1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of Matchday 13
1.FC Kaiserslautern – Bayer Leverkusen 0:2 (0:0)
Borussia Mönchengladbach – Werder Bremen 5:0 (3:0)
FC Schalke 04 – 1. FC Nürnberg 4:0 (2:0)
- FC Cologne – FSV Mainz 05 cancelled
SC Freiburg – Hertha BSC 2:2 (0:2)
VfL Wolfsburg – Hannover 96 4:1 (2:1)
FC Bayern Munich – Borussia Dortmund 0:1 (0:0)
VfB Stuttgart – FC Augsburg 2:1 (1:0)
Hamburger SV – TSG Hoffenheim 2:0 (1:0)
A few observations:
Well, one does not feel directly obliged to do the same as a presumably good journalist at this point and go straight for the “big talking points”, certainly with the intention of maintaining or even increasing the sales figures or ratings for one’s paper or programme. But what is the point of doing it? Presumably everyone has their “own view” and has already read everything about it, so that one would not even have to expect an increase in information.
In this sense, the suicide attempt of Babak Rafati should really not be discussed in detail. This “not going into detail” looks something like this: there is certainly some pressure on the referees. Whether there is a connection is doubtful at the moment. But from the author’s point of view, it seems that this species of people who get involved in such an office (one recently joked with chess grandmaster Mladen Muse when, asked by parents about the future career of their offspring, he said who would like to say about him: “You, my child, will surely become a good arbiter one day”), particularly appreciate the ability to let others, in the true sense of the word, “dance to their tune”. In this respect, this aspect of such pressure would tend to fall away as an argument. If, one speculates much more, albeit of course behind closed doors (i.e.: one can certainly not read anything, dear reader?), it could, if there were a connection, only be the pressure to which a certain Mr. Hoyzer was once subjected. In other words: one might have agreed to blow the whistle here or there and to mute it on the other side in decisive situations, and could not reconcile this with one’s conscience. Of course – subject: hand held up and therefore explicitly noted here – this does NOT concern Mr. Rafati, God forbid, and of course was not to be taken that way!
A scoundrel who thinks bad things of it. Or was this the fool?
The other big talking point was logically Dortmund’s victory in Munich. Well, just here, in the later course of the previous text, there had been quite a lively argument in the direction of the chance of a Dortmund victory. A virtual unit had even been placed on the entry, with the win, equally virtual, but nevertheless eaten with a tasty smacking sound. It is only surprising how, in retrospect, the inevitability of the occurrence is derived from the reporter’s side.
It was argued here that the chance of occurrence would have been in a favourable ratio to the payout ratio, that the chance would have been greater than 1/6 (the reciprocal of the payout ratio of 6.00), not only from the computer’s point of view. However, it is argued just as vehemently here that it could hardly have exceeded 20% (the computer was just below that). Now, it is very possible that these odds are shifted in relation to an individual game. On the other hand, there would of course also be other courses of play. Just imagine that Bayern might have converted one of the first chances, as they have done more often recently. Perhaps we would then have seen a more offensive Borussia, which might have created a few good chances up front, but would also have given Bayern the space for counterattacks, in which they could have used their class, speed and finishing power in a completely different way. It is even conceivable that the opponents would have collapsed after conceding 0:2, as one or two of their predecessors did, and that the same media representatives would have been in absolute agreement afterwards that Dortmund in this condition (and this, of course, was already recognised at the beginning of the season) would not be a serious contender for the title.
Well, a nice and therefore often quoted coach’s saying (born out of the accepted media laws, the most important of which is: “Smart is the one who can read the table and knows the results.”) goes like this: “Life doesn’t take place in the subjunctive.” Would-have, ifs and buts are the arguments of dreamers. Yet one knows, and not only from recent experience, that the easiest thing to do is to turn one’s flag to the wind. One assertion, however, remains rock solid here: As good as Dortmund was in the game. Bayern was the better team. And: they had more chances to score and more possession. Dortmund’s tactical concept was praised in particular, with the help of which they were able to keep Bayern away from their own goal. Now, a solid defence is certainly also a characteristic for achieving good results. Nevertheless, it is something else to play an opponent “up against the wall”. With extreme discipline, they managed to allow only an unusually small number of goal chances for Bayern, but by no means dominated the opponent, as we are led to believe with every new and later analysis.
Bayern was better. Full stop. In the majority of cases, the better team also wins, so let it remain. It shouldn’t always happen, but it will inevitably remain that way. The 6:4 chances are somehow representative, one feels. And these would all be enough to give Dortmund a reasonable chance (perhaps even greater than the 20%). However, a 20% chance is still pretty far from being a regular occurrence (this would also apply to 30%, of course, provided there was an error in judgement).
Dortmund had the necessary luck. That one is grateful for this – not only as the author of these lines here, and as a placer of virtual bets, but in the whole of (non-Bavarian) football Germany – is no question. The fact that one is also prepared to grant it to the Dortmunders goes hand in hand with this. Somehow you love the earthly ones a little more than the “galactic” ones, to which Bayern had almost risen again, and you like them a little bit more, since they have enchanted the whole nation – also internationally, please don’t forget – with fantastic football in the course of the season so far.
HSV with their first win under Fink (not that any of the points are forgotten). Only may it be said that while they were certainly much improved, already for a few weeks, this game was absolutely even. Although the kicker gives away 10:6 goal chances (one was honestly curious about it and only just found out about it), one can’t really understand that. In particular – like coach Stanislawski, by the way, who is obliged to the impossibility of saying the word “bad luck” to a media representative – he mentioned the number of absolute top-class chances after the 2:0 (i.e. four or five, but then he would have stopped counting at some point), and there were already a few before that. Of course, it is readily conceded here that it would have been a long way back after the 2:0 and that the utilisation of the last chance would hardly have ensured a change, but the fact remains: if you want to create a miracle (like making up for a 0:2), you have to at least start at some point. So: the realisation of the first chance, in the 78th, and everything would be open again. The second, perhaps, or the third, be it the fourth, in the 88th minute, at least there would still be a “lifeline”. Conceded here nevertheless: with a 0:2 deficit, the chances don’t quite have the same value. Is this what the kicker meant by his modest count?
Gladbach overruns Werder, Reus on everyone’s lips. Here is a quote from the writer from the week after matchday 4 – the first mention, but in any case taking up an exceptional position : “The biggest problem child of last season – especially thanks to Marco Reus, who has been seen and admired in all performances so far – has initially quite little to do with the award mentioned.”
So Gladbach are even within striking distance of Bayern. Nevertheless, they are (understandably) practising modesty. In fact, one of the best phrases for the phrase bank is also the most sensible: “We only look at ourselves and the next game”, which is always brought up in connection with season goals and/or slips by the competition. What would be the point of a longer-term goal if you don’t play well in the next game and/or don’t get any points? What would be the point of a gloatingly laughed-at slip by an opponent if you yourself lost the next day? No, this saying contains a maximum of wisdom and truth. It’s just that the media pretends it’s just something they say to feed the pig. Actually, one would like to claim, there are seasonal goals (and gloating) after all. But they are diplomatically concealed. Only one is mistaken. And “one” is always the same. The reporter, man!
Oh, and also a few words about Schalke and coach Stevens. He may have a little kinship with the “championship giants” (yes, they made their teams champions) Max Merkel and Ernst Happel, but this behaviour usually comes to light when the foreign coaches (who just don’t want to get used to so much stupidity) get the microphone shoved in their faces with the stupid questions. He reacted accordingly when he was told that he was happy about the 4-0 victory, which he denied with verve. Sure, he was happy about the result. But there is a difference. He sees his team’s play, from the sidelines, and that’s what he tries to judge. That, he said, was not as good as he had hoped, as the result suggested, and least of all as he had been persuaded. Yes, a German reporter knows everything when he knows the result. 4:0 is 4:0 and that doesn’t lie. Discontent is an invention. Instead of just listening….
The chance ratio is indeed (unchecked) 7:2 (which, by the way, is not always automatically enough for a win; see Bayern, who scored 0 from 6 goal chances), but the corner kick ratio is 4:8, which suggests what Stevens might have meant. They were under pressure often and for a long time, but took their chances brilliantly (which doesn’t directly have anything to do with the game, the way the game was structured or the way the game was played).
Augsburg, by the way, were clearly in control throughout the first half. The announcer (currently the most tormenting, Mr. Dittmann) only picked on Stuttgart the whole time anyway (and would have done so even if the away team hadn’t been called Augsburg; picking is always done, offer the weaker one). But when they scored the 1:0, even he was at a loss for words for a while. “How you should explain to someone here that Stuttgart is leading 1-0…. Nah, you can’t.” It was totally undeserved and one felt quite sorry for it after all (not only because of virtual coal). No, it was just too unfair.
