Hi,
just so no-one gets misled by all the journalism suggesting the title was in Man City's hands now that they've beaten Aston Villa, putting them two points up with a much better goal difference, meaning that they only need a draw to win the title.
Here's the actual breakdown.
2 games that are interesting: Man City-West Ham and Liverpool-Newcastle.
That makes 3*3=9 possible result combinations:
1) City win, Liverpool win > City champions
2) City draw, Liverpool win > City champions
3) City lose, Liverpool win > Liverpool champions
4) City win, Liverpool draw > City champions
5) City draw, Liverpool draw > City champions
6) City lose, Liverpool draw > City champions
7) City win, Liverpool lose > City champions
8) City draw, Liverpool lose > City champions
9) City lose, Liverpool lose > City champions
1) is all down to City winning - a ninth of hands to City
2) is all down to City drawing - another ninth to City
3) is down to Liverpool winning and West Ham winning - so an eighteenth to each of them
4) you can either say well done City or well done Newcastle - so an eighteenth to each of them
5) ditto
6) well done Newcastle - a whole ninth to them
7) you can either say well done City or well done Newcastle - so an eighteenth to each of them
8) ditto
9) well done Newcastle - a whole ninth to them
Adding all that up, we get:
City: 1/9 + 1/9 + 1/18 + 1/18 + 1/18 + 1/18 = 4/9
Liverpool: 1/18
West Ham: 1/18
Newcastle: 1/18 + 1/18 + 1/9 + 1/18 + 1/18 + 1/9 = 4/9.
So as we see, West Ham and Liverpool have quite little bearing on the title, but it's quite extensively in Newcastle and City's hands!
Let's see what happens on Sunday!
Thursday 8 May 2014
Monday 21 April 2014
Not as easy as it looks this hands business
Hello,
in the last post, I had a look at a hypothetical situation with the Premier League looking like this before the last day of the season.
Liverpool, played 37, 86 points, vastly superior goal difference.
Chelsea, played 37, 84 points, vastly inferior goal difference.
Man City, played 37, 82 points.
Liverpool play Stoke.
Chelsea play Hull.
This gave me nine possible result combinations:
1. Liverpool win, Chelsea win
2. Liverpool win, Chelsea draw
3. Liverpool win, Chelsea lose
4. Liverpool draw, Chelsea win
5. Liverpool draw Chelsea draw
6. Liverpool draw, Chelsea lose
7. Liverpool lose, Chelsea win
8. Liverpool lose, Chelsea draw
9. Liverpool lose, Chelsea lose
and I ended up saying the title was in:
Liverpool's hands: 12/18
Hull's hands: 4/18
Stoke's hands: 1/18
Chelsea's hands: 1/18
Possible error
I think I may have made an error here, because I put the first six possibilities in Liverpool's hands. However, possibilities 2, 3, 5 and 6 are just as much under the influence of Hull's hands as they are under Liverpool's.
Revision
Adjusting the results for this error, we have to say that 2, 3 5 and 6 give an eighteenth to both Liverpool and Hull, making a net change of -4/18 for Liverpool and +4/18 for Hull. This gives us a final result of the title being in:
Liverpool's hands: 8/18
Hull's hands: 8/18
Stoke's hands: 1/18
Chelsea's hands: 1/18
What do you think about that?
in the last post, I had a look at a hypothetical situation with the Premier League looking like this before the last day of the season.
Liverpool, played 37, 86 points, vastly superior goal difference.
Chelsea, played 37, 84 points, vastly inferior goal difference.
Man City, played 37, 82 points.
Liverpool play Stoke.
Chelsea play Hull.
This gave me nine possible result combinations:
1. Liverpool win, Chelsea win
2. Liverpool win, Chelsea draw
3. Liverpool win, Chelsea lose
4. Liverpool draw, Chelsea win
5. Liverpool draw Chelsea draw
6. Liverpool draw, Chelsea lose
7. Liverpool lose, Chelsea win
8. Liverpool lose, Chelsea draw
9. Liverpool lose, Chelsea lose
and I ended up saying the title was in:
Liverpool's hands: 12/18
Hull's hands: 4/18
Stoke's hands: 1/18
Chelsea's hands: 1/18
Possible error
I think I may have made an error here, because I put the first six possibilities in Liverpool's hands. However, possibilities 2, 3, 5 and 6 are just as much under the influence of Hull's hands as they are under Liverpool's.
Revision
Adjusting the results for this error, we have to say that 2, 3 5 and 6 give an eighteenth to both Liverpool and Hull, making a net change of -4/18 for Liverpool and +4/18 for Hull. This gives us a final result of the title being in:
Liverpool's hands: 8/18
Hull's hands: 8/18
Stoke's hands: 1/18
Chelsea's hands: 1/18
What do you think about that?
