Bournemouth have played 1 in 4 games against 10 men

To have a red card go in your favour in 1 in 4 games is an extraordinary statistic whatever the reason, and is almost a guarantee to be top spot regardless of what Derby, Boro or any other team do.

Might as well give them the title now.

 

I can't be bothered but would like to see how many minutes teams have played against less than 11 men and how many penalties team are awarded.

 

Was this really given as a penalty?! It is against Leeds though so it's funny

 

There could be something in this. Looking back at our match with them last season, the referee awarded them 2 penalties (one was missed), but one was just a blatant dive. Also Angella was sent off, and it was mistaken identity and was later overturned.

 

The Tamas foul didn't warrant a sending off at the Vic as he was not preventing a goalscoring oppotunity.

Not every foul for a penalty is a red card.

 

Isn't Probert from Wiltshire - which technically means his 2 closest sides are Swindon or Bournemouth?

 

I see "well run" "little old Bournemouth" have supposedly bid £5m for Demarai Gray today

 

From South Gloucestershire so nearest club Bristol City.

Now lives in Wiltshire so candidate nearest clubs would be Bristol City still, Yeovil, Saints and, as you say, Swindon and ... Bournemouth ...!!!

Depends on which bit of Wiltshire he lives in. If I knew the c.nt's address I'd post it!

 

Graham Poll on talksport - 'Probert had an absolute shocker - if it had been a Premiership game he'd never have given it. His body language was 'I'll show you who's in charge' which was totally wrong.'

 

****ing hell Poll is spot on. You could tell he was going to send him off. Wandered over, let everyone come running over to make him centre of attention and then showed the card with that smug look on his ****ish face.

 

Ok, the smug bit might be right as some refs just can't seem to help themselves. But the bits in bold are silly. Wandered over - as opposed to? He wasn't exactly a million miles away. And as for letting everyone come over to him. Again, as opposed to? Running away? Are we now saying if players surround the ref that's his fault for letting them come over to him?

 

Wilshere is man, cant hav kidz m8.

 

Some of you are delusional.

Teams that have more attacks, in turn have more players in the box, which in turn means more penalties awarded.

Rodgers last season at Liverpool had by far more penalties than other teams. They had 12, the next most was 7.

This is down to the way the two teams player - At pace, numbers forward.

 

Going into that game Bmuff and us had only a single goal difference

So by your logic we'd also play 1 in 4 games against 10 men then... also being an attacking team and getting lots of reds in our favour

 

I didn't say anything about number of goals scored.

I said teams that have MORE ATTACKS.

Teams that play a very high press will naturally have more penalties.

The stats below are the top 5 penalties awarded and then the top 5 pressing teams!

There is certainly a link by the number of attacks/high pressing to the number of penalties awarded.

Number of Penalties (Table here)

Liverpool 12
Chelsea 7
Manchester City 7
Palace 6
Spurs 6

PPDA (Number of Passes made by Attacking Team / Number of Defensive Actions - See more)

Southampton 9.28
Chelsea 10.47
Liverpool 10.79
Manchester City 10.93
Spurs 11.51



This also works the other way too!

West Ham, Norwich, Cardiff City had the lowest number of penalties awarded and also were in the bottom 5 PPDA!

 

Prem stats are meaningless.

When you show me a league stat which shows B'muff are an attacking side and we are a defensive side, then I'll agree with you that is the reason why they get an excessive number of reds in their favour.

No way are they more offensive than us, they don't get any more people into the box than us, they don't score more goals than us, they don't play more passes than us.

 

You are twisting the argument to favour yourself.

Common sense suggests that the more players you get into the box, the more chance you have of winning a penalty.


Passes

Bournemouth - 23 crosses per game
Watford - 18 crosses per game

Bournemouth - 2 through balls per game
Watford - 1 through ball per game

Bournemouth - 77 long balls per game
Watford - 75 long balls per game

Bournemouth - 433 shorts passes per game
Watford - 372 shorts passes per game


Time spent in Oppositions Half per Game

Bournemouth - 32%
Watford - 30%


Shots inside Penalty Box per Game

Bournemouth - 8.6
Watford - 7.5


Dribbles per Game

Bournemouth - 7.9
Watford - 6.4


Average Possession

Bournemouth - 57%
Watford - 51.4%





Bournemouth play higher, dribble more, get into the opposition box more and have more possession. Based on those stats, Bournemouth will win more penalties.