When Augsburg scored the so longed for, so totally and far more than deserved 1:1 directly after the break, one dared for a moment to believe in something like “justice”. However, the next Stuttgart attack came – and the ball was already in again. After a sequence like that, it is so incredibly hard to come back that you just couldn’t expect it (and Augsburg didn’t succeed, and this is not referring to the final result but to the sequence in the game, in which a noticeable break occurred). Such a bitter defeat, and even the Kicker – despite the logically accompanying improvement at Stuttgart after the 2:1 – still came to 6:5 goal chances per Augsburg, which in any case consolidates the statements. The victory was not deserved, the defeat almost less so (this is an expression of a feeling).
Fritz von Thurn und Taxis
A few sentences on the reporting, whereby it is always difficult to know where to start with so much nonsense, which is also presented with the completely wrong tenor, because it scares away spectators, apart from the fervour of conviction, which goes hand in hand and is based solely on knowledge of the results and the situation in the standings.
Examples: Fritz von Thurn und Taxis, who is by far the most bearable in terms of tone, since he must have somehow and at some point internalised the basic principle of good reportage, that one has to provide entertainment, and who at least manages to put something meaningful into his voice, but who has long since caught up with all the other luminaries in terms of content, had the (dubious, since it seems to be rather a torment) pleasure of being assigned to the HSV – Hoffenheim match.
As I said, he occasionally succeeds in motivating you to watch, since he at least shows the intention to entertain. However, one should also avoid scrutinising the content for its content. The result is the following: HSV on the attack, an excellent pass to Paolo Guererro, who is already positioned in the penalty area and who, for the (tenth) fraction of a second, has the opportunity to take the ball directly and fire it at goal. Now, as he is in the corner of the penalty area, i.e. at least 16 metres away from the goal from a less than optimal angle, and both he and the ball are in motion (he himself in high motion), one can assume that there would be about a 1/5 chance that he would hit the goal (“shot on target” says the Englishman), but at best he would have an estimated 1/20 chance of overcoming the keeper at the same time.
Fritz von Thurn und Taxis now puts all his footballing brains to the test and complains, as Guerrero takes the ball in order to process it differently: “He has to shoot straight away. Guerrero still holds the ball, claims it against the defender, but still the speaker cannot be restrained at the omission. He repeats: “He has to shoot right there.” In the meantime, the Hamburg attacker has cleverly created enough space for himself against the opponent in a one-on-one – but has been pushed to the baseline, so that his own shot is not possible – so that he can/must hit a cross to a following teammate. The ball landed exactly on his head, but did not reach the goal so well that it hit the ground. But Fritz von Thurn und Taxis was no longer interested in all this. No, one must say: quite the opposite. Since he had now committed himself to his statement that he simply “must shoot immediately”, that’s the way it is when a German chief Indian speaks, then his words are to be obeyed, and you can really sense how he fervently hopes that nothing more will happen as the scene progresses (hence the “on the contrary”). In any case, he would never correct his judgement or even apologise to the spectator. If the header had now landed in the goal, then it would simply have been said that it was “still in anyway”, although the “mistake” of not finishing the ball would therefore remain.
Well, as one must assume, he assumes that there is the “right” solution. That is to take a direct shot, that is quite clear, every expert knows that. Guererro failed to recognise this, misjudged, fluffed, acted stupidly, did not take the simplest laws of football to heart, did not understand, did not internalise. If he had now (correctly) shot at goal – one must further conclude – then there would have been a goal. Or could he also have missed? Is that even possible in the world of mostly-black and very-seldom-white? Should he have taken the miss into account, but still received a compliment for grasping the situation correctly? Would he also certainly not have chosen the sleepiness of the defence, the too much space given to the defence, the poorly positioned keeper and whatever else as the topic of conversation in the event of the impact? No, no and no again. It is idiocy in its highest potency. The (endeavoured) speaker cannot be held responsible for this. But surely there must be someone somewhere who hands him the microphone? Is there just a draught in the head everywhere?
An Italian commentator
Now yesterday, 22.11., was the first part of the 5th Champions League match day. This gives you, as a stupid Sky subscriber, the chance to see – even more: to hear — whether things would be better elsewhere. You get the exclusive chance to select the games played in parallel individually by option – and to listen to the commentary broadcast there. The choice usually falls on an Italian or an English match, since one can halfway understand these languages (English: very good, Italian: poor). A Swiss match or, if it takes place, an Austrian match with commentary is also a popular choice.
The game chosen was SSC Napoli against Manchester City, with Italian commentary. Now, one can confidently choose the following formulation: as soon as you have switched on the sound and hear this voice – regardless of the content, which you don’t even have to understand — you almost feel obliged to watch. You can’t help it, you have to look, to put it better. Because: the feeling is conveyed that something special is happening here, that something is happening at any moment, and above all that the speaker does not yet know it himself and is eagerly awaiting the next action. All this is in complete contrast to what you get with German commentary. The proof was provided (not just yesterday): it definitely works better.
The very big question to ask is: does a German commentator ever listen to a match with foreign commentary? Probably not, because he would first faint from shame, horror and despair because of his then inevitably recognised failings of the last 20 years, and then have his vocal cords removed the moment after next (you can’t hang them on a nail).
If one were to translate the contents for him – it is not to be assumed that reporters understand foreign languages – then, to be on the safe side, one should first pack all sharp objects out of reach (and do the mediation at ground level if possible).
To ever catch up, he would figuratively have to queue up with a university professor for the first teaching unit of a first class – and would, of course, be turned away. In the film “Up Close and Personal”, starring Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert Redford, you can see so wonderfully what makes good journalism. They rehearse again and again how it is possible to fascinate and captivate the audience with tone and story, and at the same time to force them to listen and watch. Why is it that in this country people have forgotten all this, do not consider it necessary, believe that a story of endless chains of errors, presented in pure bigotry, could interest the audience?
By the way, after the summary of this match (with German, as usual dull) commentary, the 1:0 for Napoli was played again, but this time with Italian commentary. Somewhere, someone seems to feel that “something is really going on” (the same scenario already played out at the Napoli v. Villarreal match). Once again (then with the name “Hamsik”), the announcer lapsed into stacchato immediately after the goal, naming the scorer: “Cavani, Cavani, Cavani…” ad infinitum, followed by the inevitable “uno a zero per Napoli, Edison Cavani.”. There is no error analysis, no direct brazen (and false) deduction of what happened, presented in accentuated sobriety, usually spiced with snide remarks about how embarrassingly the entire defence had behaved (as, by the way, was heard again during the wonderful three Bayern goals, that one should not use the word “defence” at Villarreal and at the same time that one should not defend like that in the Champions League, nor in the 1st Spanish, but also not in the second, third, not even fourth league. Scoring goals made easy, so the tenor, which at the same time completely destroys the quality of one’s own (German) performance, A tragedy here, a celebration there.
Real Madrid against Dinamo Zagreb
A few more commentary highlights from the summary of the Real Madrid vs. Dinamo Zagreb match. One wonders, of course, which game the man would have expected and which he would have liked? A 6:2 score is one of those highlights that you can only wish for as a commentator, where you hardly have to say anything, because the spectator is already excellently entertained by the variety of goals. Eight goals in one match! That’s something to look at, but when they are scored by the Royal League, which has really been doing its magic since di Stefano (for the most part), then your mouth can only drop open in amazement and you have nothing else to do but click your tongue once in a while, and that’s all there is to it, especially when it happens with a German international in top form, Mesut Özil, in your ranks. This report can’t be messed up, can it?
You can, no question. Unpack all the devastating potential and get into the match. I’ll easily fix that, he’ll probably think to himself. The ultimate embarrassment – and just one of those examples: “YOU have to bring passion and heart in Madrid, otherwise YOU will go down there.” The first is the embarrassment of the “YOU”. Because: that’s how Johann Cruyff, Franz Beckenbauer and Pele might talk once in a while, because they’ve all competed there before and even experienced the not-once-embarrassment of losing there without violating this rule laid down by the reporter. It’s easy to lose there, and it can happen to world greats, any world great. Who is actually the record holder in the Champions League (plus the national champions’ cup)?
