Flat-track bullies?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Record against teams currently above us

P14 W0 D5 L9 GF7 GA23 Pts5 PPG 0.36
Record against teams currently below us

P10 W8 D2 L0 GF21 GA8 Pts26 PPG 2.60

I'm not sure I've ever seen a record quite as stark as this before.

[glosterred]

How many of those now below us were above us when we beat them? That is if you're talking about the Rovers.

COYR

[Sammy Chung was King]

Beat the lower half teams, pick a point up against some of the top half with two or three wins, and we would have a chance, we need three to four strong additions to give us a chance.

[IDM]

Record against teams currently above us

P14 W0 D5 L9 GF7 GA23 Pts5 PPG 0.36
Record against teams currently below us

P10 W8 D2 L0 GF21 GA8 Pts26 PPG 2.60

I'm not sure I've ever seen a record quite as stark as this before.

Regardless of the stats that seems like common sense to me - on average you would be above the teams you beat.  A bit like a squash ladder! And the higher we go, the less skewed the results will look.

I would be more concerned if we had got most of our points against top sides yet lost to the bottom ones.

[GazLaz]

We don't need 3 or 4. Just going on the improvement we are seeing since DF came in alone that's enough to see us finish near the playoffs.

[bobjimwilly]

Another midfielder and central defender would do us

[Dare to dream!]

Right back is still a priority IMO, we can't rely on Mattioni and I don't think Lund is good enough yet

[DonnyOsmond]

Right back is still a priority IMO, we can't rely on Mattioni and I don't think Lund is good enough yet

Alcock?

[nortikorner]

Two centre half and a play maker in the middle of the park to stop the long balls

[BillyStubbsTears]

Record against teams currently above us

P14 W0 D5 L9 GF7 GA23 Pts5 PPG 0.36
Record against teams currently below us

P10 W8 D2 L0 GF21 GA8 Pts26 PPG 2.60

I'm not sure I've ever seen a record quite as stark as this before.

Regardless of the stats that seems like common sense to me - on average you would be above the teams you beat.  A bit like a squash ladder! And the higher we go, the less skewed the results will look.

I would be more concerned if we had got most of our points against top sides yet lost to the bottom ones.

I know where you're coming from IDM but the key phrase in your post is "on average". What's happening with the Rovers so far this year is not results here and there averaging out to give a trend. It's more like a stark on/off switch. Basically, we pretty much always beat the weak teams and alwys fail to beat the good teams.

That sort of stark difference happens very rarely. You'd usually expect even a very poor team to occasionally beat one of the better ones. And vice versa. So, this season, Walsall have lost against Chesterfield. Burton have lost to Fleetwood. Colchester have beaten Gillingham. Crewe have beaten Sheff Utd.

We haven't had a single result of that kind this season. It actually does make sense to me. I think we ARE flat-track bullies. We have enough quality to beat weak sides, but for most of the season, nowhere near enough iron to beat better ones.

[Dutch Uncle]

Couple of comments on this. The result of a squash match is an incredibly predictable thing, if a player is slightly better, he pretty well always wins. Rub of the green comes into it far less than football. I was responsible for Dutch rankings and seedings for a few years, and the only 'surprises' were when a young player started improving and beating players you wouldn't expect........ until you realised he was now actually a better player.

Rovers record split as BST details is truly remarkable. If we simplify and say that the chance of Rovers beating a higher ranked team is 0.4 and losing a lower ranked team is also 0.4 then the probability of all 24 matches following this pattern is 0.6 to the power 24, or 1 in more than 200,000. That is astounding.

Although mathematically different, the whole thing reminds me in a way of the pigeon hole problem in probability theory - there are say 20 pigeon holes for 20 people's post and 20 letters supposedly random in addressee to be put in the pigeon holes. Probability theory shows these will as good as never be evenly spread - they will always pile up an a few pigeon holes, and results can often be counter intuitive. One example of this is how many non-related (i.e. no twins) people do you need in a room before the probability of two people having the same birthday is greater than 0.5? Anyone care to guess the answer?

[IDM]

Half past 2?