They've got the whole title in their hands. Or have they?
Hello,
it's a common football punditry cliche to say that a team has got their fate in their hands if all they have to do to e.g. win the league is to win all their games. One recent example of this is Robbie Savage's piece from 13th April, written after Liverpool beat Man City.
"we saw why the title is now solely in their hands" he said.
Some critics, such as @MikeBenchcapon, dispute this approach as it ignores:
a) the fact that sometimes more than one team can win the league by winning all their games. Think about a cup final – there the above logic would suggest that the destination of the cup was solely in both teams' hands.
b) the teams playing the team in whose hands it supposedly is obviously also have some say in the result.
Useful, but inaccurate
Whilst I do recognise the usefulness of an expression that means "they win the league/stay up/etc. if they win all their games", the critique is valid that "in their hands" is somewhat inaccurate. To demonstrate in whose hands the title really is, I was going to do an analysis of all the teams still involved in potentially title-deciding matches to be played after Savage's article.
Noble, but unfortunate
Unfortunately, at the time of Savage writing, even Arsenal and Everton could still have won the league and only four teams, Spurs, Fulham, Stoke and Swansea, weren't involved in any matches which could possibly have had any bearing on the title. This large number of games remaining and indeed teams involved makes the calculations horrifically complicated – not difficult really but just very very many, which would make just setting up the spreadsheet take more time than I have.
So what I've done is I've worked out a couple of hypothetical but not unrealistic examples using a proposed model, just for interest really and I suppose to demonstrate just how spread the fate of a title can be across multiple hands.
Example №1: Two-horse race on final day of season
The first example situation sees the league table as follows:
Liverpool, played 37, 86 points, vastly superior goal difference.
Chelsea, played 37, 84 points, vastly inferior goal difference.
Man City, played 37, 82 points.
Liverpool play Stoke.
Chelsea play Hull.
It doesn't take long to work out that any draw will do for Liverpool whereas Chelsea need to win and hope Liverpool lose. Man City are out of it. Some would say the title is in Liverpool's hands, but to what extent is that true?
Breaking it down
Now, we have two games, each of which has three possible outcomes, a home win for the title-chaser, a draw and a defeat. This gives us a total of nine possibilities.
1. Liverpool win, Chelsea win
2. Liverpool win, Chelsea draw
3. Liverpool win, Chelsea lose
4. Liverpool draw, Chelsea win
5. Liverpool draw Chelsea draw
6. Liverpool draw, Chelsea lose
7. Liverpool lose, Chelsea win
8. Liverpool lose, Chelsea draw
9. Liverpool lose, Chelsea lose
So each of these results has a 1/9 contribution to the overall spread of the title across various hands.
The first six result possibilities (Liverpool win or draw) lead to Liverpool winning the title and are down to Liverpool having made good use of their hands to such an extent that all other hands (particularly Chelsea's) are rendered irrelevant. So the amount of title in Liverpool's hands is:
6*(1/9)=6/9=2/3
Chelsea get the title in possibility 7, which is done by them winning and by Stoke beating Liverpool. This means that their hands share this 1/9, giving Chelsea's and Stoke's hands an 1/18 from possibility 7.
In possibilities 8 and 9, the Liverpool-Stoke result doesn't matter, and the title has been decided by Hull's salvaging a draw/landing a shock win. So their hands get both of these ninths.
To sum up, and converting to eighteenths to aid comparability, the title is in:
Liverpool's hands: 12/18
Hull's hands: 4/18
Stoke's hands: 1/18
Chelsea's hands: 1/18
Whilst Robbie Savage (I haven't asked him) might think it is a bit silly to say that Hull have more say in the title race than Chelsea, I think it makes complete sense given that they only need a draw or a win, whereas Chelsea need a win. I mean, each football match is contested by two teams with equal numbers of hands and an equal say in the outcome of the match. You could adjust for teams being better by saying that their hands are more secure, if you wanted to, but for now I'm weighting all teams' hands equally.
The other example is a bit more complicated and I think I've made my main point here so I'll save the other example for a later post.
Comments welcome as ever. Thanks.
it's a common football punditry cliche to say that a team has got their fate in their hands if all they have to do to e.g. win the league is to win all their games. One recent example of this is Robbie Savage's piece from 13th April, written after Liverpool beat Man City.
"we saw why the title is now solely in their hands" he said.
Some critics, such as @MikeBenchcapon, dispute this approach as it ignores:
a) the fact that sometimes more than one team can win the league by winning all their games. Think about a cup final – there the above logic would suggest that the destination of the cup was solely in both teams' hands.
b) the teams playing the team in whose hands it supposedly is obviously also have some say in the result.