Does he want to involve the spectator, as he is, and say: “I have had to experience this a few times in my numerous appearances in Madrid, so believe me, dear spectator. If you don’t…” and the spectator nods. “Yes, that’s right, I’ve felt that way a few times too. “It’s really hard to pass in Madrid,” and immediately asks the neighbour if he’s had the same experience? Above all, he embarrassingly suggests this: he is on a par with these stars. You and I ARE Pele, Cruyff and Beckenbauer, and he is on a first-name basis with them, of course. He repeated this obligatory “YOU” again in the next moment, with another of his wisdoms, which at that time he had certainly already experienced himself in the royal dress of the Madrilenians.
If you now look at the content: what kind of game did he want to see? Real Madrid had not conceded a goal so far, had scored 10 themselves, in 4 games. They dominate this group, while Dinamo Zagreb waited without a result for their first point. In addition, the stadium is well filled and Madrid has a home game. He expects artful resistance? He expects Zagreb’s own attacks, in droves, with a few successful finishes (he even got those!)? He expects a game at eye level? What could he expect? It is simply hopeless, this case (of stupidity).
The spectator, who has long been annoyed, has just ended up fetching a beer anyway and is happy to forego the magic of the goals on the occasion of this intolerability. Especially when they are explained to them. Phrases are used that are as flat as bicycle inner tubes sometimes become when you let the air out of them, and which, in a heightened comparison, look more like tufts of hair in a feast: “Nobody attacks Özil. It doesn’t get any stupider than that, no, it really doesn’t. Mesut Özil is on the ball in his own half, right on the touchline at that, and this gentleman calls for an attacking opponent? Simply ridiculous, no, stupid, no, embarrassingly stupid. Who gave him permission to speak?
Mesut Özil plays a 45-metre pass from this position, which lands directly on his own teammate on the other wing, true to size, so to speak. One suspects that he wanted to make it clear that “YOU” simply HAVE to prevent such passes. Otherwise Real Madrid will have chances to score, no, imagine that. He, in his performances back then, always did it that way. Block the opponent at the edge of the penalty area, right? It’s really quite simple in Madrid. That’s how it’s done.
No, if you can play a dream pass like that, you just have to admire it and nothing else. You can’t stop everything. You don’t even want to prevent a pass like that. No coach in the world would recommend it. You would rather thank God that he gave us the ball, that he gave us a means of transport for it and that he later found a genetic mixture that can send it on its way in such perfection. And that’s good.
By the way, one goal was more beautiful than the other, which you had to take from your own view, but not from the babbler. You sit, watch, enjoy, keep quiet – and if you’re really clever, you turn off the sound.
That one still had the pitiful chatter switched on at the end, during the really equally beautiful goals of the opponent, who actually gave Real the first two goals against, was acknowledged to be one’s own fault. He “lectured” you that Real Madrid had by now taken it out of one, two, no, three gears (if he’d had the time, he’d have got as far as “reverse gear”, so just declared them own goals), which was absolutely not the case. They conjured forward, had enough successful dream finishes, provided the spectacle they have stood for for generations, made the audience and presumably the rest of Spain happy in front of the TV and, with this pleasing style of play, also allowed the opponents, who had previously been asked to play along (by the reporter himself), a few chances, which they took, beaming with joy (yes, that’s how it really was). They will still be telling their grandchildren that they managed the miracle of scoring two goals in Madrid. A highlight for life. How, and above all who, could be dissatisfied?
Really illuminating were the following words uttered after the 6-0: “Dinamo Zagreb were threatening a debacle.” How can one have so little in the head and yet have learned to speak? First of all, one would have to build up an identification with Zagreb for this terrible “threat” of a debacle, wouldn’t one? Who would have this from the expected spectators (without wanting to offend any Zagreb supporters)? If they did, they would be more likely to support Real Madrid because of Mesut Özil, or what should we assume? But even more so, it is a game with almost nothing at stake, so who is at risk of any damage from this (looming) “debacle”? And, last but not least: at what goal score does a debacle begin for him? “They got off lightly with a score of 0:6. But a higher score would have been bad, like 0:10.”
Neutrality would be appropriate. You are allowed to identify yourself, even as a commentator, but you have to show it at some point. There were simply 8 goals here, 8 wonderful goals. There is no identification, but if there were, it would be expected for Real. If the notion of a “debacle” comes up, one might as well have the chance to illuminate the opposite side. Why not the phrase “Real Madrid on their way to a landslide victory”? How full is the glass? No, how empty is this bottle…?
b. The standings
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 FC Bayern Munich 13 9 1 3 28 32 – 5 +27
2 Borussia Dortmund 13 8 2 3 26 27 – 9 +18
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 13 8 2 3 26 20 – 9 +11
4 FC Schalke 04 13 8 1 4 25 28 – 18 +10
5 Werder Bremen 13 7 2 4 23 23 – 21 +2
6 VfB Stuttgart 13 6 3 4 21 20 – 13 +7
7 Bayer Leverkusen 13 6 3 4 21 17 – 16 +1
8 Hannover 96 13 5 4 19 17 – 21 -4
9 TSG Hoffenheim 13 5 2 6 17 15 – 15 +0
10 Hertha BSC 13 4 5 4 17 18 – 19 -1
11 1.FC Köln 12 5 1 6 16 20 – 26 -6
12 VfL Wolfsburg 13 5 1 7 16 19 – 26 -7
13 1.FC Kaiserslautern 13 3 4 6 13 10 – 17 -7
14 Hamburger SV 13 3 4 6 13 17 – 25 -8
15 FSV Mainz 05 12 3 3 6 12 16 – 23 -7
16 1.FC Nürnberg 13 3 3 7 12 13 – 24 -11
17 SC Freiburg 13 3 2 8 11 18 – 29 -11
18 FC Augsburg 13 1 5 7 8 10 – 24 -14
340 340 0
Total number of games 116
Goals ø 2.93
The one big “talking point” is first visually underpinned here with numbers. Including Schalke, there are four teams within three points of each other – and thus keeping the championship race open. The march through has been stopped. Even if it were only temporary – and Bayern would soon be far ahead again – one could always look back on this. It was not a clear-cut affair throughout. But since life takes place neither in the subjunctive nor in the future – that has to come first and for that, philosophically speaking, there is no guarantee – you take the present moment and say to yourself, purely intuitively: it’s exciting. You don’t even have to say it to yourself. It is enough to feel it that way. And even if it were never said to be the decisive criterion, it is nevertheless one. What football fan could seriously claim not to be looking forward to the next weekend? Well, he certainly would if things went differently, yes, admittedly. Nevertheless, he is probably looking forward to it a little bit more.
Now, without explicitly mentioning it, but it comes with the territory of the league, more interesting decisions were made in the run-up. Boredom did not return in other respects either. Who will get into the Champions League, who into the Euro League, who will have to be relegated, who will be able to thumb their nose at their worst rivals later on?
Speaking of relegation: Augsburg was “set” at 18th place, in terms of playing strength, and occupies this place in the table quite confidently. Somehow, however, it comes with nature to develop an inclination for the underdog. In any case, it offers the maximum chance of identification, which should not automatically mean that one has to be a loser as a human being. Augsburg, however, strongly encouraged this feeling in the last two games against Bayern and in Stuttgart. Why did they have to lose both games? Sure, against Bayern it would have been nothing but a pure sensation, and was only really in the air for the moment of Neuer’s brilliant save, but you somehow feel it is “close”. The 1:2 in Stuttgart was almost tragic. The first goal, according to the commentator (and at that moment the only time he uttered something halfway sensible) “out of absolutely nothing”, could even be compensated for – although a lead was far closer — but there was nothing to counter the storming run of Martin Harnik, who simply ran over the entire defence and, apart from class, also had the necessary luck when finishing. Still, one wonders: should such things really always happen to the underdog?
On the other hand, one readily admits that the other “relegation candidates” did not really deserve to be in that position. Nuremberg? No, they put in too many good performances that were not always rewarded with points. Freiburg? No, this team also deserved more than the 11 points. Mainz? Not a thought! You realise that so far, actually, all teams have proven their league fitness often enough. Why is there this stupid relegation? Oh yes, there are a few teams in the lower league who are really dragging their feet. And they certainly wouldn’t have deserved it any less. Well, the question of relegation is one that you have to watch with tears in your eyes – but that in no way diminishes the sense of excitement.
c. The title question
Explanation: these figures are the result of a computer simulation, which is based on the current playing strengths of the teams given below. The games are simulated individually on the basis of goal expectations (also given in the rest of the text) and the final table is used to determine the winner.