[i_ateallthepies]

There's something fundamentally wrong with your post there Dutch... 'If we simplify'.   I don't have the foggiest clue what you're on about.   

[IDM]

BST, I do see where you are coming from - didn't we beat both QPR and Leicester at home in our last relegation season?

[Dutch Uncle]

There's something fundamentally wrong with your post there Dutch... 'If we simplify'.   I don't have the foggiest clue what you're on about.   

I'm 'simply' giving a fixed chance of Rovers beating any team above (or below) rather than estimating an individual chance against each team home or away - so I am saying we are equally likely to beat say Coventry or Port Vale.

The point I am making is that the odds after 24 games that we have not beaten anyone above or lost to anyone below are very very long indeed - more than one would intuitively think.

The number of people needed in the room is only 23, which I find intuitively very low. With 23 in a room there is a better than evens chance of 2 people having the same birthday - or to put it another way - put 23 people in each of 1000 rooms, then there would be a pair with the same birthday in about half of the rooms........

and a lot of people wondering what was going on  .........

[wilts rover]

Is the answer Twente Enschede?

[Campsall rover]

There's something fundamentally wrong with your post there Dutch... 'If we simplify'.   I don't have the foggiest clue what you're on about.   

I'm 'simply' giving a fixed chance of Rovers beating any team above (or below) rather than estimating an individual chance against each team home or away - so I am saying we are equally likely to beat say Coventry or Port Vale.

The point I am making is that the odds after 24 games that we have not beaten anyone above or lost to anyone below are very very long indeed - more than one would intuitively think.

The number of people needed in the room is only 23, which I find intuitively very low. With 23 in a room there is a better than evens chance of 2 people having the same birthday - or to put it another way - put 23 people in each of 1000 rooms, then there would be a pair with the same birthday in about half of the rooms........

and a lot of people wondering what was going on  .........

You not kidding 

[Donnywolf]

 The number of people needed in the room is only 23, which I find intuitively very low. With 23 in a room there is a better than evens chance of 2 people having the same birthday - or to put it another way - put 23 people in each of 1000 rooms, then there would be a pair with the same birthday in about half of the rooms........
[/quote]

Yes I believe you and what is more I have the Spreadsheet to prove it somewhere

Intuitively one would think it needs to be more that 23 ... it just seems it should be but no 23 it is ... I have save the Maths for 15 years and of course cannot now find "it"

[swintonrover]

Probability is a strange thing. For my university interview, I demonstrated this by shuffling a deck of cards at random. That order of cards will never have been seen before in theory, as the odds of 52 cards appearing in any order is 1/8.6x10(57), or more than all the known particles in the universe.
The maths checks out on both that and the birthday paradox, which resulted in 3 separate Professors of Mathematics complaining of headaches.

[BigH]

Couple of comments on this. The result of a squash match is an incredibly predictable thing, if a player is slightly better, he pretty well always wins. Rub of the green comes into it far less than football. I was responsible for Dutch rankings and seedings for a few years, and the only 'surprises' were when a young player started improving and beating players you wouldn't expect........ until you realised he was now actually a better player.

Rovers record split as BST details is truly remarkable. If we simplify and say that the chance of Rovers beating a higher ranked team is 0.4 and losing a lower ranked team is also 0.4 then the probability of all 24 matches following this pattern is 0.6 to the power 24, or 1 in more than 200,000. That is astounding.

Although mathematically different, the whole thing reminds me in a way of the pigeon hole problem in probability theory - there are say 20 pigeon holes for 20 people's post and 20 letters supposedly random in addressee to be put in the pigeon holes. Probability theory shows these will as good as never be evenly spread - they will always pile up an a few pigeon holes, and results can often be counter intuitive. One example of this is how many non-related (i.e. no twins) people do you need in a room before the probability of two people having the same birthday is greater than 0.5? Anyone care to guess the answer?

Blimey! Wish I'd had a quid on us doing thus at the beginning of the season.

[Bentley Bullet]

OK then lets try an experiment. Who was born on December 20th, like me?

[drfchound]

My sister in law.