 

Legs, the differences in the above stats seem pretty marginal. Why are the differences in red cards and penalties so much bigger, if it really is this cut and dry?

 

Are you genuinely suggesting there is a conspiracy?

Pretty much every stats I have seen suggests Bournemouth get into the box (or play in and around the box) more than us.

They have only scored two more penalties than us, they have had 3 more yellow cards and we have had had 3 more red cards - that's pretty 'marginal' then too.

 

I don't think there is a conspiracy, but I think there probably is an unconscious bias. When the media give a certain image of a club/players it's bound to impact upon a ref's thoughts.

 

Overturned. There's a surprise.

 

Conspiracy....What conspiracy

 

Not sure where I said there was a conspiracy, just playing devil's advocate. I was referring to red cards in their favour, by the way. Like Angella's on Friday.

 

And Probert's punishment for being such a ****** and depriving us of a fair and exciting contest is.........what exactly?

 

Premier League game at the weekend.

 

Such a hard profession.

 

Pretty sure he isn't reefing a Premiership game at the weekend by the way. He hasn't reffed there yet this season if I'm looking at the stats correctly, and I'm fairly sure I read he'd only reffed half a dozen or so matches so far this season prior to Friday's game.

 

Judging by that performance I think that's the last we'll see of him for a while if the FL is worth a fraction of a fraction of its salt.

 

You started out by calling people delusional. If your going to call people that expect to be challenged! (in a friendly way )

I could equally say you are twisting stats to suit yourself. I could point to the fact Bmuff play 25% of all home games v 10 men and therefore their stats will be unusually skewed in their favour.

I understand the argument you are making that says offensive teams will be fouled more. What you haven't answered is why does that not apply then to Watford? Why do we not play 25% or 20% or 15% of our home games against 10 men? (ie pro rata to Bmuff)

How does the possibility some teams are extremely good at the nasty side of football... simulation... pressuring referees... fit into your theory? Or refs being scared of certain managers (eg SAF)? Or doesn't it?

 

I believe he was the 4th official in one of the Sunday games.

Well earned reward.

 

I don't agree with your interpretation of those stats.

The top teams in the Prem are getting more decisions because they're better teams than those they are playing...or to put it another way, the reason their stats look better than mid/low Prem teams is because they own better players than the rest of the league. The gap between the top of the Premier League and the mid/low tier teams is also very big. The gulf between top and bottom in the Championship is much, much smaller.

If you compare the top 6 Prem teams to each other, though, the stats are roughly even.

Compare the top 6 championship teams to each other and Bournemouth are still a stand out on terms of red cards awarded and penalties received. As LTC has said, their stats also improve by virtue of the fact they are playing against 10 men a lot more than their opponents, which skews the comparison.

Furthermore, how many unjust red cards have been awarded against them? We can claim 3 of the 5 we've received so far quite easily, two of which essentially awarded us an auto-loss due to the fact they were brandished at 26 seconds and 4 minutes respectively.

I think one thing Muff do very well is harangue the ref over every possible incident. They appeal for everything, EVERYTHING, as do their fans. Some of the stuff they tried to claim was frankly embarrassing.

Meanwhile, two footed lunges go unpunished, handballs in the area go unpunished, and it's apparently OK for their players to put two hands on Anya and practically throw him to the ground. Yeah, Pudil's challenge was a red and should have seen him sent off for certain, but it's easy to see how the ref might have missed that one given where it was and the relative angles involved. How anyone couldn't have seen Anya picked up and thrown aside is beyond me, though. It was blatant.

 

I look forward to you letter to FA complaining about the standard off refereeing and asking for an investigation into the 'bias' into Bournemouth haha

I was suggestion there is a link between the amount of attacking players in the box and the amount of penalties.

I think there is evidence to suggest that.

 

I also think Bournemouth were very professional in their diving. They had practised it. You can see it in some of the top teams, Mourinho clearly does it too.

They put their body in the way of the player and back up slightly, know that a touch will come as the player will have to move closer to them, and flick their feet back making it look like they have been shoved from behind.

And when they go down, they hold their face even if it has nothing to do with their face, knowing that the ref will stop the match.

When the league is so close, every 1 or 2% you can get can influence your season. In Bournemouth's case, they are probably getting about 10-20% benefit, which is the difference between 1st and 6th.