Team Number of German champions in 5000 simulations Championships in percent Fair odds as reciprocal of probabilities
1 FC Bayern Munich 3450 69.00% 1.45
2 Borussia Dortmund 1371 27.42% 3.65
3 FC Schalke 04 78 1.56% 64.10
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 58 1.16% 86.21
5 Bayer Leverkusen 24 0.48% 208.33
6 Werder Bremen 13 0.26% 384.62
7 VfB Stuttgart 5 0.10% 1000.00
8 1.FC Köln 1 0.02% 5000.00
You can see here that the optical impression is a little deceptive. The “striking distance” of Schalke and Gladbach is not really supported by these figures. One could indeed, with only one win, versus one defeat, but nevertheless the good one percent makes one aware that it is rather a matter of dreaming. Well, at least there is the chance that the computer is wrong (compare it later with the masses and their intelligence), and that the one per cent occurs, which would happen not every jubilee (but then so celebrated by Schalke, just please not too early again…) but every 100 years, and not even that is true, because in the case of Schalke it would be “only” 64, in the case of Gladbach (also “only”) 86.
Change in chances compared to the previous week due to the results of matchday 13
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
1 Borussia Dortmund 605 12.10%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 42 0.84%
3 FC Schalke 04 26 0.52%
4 Bayer Leverkusen 4 0.08%
5 VfB Stuttgart 2 0.04%
6 1.FC Köln 1 0.02%
7 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
8 1.FC Nuremberg 0 0.00%
9 FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
10 FSV Mainz 05 0 0.00%
11 Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
12 SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
13 VfL Wolfsburg 0 0.00%
14 Hertha BSC -2 -0.04%
15 Hannover 96 -3 -0.06%
16 TSG Hoffenheim -3 -0.06%
17 Werder Bremen -21 -0.42%
18 FC Bayern Munich -651 -13.02%
Here one could only speculate (in advance; who has, after the result is known?) whether Dortmund’s victory benefits them more than it hurts Bayern? After seeing the result, one is left with explanations about it: Bayern took more damage than Dortmund profited. Why?
Overall, it must be the approach of the competition. Regardless of the outcome of the top match, moving closer together in the table is responsible for other teams regaining their chances. The door is opening a crack … for Gladbach, for Schalke, for Leverkusen, for Stuttgart, as the distance to first place has narrowed. No matter who is in front, they win chances. They take these from the (beaten) leader, who nevertheless mainly “cedes” to the victorious rival.
d. The title chances in development
Who ever worried about the arc of tension that stretches so beautifully here? A collapse at the front and one at the back, and even in the weeks leading up to today it now feels as if it has always been this way: exciting. Even if there are a few pumpkins pretty much crawling around on the ground….
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 1.4 1.41 71.43%
Borussia Dortmund 4.6 4.8 21.74%
Bayer Leverkusen 65 70 1.54%
VfL Wolfsburg 400 0.25%
Hannover 96 200 500 0.50%
Werder Bremen 85 130 1.18%
FC Schalke 04 32 40 3.13%
Hamburger SV 1000 0.10%
VfB Stuttgart 180 600 0.56%
FSV Mainz 05 1000 0.10%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 40 85 2.50%
TSG Hoffenheim 400 0.25%
1.FC Nuremberg 1000 0.10%
1.FC Cologne 500 0.20%
SC Freiburg 1000 0.10%
Hertha BSC 500 0.20%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1000 0.10%
FC Augsburg 1000 0.10%
One is hardly ashamed in the face of constantly changing argumentation. It has become a rollercoaster ride, and even if one used to justify it by saying that one had always felt this way (in terms of excitement), here one is forced to do a U-turn. Of course it was a roller coaster and you never really knew. But: the computer had always reacted a little more strongly than the market, insofar amplifying the roller coaster ride itself, if you like, and adding a few more swerves.
Thus, it usually recommended after a good Dortmund result to bet directly on them, whereas after a bad one (and a good one for Bayern) to jump on the competitor. This effect is thus maintained. Dortmund wins in Munich. The betting market also comments calmly(er) on this. “So what? We’ve always said that it’s a long season and that Bayern will be ahead in the end. This result doesn’t change that.” This is roughly how one would have to describe the reaction of the mass(n intelligence).
On the other hand, of course, the original recommendation would now remain, which was already made before the season (even backed up with a few real euros, author-wise), and now taken up once more. Dortmund is closer than the market believes(s). If next week (or one of the following weeks) there are a few other words to be found here, with the argumentation reversed (I told you, Bayern does it!), you do it like an esteemed role model (and that is meant seriously in every respect!) and point out: “What do I care about my stupid talk from yesterday?”).
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
FC Bayern Munich -11.22%
Borussia Dortmund 10.87%
Bayer Leverkusen -0.28%
VfL Wolfsburg -0.15%
Hanover 96 0.00%
Werder Bremen 0.18%
FC Schalke 04 -0.21%
Hamburger SV 0.00%
VfB Stuttgart -0.11%
FSV Mainz 05 0.00%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.97%
TSG Hoffenheim -0.38%
1.FC Nuremberg 0.00%
1.FC Cologne -0.23%
SC Freiburg 0.00%
Hertha BSC 0.03%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0.00%
(The order according to the original estimates of the ranking)
Both developments are noticeably more moderate, in figures about 2% less shifted in each case (Dortmund with a 10% gain on the market, Bayern with an 11% loss on the market, compared to 13% on the computer). However, it would be nonsensical to start a competition here as to who is more right. The market’s curve movement has not been recorded (but it could still be; one waits eagerly for curious comments). Only one wonders when who would be measurably right at all, even when looking at both curves including the final known outcome of the championship? How would one have to express it mathematically that, for example, after matchday 13 the computer certified Bayern “only” 69%, while the market believed in 71%, but Bayern ended up as champions, whereas the values after matchday 9 showed the other way round a greater value of the computer for Bayern? The sharper points in the computer (which one could perhaps recognise, even if they are only minor differences) only mean that it regularly adjusts the odds more strongly. This could, no matter who becomes champion in the end, balance itself out again. Hmm, yes, what has actually been said now? The game of probabilities is a complex one perhaps? The truth is on the pitch – and in one’s own wallet, once one gets entangled with betting.
f. The direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 13
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
1 Borussia Dortmund 2551 51.02%
2 FC Bayern Munich 1235 24.70%
3 FC Schalke 04 482 9.64%
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 335 6.70%
5 Bayer Leverkusen 191 3.82%
6 Werder Bremen 86 1.72%
7 VfB Stuttgart 53 1.06%
8 Hannover 96 23 0.46%
9 Hertha BSC 14 0.28%
10 TSG Hoffenheim 14 0.28%
11 VfL Wolfsburg 10 0.20%
12 1.FC Köln 4 0.08%
13 Hamburger SV 2 0.04%
Dortmund, of course, remain clear favourites, even if…
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team Win/Loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/Loss in percent.
1 FC Bayern Munich 515 10.30%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 98 1.96%
3 Bayer Leverkusen 19 0.38%
4 VfL Wolfsburg 8 0.16%
5 Hamburger SV 2 0.04%
6 1.FC Cologne 1 0.02%
7 1.FC Nuremberg 0 0.00%
8 FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
9 SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
10 1.FC Kaiserslautern -1 -0.02%
11 Hertha BSC -2 -0.04%
12 FSV Mainz 05 -4 -0.08%
13 FC Schalke 04 -9 -0.18%
14 VfB Stuttgart -15 -0.30%
15 TSG Hoffenheim -28 -0.56%
16 Hannover 96 -71 -1.42%
17 Werder Bremen -254 -5.08%
18 Borussia Dortmund -259 -5.18%
… with quite considerable losses. Werder also as “big loser”, which is not surprising after a 0:5 (as it not only depresses the goal difference but also the playing strength). Bayern logically gained a lot because they lost their chances of winning the title.
g. The relegation question
The distribution of relegation percentages
Note: There would also be a detailed breakdown of the individual places. Here, places 17 and 18 count as fully relegated (i.e. in total as 1, for relegated in each case, otherwise the term is “direct relegation”), and a further third of relegated teams are added due to the relegation, whereby the first division team is generally rated as 2/3 to 1/3 favourite compared to the second division team. This makes the total number of relegated teams equal to 233.33%. In individual cases, of course, it would be different in reality. So if, for example, Frankfurt were to finish 3rd in League 2 and Augsburg 16th in League 1, one could perhaps speak of a balanced pairing.
