1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of Matchday 14
1st FC Cologne – Borussia Mönchengladbach 0:3 (0:2)
- FC Nuremberg – 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1:0 (1:0)
TSG Hoffenheim – SC Freiburg 1:1 (1:0)
Borussia Dortmund – FC Schalke 04 2:0 (1:0)
FC Augsburg – VfL Wolfsburg 2:0 (0:0)
Hertha BSC – Bayer Leverkusen 3:3 (2:1)
Hannover 96 – Hamburger SV 1:1 (0:0)
Werder Bremen – VfB Stuttgart 2:0 (0:0)
FSV Mainz 05 – FC Bayern München 3:2 (1:0)
A few observations:
a) Rules, reporting, consequences
Be it stressed and repeated long enough, one does not tire and finds daily enough confirmations for the statements made, which could be reflected in anticipated, foreseen problems of football and its reproduction, so note it here again: the reporting is (a purely German problem) catastrophically bad, the rule interpretations and applications are one-sided to the disadvantage of the attackers (an international and constantly growing but unrecognised problem) and thus against goal actions and goals and thus (analogous to the German reporting) against the neutral fan, against the attractiveness of the game, against justice – and can only cause harm. Even if the opposing side would always counter that the stadiums are full to bursting and football is booming like crazy.
This, in turn, can be countered with the following: Sky is going down the drain, if one can still speak of “going” at all (and has not long since had to speak of infirmity). But Sky is an English product that must (and even can) support the German one. The reason: in England, marketing is good and reporting is good. The people there are not more football-mad and let themselves be taken in even more easily and more deeply, but they buy a good product, of which one might like to convince oneself at the next live game with English commentary (even if one wanted to convince oneself of the opposite, it would be advisable: just listen in). There, in England, one is brilliantly informed and entertained and willingly pays.
Secondly, one can counter that the stadiums may be full to bursting, but this is done exclusively by avowed fans. It is almost impossible for a neutral spectator to get lost in a stadium and want to watch the game because of its beauty, aesthetics, excitement and attractiveness. As one hears constantly and more and more in one’s extended private circle: “No, football doesn’t interest me (anymore)” is one statement, “only when my team plays” is another. And no one omits the remark that the reporting is unbearable, not when asked anyway, but mostly it happens unsolicited. Evidence enough? As one finds, yes.
b) Hoffenheim against Freiburg
Our own weekend was well filled with chess activities, but we still got plenty of opportunity to see and hear both live pictures and summaries. Since Sky has some rights, but not a bit of dough, they have no choice but to play in the same pictures permanently throughout the week. So whatever you missed, you can have to sit through it about 10 times until the next match day. So, on Tuesday afternoon, you personally had the Hoffenheim vs. Freiburg match on the screen – and gradually paid more attention to it.
Now, it’s not even bearable to watch a live match over 90 minutes anyway, where you neither have a fan connection nor a bet to run. But if you know the result, there is actually no motivation to do it any more. The main reason, of course: the insufferable blabbermouth who, not even shouting but rather whispering, but totally pompous, wants to sell his rotten but overpriced eggs (presumably he wasn’t even informed that it was about the sale). He babbles to himself and does not make a single tired mark in sales. No one listened, they can vouch for that, and the programme director certainly not. Nevertheless, he gets the money, one assumes, for another stage on the way to achieving the long-term goal of destroying the station once and for all.
Hoffenheim takes the lead. Yes, a correct goal. The ball is chipped into the penalty area again by a Hoffenheim attacker after a cleared standard situation and defenders moving out collectively. There, two Hoffenheim players are offside, but Firmino doesn’t make the clearance, he elegantly takes the ball out of the air and pushes it past the keeper.
Nevertheless, one can discuss, especially how comparative situations were handled before. It is really difficult for the assistant on the touchline to see who is going to go for the ball. This has already led in many cases to him raising the flag, just like that, let’s call it “prophylactic”. The problem, already discussed in the same place: the assistant should be allowed to indicate offside without forcing the referee to blow the whistle. In practice, however, this is not the case. This assistant was forced to the attention of recognising who is going to the ball and to wait until he recognises it before waving. However, following his usual reflex and always against the attackers, he could have easily raised the flag and even if it would have been said later in the analysis that he was mistaken here and raised the flag hastily, at the same time he would not be remotely prosecuted for it.
Many words for little: he made a good decision here, only it should be mentioned that there must be uniformity. If Freiburg feels disadvantaged, it is not because they do not recognise the correctness of this hit, but because they could point to the different treatment in comparative situations (they do not, they nevertheless feel an injustice, which they do not emphasise and are not allowed to do so because of the foreseeable media reaction).