Useful, but inaccurate
Whilst I do recognise the usefulness of an expression that means "they win the league/stay up/etc. if they win all their games", the critique is valid that "in their hands" is somewhat inaccurate. To demonstrate in whose hands the title really is, I was going to do an analysis of all the teams still involved in potentially title-deciding matches to be played after Savage's article.
Noble, but unfortunate
Unfortunately, at the time of Savage writing, even Arsenal and Everton could still have won the league and only four teams, Spurs, Fulham, Stoke and Swansea, weren't involved in any matches which could possibly have had any bearing on the title. This large number of games remaining and indeed teams involved makes the calculations horrifically complicated – not difficult really but just very very many, which would make just setting up the spreadsheet take more time than I have.
So what I've done is I've worked out a couple of hypothetical but not unrealistic examples using a proposed model, just for interest really and I suppose to demonstrate just how spread the fate of a title can be across multiple hands.
Example №1: Two-horse race on final day of season
The first example situation sees the league table as follows:
Liverpool, played 37, 86 points, vastly superior goal difference.
Chelsea, played 37, 84 points, vastly inferior goal difference.
Man City, played 37, 82 points.
Liverpool play Stoke.
Chelsea play Hull.
It doesn't take long to work out that any draw will do for Liverpool whereas Chelsea need to win and hope Liverpool lose. Man City are out of it. Some would say the title is in Liverpool's hands, but to what extent is that true?
Breaking it down
Now, we have two games, each of which has three possible outcomes, a home win for the title-chaser, a draw and a defeat. This gives us a total of nine possibilities.
1. Liverpool win, Chelsea win
2. Liverpool win, Chelsea draw
3. Liverpool win, Chelsea lose
4. Liverpool draw, Chelsea win
5. Liverpool draw Chelsea draw
6. Liverpool draw, Chelsea lose
7. Liverpool lose, Chelsea win
8. Liverpool lose, Chelsea draw
9. Liverpool lose, Chelsea lose
So each of these results has a 1/9 contribution to the overall spread of the title across various hands.
The first six result possibilities (Liverpool win or draw) lead to Liverpool winning the title and are down to Liverpool having made good use of their hands to such an extent that all other hands (particularly Chelsea's) are rendered irrelevant. So the amount of title in Liverpool's hands is:
6*(1/9)=6/9=2/3
Chelsea get the title in possibility 7, which is done by them winning and by Stoke beating Liverpool. This means that their hands share this 1/9, giving Chelsea's and Stoke's hands an 1/18 from possibility 7.
In possibilities 8 and 9, the Liverpool-Stoke result doesn't matter, and the title has been decided by Hull's salvaging a draw/landing a shock win. So their hands get both of these ninths.
To sum up, and converting to eighteenths to aid comparability, the title is in:
Liverpool's hands: 12/18
Hull's hands: 4/18
Stoke's hands: 1/18
Chelsea's hands: 1/18
Whilst Robbie Savage (I haven't asked him) might think it is a bit silly to say that Hull have more say in the title race than Chelsea, I think it makes complete sense given that they only need a draw or a win, whereas Chelsea need a win. I mean, each football match is contested by two teams with equal numbers of hands and an equal say in the outcome of the match. You could adjust for teams being better by saying that their hands are more secure, if you wanted to, but for now I'm weighting all teams' hands equally.
The other example is a bit more complicated and I think I've made my main point here so I'll save the other example for a later post.
Comments welcome as ever. Thanks.
Tuesday 28 January 2014
The week's tweet No.4
Hello,
This week's "the week's tweet" is:
If Beyonce had called her smash hit "Crazed in love" then she could have created a clever eye rhyme with the song's guest rapper, Jay Z.
Also to be found in the original here.
Here is the summary of why this is so hilarious. I've broken it down to eight reasons.
1) Beyonce's song "Crazy in Love" is very old and no-one is talking about it anymore.
2) "Crazy" does rhyme (kind of, if you ignore the stress) with the way Jay Z is actually pronounced, because he pronounces the Z in the American way as "zee" rather than in the British way as "zed".
3) I'm British so I find pronunciation differences funny.
4) The sound rhyme Crazy/Jay Z[ee] is much better than the eye rhyme Crazed/Jay Z[ed].
5) There isn't really much scope for getting much mileage out of a rhyme between the name of your guest rapper and the name of your song - unless he uses it in his rap.
6) Jay Z already rhymes crazy with Jay Z in his rap on the song.