Team Direct relegation (17th or 18th place) Relegation Total
1 FC Augsburg 71.80% 3.63% 75.43%
2 SC Freiburg 36.30% 5.77% 42.07%
3 1.FC Kaiserslautern 26.10% 5.25% 31.35%
4 1.FC Nuremberg 25.58% 5.33% 30.91%
5 FSV Mainz 05 12.30% 3.41% 15.71%
6 Hamburger SV 12.14% 3.34% 15.48%
7 1.FC Köln 6.96% 2.47% 9.43%
8 Hertha BSC 2.62% 1.19% 3.81%
9 VfL Wolfsburg 2.56% 1.21% 3.77%
10 TSG Hoffenheim 2.40% 0.94% 3.34%
11 Hannover 96 0.92% 0.45% 1.37%
12 VfB Stuttgart 0.14% 0.17% 0.31%
13 Werder Bremen 0.16% 0.12% 0.28%
14 Bayer Leverkusen 0.02% 0.05% 0.07%
15 Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
More and more teams are now switching off. Gladbach now only with one relegation in 5000 tries.
The change in chances due to the results of matchday 13 with regard to relegation
Team Change of chances
1 Hamburger SV 10.94%
2 VfL Wolfsburg 6.41%
3 1.FC Cologne 0.99%
4 SC Freiburg 0.83%
5 VfB Stuttgart 0.71%
6 Hertha BSC 0.29%
7 Bayer Leverkusen 0.27%
8 FC Schalke 04 0.13%
9 Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.13%
10 Borussia Dortmund 0.00%
11 FC Bayern Munich 0.00%
12 Werder Bremen -0.20%
13 FSV Mainz 05 -0.58%
14 Hannover 96 -0.63%
15 TSG Hoffenheim -1.49%
16 FC Augsburg -3.09%
17 1.FC Nuremberg -6.96%
18 1.FC Kaiserslautern -7.75%
Well, the original team wins at the most. The performances were right last time, that was already obvious. This time the result was also right. Wolfsburg, too, with a clear derby win, is on the move away from the relegation places, which can be seen here in figures.
Interesting, by the way, what the changes at Cologne and Mainz can mean. There are, of course, purely statistical fluctuations in the simulation and that could already sufficiently serve as an explanation. On the other hand, it is actually clear that the results of the competition can change the chances (were these results favourable or unfavourable?). Imagine, for example, that a match is cancelled on the penultimate matchday and one of the two teams has a 4-point lead over a competitor, which means that it would still be possible to catch up, so the chance would be well over 0%. Now the competitor loses and one is theoretically saved, so without a game the chance has improved from maybe 5% to 0%.
The question would be why the results could have been favourable for Cologne but unfavourable for Mainz? This is also possible, as one could construct on the same example with slightly increased complexity (all right, the other team would be 4 points behind the same competitor, who is on the relegation place; now they keep a chance ONLY IF the competitor loses; one goes from 5% to 0% chance of relegation, the opponent in the cancelled match from 95% to 92%; one benefits, the other harms, despite the cancellation of the match). Only it is hard to imagine that this applies on matchday 13? Who can find a “solution” there?
h. The relegation question in development
Augsburg, already regretted before, almost disappear from the graph (don’t worry, it would effortlessly soon fade in with the 90% line, if ever exceeded; above 100%, however, nobody comes, in contrast to some teams eager for action, if tuned in by Peter Neururer). All the others move up and down properly. Guaranteed this would be no different in any other graphic of a previous season.
i. The point expectations and the deviations.
Explanation: for each game the computer has calculated the odds for 1, X and 2. Based on these, a point expectation is mathematically calculated for each team per match according to the formula probability of winning * 3 points + probability of drawing * 1 point. The deviations given below compare the points actually achieved with those expected by the computer.
In total, the deviation does not have to be 0 for all teams, as the number of expected draws does not have to be congruent with those that have occurred (nor can it even be), but an imbalance is forced by the three-point rule. Too many points scored means that there were too few draws.
Team Name Points scored Deviation Deviation absolute
1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 17.63 26 8.37 8.37
2 FC Schalke 04 20.25 25 4.75 4.75
3 Werder Bremen 20.38 23 2.62 2.62
4 1.FC Köln 13.52 16 2.48 2.48
5 Borussia Dortmund 24.57 26 1.43 1.43
6 VfB Stuttgart 19.71 21 1.29 1.29
7 Hertha BSC 15.97 17 1.03 1.03
8 Hannover 96 18.20 19 0.80 0.80
9 Bayer Leverkusen 20.80 21 0.20 0.20
10 TSG Hoffenheim 16.84 17 0.16 0.16
11 FC Bayern Munich 28.31 28 -0.31 0.31
12 1.FC Kaiserslautern 14.15 13 -1.15 1.15
13 VfL Wolfsburg 17.86 16 -1.86 1.86
14 Hamburger SV 15.41 13 -2.41 2.41
15 1.FC Nürnberg 15.17 12 -3.17 3.17
16 SC Freiburg 14.61 11 -3.61 3.61
17 FC Augsburg 11.78 8 -3.78 3.78
18 FSV Mainz 05 16.26 12 -4.26 4.26
ø Deviation 2.43
There is no question that Gladbach are at the top, their lead has been extended considerably and they are also the surprise team of the season in absolute terms (including the negative). Schalke are already on 2, also in absolute terms, then Mainz, but these are negative. Only the difference of 4.26 points is quite small, especially compared to the pre-season. Two wins and they would almost be back on target. All in all, a season without excessive surprises (in this suspense category here), as you can certainly see well in the international comparison (what’s a lot, what’s a little? All relative, exactly).
The foreign comparison for the average point deviation.
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting among Europe’s top leagues. This finding is rather intuitively derived, but so far “accepted” both in this country and abroad. Of course, the higher goal average is an indication of this, as well as the(perceived) lower predictability when it comes to the title, relegation, but also other issues. Balance is a criterion and possibly the main reason for this.
The measure used here for the deviation in average points expectation provides measurable information about this, but it was probably a “problem” specific to the 2010/2011 inaugural season (the fan thanked) that the Bundesliga produced a particularly large number of surprises. This was reflected in the figures. Now the phenomenon can be observed further. Is the Bundesliga also exciting in this respect? More exciting than elsewhere?(At the same time, a large deviation in this category could simply mean that computers or feeders are bad at their trade)
Rank Country League 1 ø Point deviation Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 5.29 0.13 135
2 England 1 3.82 0.62 119
3 France 1 3.31 -0.01 140
4 Italy 1 2.74 -0.11 108
5 Spain 1 2.64 0.05 119
6 Germany, 1.BL 2.43 -0.14 116
But still recognisable. League 1 takes last place as far as surprise teams are concerned, which is measured here in average deviation from points expectation. League 2, on the other hand, is clearly ahead, because the rest of Europe is also currently stingy with sensations (the values were all higher last year).
j. Goal expectations and their deviations
Explanation: Almost the same applies to goals as to points. The expected goals scored and the expected goals conceded are compared with reality. Too few goals scored count negatively just as too many goals conceded count negatively, the reverse counts positively in each case. Here, the sum of the deviations must be 0, because all expected and not scored goals were not conceded somewhere. However, the goal average may show a deviation.
Team Name Goal expectation Goals scored Goals conceded expected Goals conceded Total deviation
1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 17.79 20 18.80 9 12.01
2 FC Bayern Munich 28.08 32 11.10 5 10.02
3 Borussia Dortmund 22.03 27 11.84 9 7.81
4 1.FC Köln 19.38 28 15.84 18 6.46
5 1.FC Kaiserslautern 20.71 20 18.01 13 4.31
6 Werder Bremen 16.81 18 20.32 19 2.51
7 FC Schalke 04 17.08 15 18.77 15 1.68
8 Hertha BSC 15.83 20 21.27 26 -0.56
9 TSG Hoffenheim 15.03 10 20.81 17 -1.22
10 Hannover 96 21.66 23 17.76 21 -1.89
11 FSV Mainz 05 20.80 17 16.52 16 -3.28
12 Hamburger SV 17.03 17 21.48 25 -3.55
13 VfB Stuttgart 18.06 17 17.59 21 -4.47
14 FC Augsburg 11.72 10 20.89 24 -4.83
15 SC Freiburg 16.01 18 21.60 29 -5.41
16 Bayer Leverkusen 15.31 13 19.96 24 -6.35
17 VfL Wolfsburg 16.56 16 16.99 23 -6.57
18 1.FC Nürnberg 17.64 19 17.97 26 -6.67
327.52 340 327.52 340 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 4.98 2.82 2.93
Due to the clear 5:0 Gladbach now also here in front of Bayern, who lost themselves. In absolute terms, these two are also clearly ahead with values of over 10, while at the back Nuremberg, Wolfsburg and even Leverkusen are the negative surprises, but in each case only with absolute deviations of 6+. Here, too, the value is comparatively small (compared to the previous year), but certainly already somewhat livelier, due to the numerous high scores.
