Brainstorming on the topic of football – my thoughts, my approaches
Making football more attractive
o too few goals
o Evidence technique by examining tension and game development, diagrams on it
o Statistics on goals. If you lead 1:0, you win 68% of the time!
o On average, only one goal every 34 minutes; too long a waiting time
o it is hardly worth watching an attack, an action because: Nothing countable comes out of it. The probability that an attack will result in a goal is about 1%. So why watch?
o Football is purely a fan sport. Means: For neutral spectators it is boring, only for fans it is bearable.
o Football can attract many more viewers as a fascinating sport in which beauty, excitement and aesthetics, struggle, passion, emotion, but also fairness and justice play a role.
o Decisive improvement through rethinking. Referees must not be afraid of the mistake that leads to a goal. You want the goal action, you want the goal, everyone except the few fans of the team conceding the goal. The mistake that does not allow a goal is just as bad, more on this in the point “The role of the media”.
o Decisive idea, which was even written into the rules at one point: To give the attacker the benefit of the doubt in critical offside decisions. This rule is not applied, rather it is trampled on. However, the basic idea behind it corresponds exactly to my demand: rethinking in favour of the attackers at all points. Always remember: The neutral spectator wants the goal. There are only very few who do not want it.
o There are plenty of advocates of the demand for “more goals”, even in official circles.
o Please keep in mind with every thought or suggestion: As long as you don’t know the impact, it is not really possible to pass judgement on it. More goals – no thanks? Try it out first. It works, guaranteed!
o To implement it, it is essentially sufficient to apply existing rules. If there is a foul or handball in the penalty area, the rule provides for a penalty kick. There are enough situations in which the game continues, but the analyses later prove: “There should have been a penalty kick.” This situation occurs much more frequently than “that was a swallow” or “that was not handball”. Here, too, the rule is: rethink. What is the problem when a penalty is given? Why are people intuitively afraid of it? Psychology: “If I give a penalty now, it’s 1:0 and the game is (RR: …68%) decided. I can’t do that. So: Play on. Remains 0-0, decision maybe later.” If there are more goals, there’s no need for that. A goal is scored, you think: “Oh, now it’s getting exciting.”
o Differences in performance have to be noticeable. There are too many games where a team presses but the goal doesn’t come. Corner kick statistics, possession, goal chances, duels, all to the advantage. Result: 0:1. “Nothing countable.”
o The difference in performance is not noticeable also means that you could almost roll the dice. It is no longer apparent that one team is really better than the other. If there were goals, then it would be recognisable, if only for the day, who was better – at least today. This demand also refers above all to the attackers, who are very often the good, better footballers, and who can simply be thwarted by any defenders without ball skills, by purely physical means. This includes, of course, the above-mentioned unpunished foul play, small obstructions, short pulling, tugging, tearing, which stops the run, the decisive small contact that throws the striker off balance. If the whistle was blown more “pettily” (it’s often not about the visible size of the foul but the intention and the effect. The shot comes to nothing because of a small, barely visible push.
o The role of the media or better: the power of the media
o The media have the chance to draw attention to the decisive points with their reporting
o Basically I call for: positive reporting
o Emphasise the good achievements, not permanently the mistakes.
o Don’t pick on the losers, don’t question the coaches, but basically thank both teams for the brilliant entertainment, the exciting game, what was offered.
o Acknowledgement of good and bad luck. In fact, that is the main demand. As much as one may try to analyse everything and prove that only this team could win. It is not the truth. There is luck and bad luck, and not too little of it. Presenting that, acknowledging it, makes reporting not only much easier, but also more honest and fair.
o Luck and bad luck do not (necessarily) balance each other out either, to the extent that one may even talk about bad luck on several games
o The problem is that everyone in this country is an expert. As a result, commentators and columnists are labelled laymen (which would have to be proven!) if they use the expression “the victory was lucky”. “Watt denn glücklich. If you don’t take your chances, you can’t help it. That’s how football works. He has no idea. Luck.” But even this counter-statement is launched by the media. If luck or bad luck were to take hold, then this reaction would gradually disappear. For me, by the way, the coaches know that very well. It’s just that they are not allowed to give this answer in interviews, because then by virtue of media power they are denounced as amateurs, dumb talkers or lazy excuse-seekers and soon afterwards sacked.
o Refereeing errors that go against a correct goal have in principle the same effect as those that wrongly acknowledge a goal. In this respect, the comments would also have to be neutral, i.e. emphasise both errors equally. This does not happen. A recognised goal that was irregular is not only discussed for weeks, sometimes for years, while a disallowed goal is barely worth a footnote. Let alone, someone stoops to looking for the cause of the defeat in two faulty offside decisions and a penalty that was not given, each of which would have led to a goal. That is not possible. Conversely, the referee decided the game.
History of the German team in major tournaments
o “Proof” that there is luck and bad luck. In this country there is even a huge problem with it: there was so much luck that you don’t feel it but at some point take it for granted and lose all power of judgement and objectivity. That is also partly the reason for the bad reporting. Germany is and always will be world champions. No matter whether they are better than others. And they really aren’t. Differences in performance? They don’t matter. The winner is the one who always wins. And that is Germany.
o While there is evidence that it is always like that, my belief in luck and bad luck and the allocation of it tends to be that it depends essentially on ability, that it makes your chances of success better or worse, and that in the long run you get what’s coming to you. The German team is good, no question. It’s just that in the long run there is no evidence that they are (were) better than Brazil, Argentina, Italy, France, Spain, England. The successes are disproportionately greater. This does not only have positive effects!
o Even in youth football, this can hinder education. In my opinion, objectivity is a very important prerequisite for fast and good development, in every sport. In Germany, this is questionable due to these outsized successes.
The predictability of football
o The football programme. Analysis of relevant parameters, algorithm explanation, showing and explaining formulas, logic behind it. Basic approach: There are probabilities for match outcomes. Calculable does not mean calculating the winner, but the chances of winning.
o How are odds calculated? Relationship between probability of occurrence and payout ratio. The fair odds and the payout odds, which are calculated with profit.
o The betting market. How was the betting market in the past, how is it today? How do the odds move today? What betting offers are there really? How safe is the money? Comparison of betting exchanges, traditional providers. Live betting, long-term betting etc.
o Statistics of the games. Expected/accomplished goals/home wins/draws/home defeats. Ways to check the quality of predictions, a single one, several different ones. The perfect betting game.
o Final result: How predictable is football? There is a mathematical answer to this, which in principle also allows the proportions of luck and bad luck inherent in the game to be determined with the help of a measurable number.
o Concrete calculation of the football World Cup in South Africa 2010
o Application of all previously determined methods to a practical example and directed towards the future, in this respect it offers the approach of subsequently checking the quality of these predictions (in the form of probabilities) (small follow-up work including an investigation?)
o Verifiable working method
o Mathematics and philosophy have their interface precisely in probability theory. After all, one quite often deals with the question of whether something had to happen this way? Whether it was fate? To what extent does one really want predictability/predictability? The aspect of suspense, what will happen, also plays a fundamental role here. There would be no more suspense, and thus no motivation to watch football, if it were predictable.