don't understand your point. Surely most teams, with the exception of minnows like San Marino etc, take the approach that the team that scores most deserves to win? I don't get why that would require a Graham Taylor style attitude? Barcelona for instance take to the field looking to score goals and don't do it the long ball way.

Apologies, probably the wrong context in which to make the point, and probably not very well made. What I was trying to get at, is that if you are of the opinion that goals are all that count, no matter what, perhaps you should set your team up in a way to score as many goals as possible and the best way to do this will just be to knock the ball into the box as many times as possible, the long ball game. As opposed to if you are of the opinion that other parts of the game matter like keeping possession, wearing the other team down etc. you might set up like Barcelona and so have less chances of scoring, but overall you're game will be better so you'll probably win more.

Racing Flat

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

No.

For example, the game kicks off. All the players sit down not touching the ball. After half time, the other team kicks off. Again all the players sit down, not touching the ball. A huge gust of wind comes, a hurricane perhaps, and blows the ball into the net. One team wins 1-0. That score is not a fair reflection of the game, where both teams performed the exact same.

LuckyLloyd

JPA wrote: »

And they are.....Statistical improbabilities.

"Luck" is simply a term people use to describe such occurrences.