The foreign comparison for the average goal deviation
(Note: crazy results do not necessarily have to be reflected in the trend. So a 5:3 or even a 7:0 may cause large deviations here, in terms of goals, but not at all in terms of points, since, for example, the favourite would have won in each case. So there is an alternative method of comparing with other countries: are there the most “surprises” in the Bundesliga in this respect too)?
Rank Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 7.70 0.09 135
2 Germany, 1.BL 4.98 0.26 116
3 England 1 4.67 0.07 119
4 Spain 1 3.82 0.24 119
5 France 1 3.59 0.12 140
6 Italy 1 2.75 -0.26 108
As you can see, League 1 is already moving up to 2nd place here.
k. The playing strength ranking
Note: The playing strength is measured in goals expected against the average team (which does not exist in practice). There is the offensive strength, which is measured in expected goals scored, and the defensive strength, which is measured in expected goals conceded. The quotient of these two values is the measure of playing strength. The more expected goals scored, the higher the value; the fewer expected goals conceded, the higher the value.
Team For Against Quotient For/Counter Change in Quotient Shift
1 FC Bayern Munich 2.18 0.82 2.66 -0.09 +0
2 Borussia Dortmund 1.86 0.78 2.39 +0.15 +0
3 FC Schalke 04 1.59 1.22 1.30 +0.06 +0
4 Bayer Leverkusen 1.58 1.25 1.26 +0.06 +0
5 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.42 1.26 1.12 +0.09 +2
6 VfB Stuttgart 1.56 1.47 1.06 -0.01 +0
7 Werder Bremen 1.62 1.55 1.05 -0.08 -2
8 Hannover 96 1.43 1.49 0.96 -0.06 +0
9 VfL Wolfsburg 1.47 1.55 0.95 +0.06 +2
10 TSG Hoffenheim 1.29 1.38 0.93 -0.05 -1
11 Hertha BSC 1.38 1.49 0.93 +0.01 -1
12 FSV Mainz 05 1.37 1.61 0.85 +0.00 +0
13 Hamburger SV 1.29 1.61 0.80 +0.03 +1
14 1.FC Köln 1.46 1.85 0.79 +0.00 -1
15 1.FC Nürnberg 1.15 1.62 0.71 -0.03 +0
16 SC Freiburg 1.23 1.75 0.70 +0.00 +1
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.04 1.53 0.68 -0.03 -1
18 FC Augsburg 0.89 1.59 0.56 +0.00 +0
25.80 25.79 +0
Goals ø expected 2.87
Logically, with so many clear results, there is some movement. Werder, for example, lose 2 to Gladbach, Wolfsburg win 2, from Hoffenheim and Hertha.
l. The frequency of tendency changes
Note: a “change of tendency” is considered to be a goal that equalises a lead or scores a lead. The 1:0 is not counted, because without this goal it would not even begin to have anything to do with tension in the goal sequence. Every now and then, a statistical comparison is made here with other countries. This shows that there are more changes of tendency in Germany than elsewhere, which on the one hand points to perceived tension in the Bundesliga – which is possibly envied abroad – and on the other hand points to possible tactical deficiencies, which, following an old tradition, make one advise to urgently go for a second goal after a 1:0 – and not to dull and insipidly, as is usual abroad, rock this goal over time. International comparisons provide more information about the effectiveness or weakness of German behaviour.
Of course, it is and will remain desirable that “something happens”, that games ripple back and forth, that teams that take an early lead nevertheless still lose later, that teams come back from two or three goals down in dramatic comebacks, equalise or even still win. The claim here: it actually happens too rarely in football. It would be desirable to allow more goals so that there is more drama in this point as well. More goals guarantee more changes of tendency, but it is possible that there is an upper limit. So: in ice hockey there are more goals and thus more changes of tendency, no question. But are there more in handball, for example, than in ice hockey? Probably not. Because: if there are a lot of goals, one team can be in the lead by five, six, seven without ever thinking of a comeback by the losing team.
For comparison, here are the statistics from last season. You can at least compare them a little bit to see if the tendency is similar this season.
Country Matches Compensation HF AF Total per match
1st Bundesliga 306 158 60 49 267 0.873
England 380 198 66 46 310 0.816
2nd Bundesliga 306 145 56 41 242 0.791
Italy 380 169 58 48 275 0.724
France 380 175 49 40 264 0.695
Spain 380 146 48 46 240 0.632
Total 2132 991 337 270 1598 0.750
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match
1 1st Bundesliga 116 61 24 17 102 0.879
2 France 140 74 18 15 107 0.764
3 2nd Bundesliga 135 60 21 18 99 0.733
4 England 119 50 15 17 82 0.689
5 Spain 119 48 20 10 78 0.655
6 Italy 108 43 14 13 70 0.648
Total balance 737 336 112 90 538 0.730
Here, the 1st division again takes the top position, even with an almost identical value as in the previous year. So it remains exciting in the match sequences, even if the final results achieved are often still in line with expectations.
Balance of the tendency changes from last week:
Instead of listing the changes in tendency, from now on a small table with the changes in tendency from the past weekend will be included here.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match
1 1st Bundesliga 8 2 1 0 3 0.375
2 France 10 5 2 9 0.900
3 2nd Bundesliga 9 4 2 2 8 0.889
4 Italy 10 2 1 0 3 0.300
5 Spain 9 3 2 1 6 0.667
6 England 10 8 4 3 15 1,500
Balance WE 56 24 12 8 44 0.786
The value is average overall, but the 1st division didn’t have that much to offer on the WE. Sure, there were the clear wins, that’s probably the reason. Apart from that, something happened in England with 15 changes of tendency in 10 games. This means that the whole league, which was initially still far ahead with boredom, is catching up.
Change of tendency of all leagues in the 2011/2012 season
Rank League Games
Equalisation HF AF TW Ges per game
1 aut 1 75 44 11 13 68 0.907
2 D 1 116 61 24 17 102 0.879
3 Dk 1 96 51 16 16 83 0.865
4 UEFA Cup 96 50 17 15 82 0.854
5 NL 1 116 61 22 13 96 0.828
6 D, 3. BL 170 92 26 22 140 0.824
7 D, Reg South 160 76 29 24 129 0.806
8 D, Reg West 139 72 17 23 112 0.806
9 UK 2 200 97 33 28 158 0.790
10 Esp 2 153 76 22 19 117 0.765
11 Fra 1 140 74 18 15 107 0.764
12 D 2.BL 135 60 21 18 99 0.733
13 D, Reg North 125 56 21 14 91 0.728
14 Ch 1 79 32 10 13 55 0.696
15 UK 1 119 50 15 17 82 0.689
16 CL 64 29 11 2 42 0.656
17 Esp 1 119 48 20 10 78 0.655
18 Ita A 108 43 14 13 70 0.648
19 Fra 2 139 58 16 11 85 0.612
20 Internationals 72 23 12 5 40 0.556
21 European Championship Qualifying 245 75 32 16 123 0.502
22 DFB Cup 16 2 1 0 3 0.188
Total balance 2682 1230 408 324 1962 0.732
Here are the statistics for all the leagues covered. Will it be possible to make a statement? If you like, high-scoring leagues are ahead, which include Austria, Germany and Denmark, also the Netherlands. The figure for the UEFA Cup (the Euro League) may come as a surprise, but there were a number of exciting matches, most of which were watched in the conference, even from memory. The DFB Cup was at the bottom of the list, and if you want to find an explanation (given the 16 matches, which are naturally far too few): there were still a lot of higher-league matches against lower-league matches in the round that was recorded, which perhaps speaks for a clearer course of play (but this is rather made up out of thin air. The truth: pure coincidence).
The European Championship qualifying round, on the other hand, could be open to more interpretation. Presumably, however, it is simply due to the fact that too often the pairing is big against small, with one-way streets. The other international matches also confirm this impression, and overall these are clearly the most matches, so it is worth looking for an explanation (and one was found).
m. The mathematical review of the matchday 13 results
Note: here the deviation of the expected goals with the goals scored is calculated for each match. To determine the total deviation, the values are added up in absolute terms (not visible here, this column). So: if one team deviates positively by 0.35 goals, the other negatively by -0.62, then the absolute total deviation is 0.35 + 0.62 = 0.97 goals. To determine the average deviation, all these values are added up and divided by the number of pairings – usually 9.