7) If the song was called "Crazed in love", lots of the other lyrics wouldn't work, like for example "Got me looking so crazed, my baby", where in the original the "crazy/baby" pairing is used for rhythmic niceness.
8) "Crazed in love" sounds terrible to begin with.
Tune in next week for next week's "the week's tweet"!
This week's "the week's tweet" is:
If Beyonce had called her smash hit "Crazed in love" then she could have created a clever eye rhyme with the song's guest rapper, Jay Z.
Also to be found in the original here.
Here is the summary of why this is so hilarious. I've broken it down to eight reasons.
1) Beyonce's song "Crazy in Love" is very old and no-one is talking about it anymore.
2) "Crazy" does rhyme (kind of, if you ignore the stress) with the way Jay Z is actually pronounced, because he pronounces the Z in the American way as "zee" rather than in the British way as "zed".
3) I'm British so I find pronunciation differences funny.
4) The sound rhyme Crazy/Jay Z[ee] is much better than the eye rhyme Crazed/Jay Z[ed].
5) There isn't really much scope for getting much mileage out of a rhyme between the name of your guest rapper and the name of your song - unless he uses it in his rap.
6) Jay Z already rhymes crazy with Jay Z in his rap on the song.
7) If the song was called "Crazed in love", lots of the other lyrics wouldn't work, like for example "Got me looking so crazed, my baby", where in the original the "crazy/baby" pairing is used for rhythmic niceness.
8) "Crazed in love" sounds terrible to begin with.
Tune in next week for next week's "the week's tweet"!
Tuesday 7 January 2014
Gute Zeilenumbrüche
Guten Tag,
bei mir im Büro hängt ein Werbekalender von irgendeiner Bank oder irgendeinem Kreditinstitut. So genau habe ich nicht hingeschaut. Auf jeden Fall steht da drauf:
Unternehmen Sie auch 2014
nichts ohne uns.
Ich finde diesen Zeilenumbruch wirklich sehr gut, da beide Zeilen – wenn man sie quasi alleinstehend lesen würde – positive Botschaften bieten: "Unternehmen Sie auch 2014" sagt quasi, dass man 2014 was machen soll und gleichzeitig davon ausgeht, dass der Leser 2013 was gemacht hat.
Ebenso sagt "nichts ohne uns" implizit, dass nichts geht oder auf die Kette zu bekommen ist, wenn man auf die Unterstützung der Bank bzw. des Kreditinstituts verzichtet.
Falls ihr meint, diese Positivität hätte wenig bis nichts mit dem Zeilenumbruch zu tun, stellt euch vor, es würde so aussehen:
Unternehmen Sie auch 2014 nichts
ohne uns.
So hätte man in der ersten Zeile nicht nur einen Auruf zur Faulheit, sondern auch die freche Unterstellung, der Leser hätte im Jahr 2013 (und ggf. in den vorangegangenen Jahren) nichts unternommen. Die zweite Zeile ist auch nicht viel besser, weil sie einfach "ohne uns" beinhaltet, was dann den Eindruck hinterlässt, man würde diese Bank bzw. dieses Kreditinstitut für nichts brauchen.
Ein schönes neues Jahr.
Herr Bench
bei mir im Büro hängt ein Werbekalender von irgendeiner Bank oder irgendeinem Kreditinstitut. So genau habe ich nicht hingeschaut. Auf jeden Fall steht da drauf:
Unternehmen Sie auch 2014
nichts ohne uns.
Ich finde diesen Zeilenumbruch wirklich sehr gut, da beide Zeilen – wenn man sie quasi alleinstehend lesen würde – positive Botschaften bieten: "Unternehmen Sie auch 2014" sagt quasi, dass man 2014 was machen soll und gleichzeitig davon ausgeht, dass der Leser 2013 was gemacht hat.
Ebenso sagt "nichts ohne uns" implizit, dass nichts geht oder auf die Kette zu bekommen ist, wenn man auf die Unterstützung der Bank bzw. des Kreditinstituts verzichtet.
Falls ihr meint, diese Positivität hätte wenig bis nichts mit dem Zeilenumbruch zu tun, stellt euch vor, es würde so aussehen:
Unternehmen Sie auch 2014 nichts
ohne uns.
So hätte man in der ersten Zeile nicht nur einen Auruf zur Faulheit, sondern auch die freche Unterstellung, der Leser hätte im Jahr 2013 (und ggf. in den vorangegangenen Jahren) nichts unternommen. Die zweite Zeile ist auch nicht viel besser, weil sie einfach "ohne uns" beinhaltet, was dann den Eindruck hinterlässt, man würde diese Bank bzw. dieses Kreditinstitut für nichts brauchen.
Ein schönes neues Jahr.
Herr Bench
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