[drfchound]

Couple of comments on this. The result of a squash match is an incredibly predictable thing, if a player is slightly better, he pretty well always wins. Rub of the green comes into it far less than football. I was responsible for Dutch rankings and seedings for a few years, and the only 'surprises' were when a young player started improving and beating players you wouldn't expect........ until you realised he was now actually a better player.

Rovers record split as BST details is truly remarkable. If we simplify and say that the chance of Rovers beating a higher ranked team is 0.4 and losing a lower ranked team is also 0.4 then the probability of all 24 matches following this pattern is 0.6 to the power 24, or 1 in more than 200,000. That is astounding.

Although mathematically different, the whole thing reminds me in a way of the pigeon hole problem in probability theory - there are say 20 pigeon holes for 20 people's post and 20 letters supposedly random in addressee to be put in the pigeon holes. Probability theory shows these will as good as never be evenly spread - they will always pile up an a few pigeon holes, and results can often be counter intuitive. One example of this is how many non-related (i.e. no twins) people do you need in a room before the probability of two people having the same birthday is greater than 0.5? Anyone care to guess the answer?

Blimey! Wish I'd had a quid on us doing thus at the beginning of the season.

I bet the bookies would have had a problem calculating the odds.

[Donnywolf]

OK then lets try an experiment. Who was born on December 20th, like me?

Better yet BB ... Here are the 21 who said we would beat Oldham.

Bentley Bullet 
idler 
Al4475 
Bristol Red Rover 
dknward2 
jonnydog 
donnyguy61 
Sammy Chung was King 
les@donr 
raithy 
bobjimwilly 
Lifelong supporter 
Dutch Uncle 
mattco 
Donnybax 
LincsRover 
IDM 
niteowler 
besty 
Donnywolf 
Wild Rover 
Plus I have added the first 2 people I thought of who were not on the list

RobtheRover
SilentMajority

So that can be our Room of 23 - all we need to do is see if we have any match on Birth Dates (Years not needed)

Me Feb 17

Any one that matches that? If not someone else put their date till we have done the lot

[Bentley Bullet]

OK then lets try an experiment. Who was born on December 20th, like me?

Better yet BB ... Here are the 21 who said we would beat Oldham.

Bentley Bullet   ..................December 20th (1988  )
idler 
Al4475 
Bristol Red Rover 
dknward2 
jonnydog 
donnyguy61 
Sammy Chung was King 
les@donr 
raithy 
bobjimwilly 
Lifelong supporter 
Dutch Uncle 
mattco 
Donnybax 
LincsRover 
IDM 
niteowler 
besty 
Donnywolf 
Wild Rover 
Plus I have added the first 2 people I thought of who were not on the list

RobtheRover
SilentMajority

So that can be our Room of 23 - all we need to do is see if we have any match on Birth Dates (Years not needed)

Me Feb 17

Any one that matches that? If not someone else put their date till we have done the lot

[Donnywolf]

Here is the Maths explained !

http://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-birthday-paradox/

[Capmeister]

Statistics were obviously invented by some dullard with nowt better to do. The plethora of stats available in footy these days is truly astounding but sadly I can't wet my pants over it. I'd rather lounge about mulling over the offerings on Babestation daytime. Yes, I found out today there is such a thing. Kept my entertained for all of.................well let's not go into that. Anyway, unless you're in the business of selling Farrar slacks to the well heeled through M&S or groceries to Asda's customers then they are pointless. No pun intended. Queue BST.....

Oh....er.....Donny ain't good enough to secure a top 6 berth on account of their defensive frailties, limited midfield artistry, especially now Wellens has departed and Fergie's gung-ho attacking style, albeit it is highly entertaining but frustrating in a heart in mouth kind of way.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Lads. LADS! I think we've got a bite.

[GazLaz]

Variance. That's all I'll add to the debate.

[hoolahoop]

Right back is still a priority IMO, we can't rely on Mattioni and I don't think Lund is good enough yet

I couldn't agree more The SKitsons exploited us down that side time and time again this week. It won't have gone unnoticed come Satdi.