Goal expectation Home Away Total Deviation
Kaiserslautern Leverkusen 1.15 1.44 2.59 0 2 -1.15 0.56
Gladbach Werder 1.57 1.31 2.88 5 0 3.43 -1.31
Schalke 04 Nuremberg 1.90 0.86 2.77 4 0 2.10 -0.86
Freiburg Hertha 1.40 1.39 2.79 2 0.60 0.61
Wolfsburg Hannover 1.52 1.25 2.77 4 1 2.48 -0.25
FC Bayern Dortmund 1.54 0.81 2.35 0 1 -1.54 0.19
Stuttgart Augsburg 1.93 0.78 2.71 2 1 0.07 0.22
HSV Hoffenheim 1.42 1.35 2.76 2 0 0.58 -1.35
12.44 9.19 21.63 19 7 6.56 -2.19
Expected goal total Expected goal average Scored goal average 21.63 2.70 3.25
ø expected goal difference 1.85 ø goal difference 2.16
The flood of goals continues. The average goal deviation was also clearly exceeded, which speaks for surprising (high) results.
n. The determination
Note: The determination is calculated for each match as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher the favourite position, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the (favourite) event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, one can check the quality of the estimates made here in the long term by comparing expected/occurred. This is done week by week, but of course also overall.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2 Determination
Kaiserslautern Leverkusen 30.33% 25.32% 44.35% 35.28%
Gladbach Werder 44.09% 23.82% 32.09% 35.41%
Schalke 04 Nuremberg 62.17% 21.31% 16.51% 45.93%
FC Cologne Mainz
Freiburg Hertha 38.21% 24.33% 37.45% 34.55%
Wolfsburg Hannover 44.09% 24.35% 31.56% 35.33%
FC Bayern Dortmund 54.91% 25.23% 19.87% 40.46%
Stuttgart Augsburg 64.87% 20.74% 14.39% 48.45%
HSV Hoffenheim 39.34% 24.51% 36.15% 34.55%
3.78 1.90 2.32 3.10
Average expected fixing: 38.74%
To repeat only above the expected numbers given in last week’s text. However, the Cologne vs Mainz pairing is excluded here. Since it was a fairly even match, the average expected commit on the remaining 8 games goes up a bit (38.74% vs. 38.41% that would have been expected if all games had been played).
The determination arrived
Pairing 1 X 2 Tendency
Kaiserslautern Leverkusen 30.33% 25.32% 44.35% 2 44.35%
Gladbach Werder 44.09% 23.82% 32.09% 1 44.09%
Schalke 04 Nürnberg 62.17% 21.31% 16.51% 1 62.17%
FC Cologne Mainz
Freiburg Hertha 38.21% 24.33% 37.45% 0 24.33%
Wolfsburg Hannover 44.09% 24.35% 31.56% 1 44.09%
FC Bayern Dortmund 54.91% 25.23% 19.87% 2 19.87%
Stuttgart Augsburg 64.87% 20.74% 14.39% 1 64.87%
HSV Hoffenheim 39.34% 24.51% 36.15% 1 39.34%
5 1 2 3.43
Average determination received: 42.89%
The expected determination was exceeded, which means that there were too few surprises. Well, that’s a bit hard to make oneself believe, especially since there was just that one outstanding result. A look at the numbers forces sobriety. The only one draw and otherwise only the Dortmund victory are not enough to make the surprises predominate. Otherwise, the favourites prevailed, even if Gladbach, Wolfsburg and Leverkusen did not feel like such clear favourites (nor Hamburg, of course, but there the market put its foot down and simply “talked” the Hamburgers into their victory).
Further note: No comparable model has yet been discovered in mathematics. Not even by a mathematician who had set himself the task of proving to the author that there was guaranteed to be nothing new.
o. League statistics
Note: such a statistic is regularly produced by computer. It is generally used for quality control of the individual figures, Each figure has its meaning and is explained in more detail. The goal average is not repeated here. The home advantage is calculated by dividing the goals scored by the home team by half of the total goals. In this way, you can see how many more goals the home teams score than they would score without home advantage. 1,116 is 11.6% more for the home team, 11.6% less for the away team.
Note: For arithmetic foxes, here is a brief explanation of the calculation method for the expected goal deviation: The computer gives each result from 0:0 to 20:20 a probability (it is actually sufficient up to 10:10, as the rest has no significant probability). There would be a goal deviation for each result. So if you multiply the probability of, for example, a 3:4 by the deviation that would then occur (in the case of the match Mainz – Gladbach, with goal expectations of 1.77:1.25, this would be 3 – 1.77 = 1.23 for Mainz plus 4 – 1.25 = 2.75 for Gladbach, i.e. a total of 3.98 goal deviation) and carry out this procedure for each match result, you get the expected average goal deviation.
1st Football Bundesliga 2011/2012 Statistics of the actual results
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals conceded Home advantage
116 55 24 37 204 136 1.200
Statistics of expected results
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
116 53.94 26.58 35.47 185.9 141.5 1.136
Statistics of absolute deviations
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 1.06 -2.58 1.53 18.1 -5.5 0.06439
Statistics of the percentage deviations
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 1.93% -10.75% 4.14% 8.87% -4.04% 5.37%
Determination expected Determination arrived 40.12% 40.46% ø Goal difference ø Goal difference expected 1.89 1.87
Too many home wins (but only just), too many away wins (ditto), too few draws, that’s how you could summarise the result statistics. Since the deviations are small, there is little doubt a) about the accuracy of the numbers (which are constantly under scrutiny in all respects), and b) about a possible quick adjustment (which of course does not have to occur; the mere possibility, in just one matchday, shows that it is the small coincidences that account for the deviations; no deviations, moreover, would be uncanny, perhaps even more so, namely implausible).
Also with determination and expected goal deviation one is pretty well off, so that the numbers are consistent in themselves. Only the goals scored (even more so in the home-away distribution) show greater deviations, which is obvious in view of the last matchday, and is also confirmed by the memory of previous matchdays: there are too many (unusually, unexpectedly) high, especially home victories, just again a 5:0 and a 4:0, plus a 4:1. It is precisely this accumulation that is responsible for the deviation. One would be far from willing to suspect a real error in the assessments.
p. Review of the betting recommendations
But this question is always more explosive: which bets should/must have been made according to the computer? Where would he have messed with the betting market? And: if he messes with it, with the great mass intelligence, does he have good reasons for it? Could one possibly win, can one even prove long-term advantages? Up to now, such “dry swim” exercises have been made for oneself, if at all. Now, at least, it is documented.
Pairing 1 X 2
Kaiserslautern Leverkusen 3.25 3.60 2.36
Gladbach Werder 2.66 3.60 2.84
Schalke 04 Nuremberg 1.71 4.00 5.80
FC Cologne Mainz 1.00 1.00 1.00
Freiburg Hertha 2.74 3.55 2.66
Wolfsburg Hannover 2.34 3.60 3.20
FC Bayern Dortmund 1.63 4.30 6.00
Stuttgart Augsburg 1.40 4.80 11.00
HSV Hoffenheim 2.44 3.45 2.96
Goals scored 2.21
Goals scored 4
Money score 5.37
When you start writing the text, you have of course long had an idea of what you will find here. So if the results were favourable, one always has in mind to end up here soon – and this anticipation stimulates the eagerness to work.
One has not only bet virtually on Dortmund’s victory (also with cash, by the way), but also supported it with good reasoning, in the sense that one did not foresee it, but felt that the chances were good, in any case that the bet was justified, supported. The “believe in it” nevertheless only refers to the support of the 19.83%, but one expects to be able to recognise it in the game. This was the case. Dortmund did everything for it – and took the underdog chance.
The bets on Gladbach and Schalke were placed with some fervour and conviction anyway, these came true, very surprisingly of course in terms of the amount, but one gladly accepts it that way (whereby the consequences are often that the world becomes aware and the insider tip disappears, one thus forfeits future bets on the popular teams; one can testify later).
Even the Augsburg bet was a very good one and a lead for the underdog was in the air in the 1st half as they were even the superior eleven. So the 11.0 was way overpaid for this course of the game, but of course you don’t want to get rude and win all the bets. This one was good, no, even very good. But there have already been enough (rather: too many) high odds and thus underdog bets over the course of the season.
The goal expectation, which was still 2.21 last week, had to be adjusted due to the cancellation of the match. The victory of Cologne for odds of 1.0 was certain (you get your stake back, at 100%, but would also have got this with bets on X or 2).
Recommended bets Statistics of the individual match days
Matchday No. Number of bets Number of hits expected hit deviation win/loss
1 7 5 2.84 +2.16 +7.96
2 7 3 2.77 +0.23 +1.75
3 2 0 1.00 -1.00 -2.00
4 3 1 1.14 -0.14 -0.28
5 6 2 2.54 -0.54 -2.33
6 8 3 2.29 +0.71 +8.10
7 8 4 3.55 +0.45 +0.00
8 5 1 1.28 -0.28 -2.16
9 7 3 2.36 +0.64 +5.60
10 7 1 1.92 -0.92 +2.20
11 8 2 2.79 -0.79 -3.39
12 7 1 2.07 -1.07 -2.00
13 6 4 2.77 +1.23 +5.37
Total number of bets Total number of hits Total balance G/V in% Total expected hits Total hit deviation
7 5 +7.96 113.71% 2.84 +2.16
14 8 +9.71 69.36% 5.61 +2.39
16 8 +7.71 48.19% 6.61 +1.39
19 9 +7.43 39.11% 7.74 +1.26
25 11 +5.10 20.40% 10.28 +0.72
33 14 +13.20 40.00% 12.57 +1.43
41 18 +13.20 32.20% 16.12 +1.88
46 19 +11.04 24.00% 17.40 +1.60
53 22 +16.64 31.40% 19.76 +2.24
60 23 +18.84 31.40% 21.68 +1.32
68 25 +15.45 22.72% 24.47 +0.53
75 26 +13.45 17.93% 26.54 -0.54
81 30 +18.82 23.23% 29.31 +0.69
One is well aware that 23.23% is too much. Perhaps this distinguishes one from other players for whom the wins, as soon as they occur, are taken for granted and attributed to their good football sense, while the losses are interpreted or perceived as bad luck. Objectivity is actually always helpful.
q. The preview of the 14th matchday
Note: The computer calculates the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) into these goal expectations according to a specially developed – naturally explainable and highly logical – algorithm. These in turn are offset against the probabilities of occurrence, in the past by simulation, today long since by a function derived from the simulation results). These goal expectancy values have also long since proved to be competitive in goal number betting on the betting market.
Goal expectation Home Away Total
FC Cologne Gladbach 1.33 1.45 2.78
Nuremberg Kaiserslautern 1.35 1.07 2.42
Hoffenheim Freiburg 1.83 1.04 2.87
Dortmund Schalke 04 1.83 0.77 2.61
Augsburg Wolfsburg 1.13 1.43 2.56
Hertha Leverkusen 1.27 1.42 2.69
Hanover HSV 1.74 1.26 2.99
Werder Stuttgart 1.92 1.49 3.41
Mainz FC Bayern 0.88 2.15 3.03
13.30 12.07 25.37
Expected goal total Expected goal average 25.37 2.82
The computer even reduced the expected goals, despite the flood last! Well, this must again be due to special pairings depressing the average. Only Werder and, in my opinion, Mainz are expected to score many goals.
Note: The determination is calculated as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher a favourite position, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, the quality can be checked in the long term by comparing expected/occurred events.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2
FC Köln Gladbach 35.05% 24.27% 40.68% 34.73%
Nürnberg Kaiserslautern 43.71% 26.31% 29.97% 35.02%
Hoffenheim Freiburg 56.44% 22.18% 21.38% 41.34%
Dortmund Schalke 04 62.97% 21.75% 15.28% 46.72%
Augsburg Wolfsburg 30.31% 25.38% 44.32% 35.26%
Hertha Leverkusen 34.24% 24.79% 40.97% 34.65%
Hannover HSV 49.08% 22.84% 28.08% 37.19%
Werder Stuttgart 48.25% 21.48% 30.27% 37.06%
Mainz FC Bayern 14.34% 19.00% 66.66% 50.10%
3.74 2.08 3.18 3.52
Average expected fixing:
A balanced matchday, more balanced than the average so far. The statement? Many open pairings, for tototippers the typical three-way. Only Bayern and Dortmund with over 60% chance of winning, although the Dortmund derby in particular could also be more balanced (this said purely intuitively and certainly confirmed by the market). In this classic, differences in playing strength can sometimes become blurred due to the explosive nature of the match.
The fair odds
Note: the fair odds are merely the inverse of the probabilities. However, this is how the games are offered on the betting market or traded on the betting exchanges (“betfair”). You can gladly compare what the computer guesses. The deviations will not be enormous, but theoretically every bet is a good bet (from the computer’s point of view) if the odds paid on the market are above the fair odds. “Good” is the bet insofar as it promises long-term profit. If you consistently make bets in this way, you should make a profit in the long run. Of course, there are no guarantees for this either.
Pairing 1 X 2
FC Cologne Gladbach 2.85 4.12 2.46
Nuremberg Kaiserslautern 2.29 3.80 3.34
Hoffenheim Freiburg 1.77 4.51 4.68
Dortmund Schalke 04 1.59 4.60 6.55
Augsburg Wolfsburg 3.30 3.94 2.26
Hertha Leverkusen 2.92 4.03 2.44
Hanover HSV 2.04 4.38 3.56
Werder Stuttgart 2.07 4.66 3.30
Mainz FC Bayern 6.98 5.26 1.50
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
FC Cologne Gladbach 3.35 3.55 2.32 101.12%
Nuremberg Kaiserslautern 2.08 3.55 4.00 101.25%
Hoffenheim Freiburg 1.67 4.10 5.80 101.51%
Dortmund Schalke 04 1.68 4.10 5.70 101.46%
Augsburg Wolfsburg 3.05 3.50 2.44 102.34%
Hertha Leverkusen 2.86 3.50 2.60 102.00%
Hannover HSV 2.30 3.60 3.40 100.67%
Werder Stuttgart 2.14 3.65 3.70 101.15%
Mainz FC Bayern 10.00 5.30 1.37 101.86%
Goal expectation 2.63
A quick comment on the betting recommendations:
Lautern’s victory in Nuremberg seems a very good possibility. After all, it was Lautern who convinced with some brilliant away performances and even brought in virtual units with the win at Schalke. No, the 4.0 must be too high, one is more than convinced of that. Nürnberg are also reeling a bit and Lautern are unbeaten in 4 away games (including DFB-Pokal), with draws at Hoffenheim and Hamburg (plus Frankfurt; DFB).
Freiburg winning at Hoffenheim seems just as conceivable. Hoffenheim didn’t play badly in Hamburg either, but still lost. And Freiburg has actually always played well and made good a two-goal deficit in one half against Hertha. Even the last away game in Nuremberg was won in the last minute. The bet is very good.
Dortmund must be supported further after the great win in Munich. The Champions League is far away (after the 1:2 at Arsenal; known today), the championship is in focus. Schalke was good, yes, but nowhere near as good as the result expresses. Sure, the derby character speaks against the bet, but it is still made out of conviction.
Oh, yes, as you can see Cologne is to be played. On the one hand, this is the exaggerated market reaction to the third place and the 5:0 against Werder, but also, bearing in mind the traditional duel of the Rhineland neighbours, certainly a certain market correction. You just don’t want to implicate yourself, it’s a passport, even if it sounds contradictory (“Yes, do you believe in your numbers or not?” “Yes, uh, no, I mean, YES.”).
Wolfsburg at Augsburg is something you have to play now, as much as you argued for Augsburg just before. Wolfsburg are on an upward trend and outsiders can feel a slight sense of despair after games like the one in Stuttgart. So: a good bet.
Leverkusen at Hertha can’t be that good a bet, but that’s not at all down to Leverkusen (who beat Chelsea yesterday). It’s because of Hertha, who simply play consistently good football. Still, odds-wise, you have to give this bet. Of course, Leverkusen can always be expected to win.
Even less conviction lies in the bet on Hannover. HSV in an upward trend, the derby character and Hannover’s last defeat. Still, you have to back up the numbers somewhere. Hannover were well rated in advance, they have by no means disappointed, least of all in home games, and they are guaranteed to give their all. Still, a much less convincing bet, which one would express in cash by betting less (maybe a unit here and on Wolfsburg 3, Leverkusen 2 etc.).
Well, if you trust these numbers and want to try your hand at the betting market, there is nothing to stop such a spread. The other bets would be good, but due to the high odds a smaller stake would again be more justified.
So, have fun and good luck!
2) The 2nd Bundesliga
a. The table situation
b. The chances of promotion
Note: the simulation of League 2 runs exactly like that of League 1. 5000 runs were also made. Third place logically gives a 1/3 chance of promotion, although it might still depend on the pairing. Since the top favourites are ahead here, it could well be 50% that the second division third place team has against the first division third last.
c. Point expectations and discrepancies
d. Evaluation of the 5th second division matchday
e. Preview of the 7th Second League Matchday