It should be noted, however, that even if offensive and pro-attacker thinking and interpretation is proclaimed here, a bunch of offside attackers are always an irritation for the defence. Not only is space not available, purely because of the physical presence, but also because as soon as the attacker who is not offside gains possession of the ball (in this case Firmino), the other attackers who were previously offside are immediately allowed to intervene again (as has been observed often enough; at the front in the centre, one is offside, but the ball is played outwards, that offside player immediately turns towards the goal, takes the cross first thanks to his advantage and sinks; this, it is argued here, would be against the rules, but is not interpreted that way), so that the defenders are actually forced to pay attention in a different way.
Well, this goal was regular, but the example of the assistant should be used as a model. Wait and see – and only indicate when someone who is offside also goes to the ball, or be allowed to indicate offside but not oblige the referee to blow the whistle, who would still have to judge this. Otherwise, the requirement that attackers who are passively offside may only re-enter the game when they have (recognisably) left the offside position for at least a moment. A simple but absolutely correct method, which would also be simple in terms of interpretation.
A little later, Freiburg scores a goal. The attackers initially cheer (indicating perceived correctness), but are abruptly interrupted by the whistle. What had happened? The goalkeeper lets a ball bounce, a striker gets to the ball (just inside the five-yard box), the ball is almost free, he shoots from close range, it bounces off the goalkeeper’s body, the pursuing attacker Mölders sinks.
Now there used to be a simple rule: the goalkeeper has the ball when he has it against his body. This is clear and understandable. You can’t play it at that moment, it’s on your body. Kicking at it there would be unthinkable, not only because of the risk of injury. A hand on the ball is nothing. The ball is free and playable. What is the point of the additional goalkeeper protection, what are the consequences? “Has his hand on the ball, that’s enough.” Neuer also had this once in the Bayern game. The only thing was that he only touched it once briefly with his hand as he slid past. That can happen and is by no means a “has his hand on the ball” but a “had”. The whistle was blown there too. The consequence of all this additional goalkeeper protection (which has long since extended to the entire penalty area and also includes own defenders in the possibility of obstruction; as we have just seen again, a goalkeeper cleared his own defender and was thus unable to hold the ball; the decision: striker’s foul, free kick; but there was not even an attacker in the vicinity).
So the result: injustice the one, because it is simply nonsense to treat the players so unequally (goalkeeper – outfield player). And: fewer goal situations, fewer goals. Everything is whistled back. A foul on the goalkeeper is when he drops the ball. Terribly stupid and short-sighted. But common practice. Ridiculous in the scene that the goalkeeper had the ball just because for a moment his hand was on it by his outstretched arm, with no chance to control it. Consensus seemed to be that the hit was incorrect.
(For the attentive reader: the last scene occurred in the match Augsburg vs Wolfsburg, in the duel of the Bürge).
Back to Hoffenheim: the excitement there was that scene: a Freiburg player is well released in the opponent’s penalty area, makes a clever hook around the last defender, and is brought down…! The referee blew his whistle and immediately rushed to the scene. One was curious and, it seemed, for a moment, so was the announcer: “Now I’m curious: Penalty or swallow?” The referee put his foot down: “Swallow” by giving the yellow card. A verdict that the man at the microphone seemed to have reached: “For me, that was a penalty. That’s how I saw it.” (speaking for the card). Later, during new slow-motion shots from different perspectives, he admitted that at first glance it looked like a foul, but from the other perspective it looked like a foul.
It doesn’t matter anyway, they claim here, whether it would be correct to give a penalty or not. He doesn’t give and has all the justifications on his side. One only has to mention that in such a critical situation he first (this is the psychological interpretation) has to whistle once. On the way to the scene of the crime, he has plenty of time to think. He thinks about what he can get away with best and what he can justify most easily. When he reached the attacker (who, fortunately for the referee, was close to the penalty spot; this gave him more time to think, because otherwise he would have had to orientate himself earlier; towards the shooter or towards the penalty spot? And he gave this penalty.
Not too many words should be said about the yapping smart-ass, but the embarrassment of going along with the verdict after having clarity on how it would turn out and trying to sell it as your own is unlikely to escape you. The correction of this decision after seeing the situation from another perspective should teach one to rather hold back with a judgement and above all not to pass off an arbitrarily and quickly made one as final. But to the scene itself this again: the striker has passed, the defender’s leg is extended backwards as he had his back to the attacker from the body trick, as you can clearly see. Contact is definitely there and also the fall does not come at the wrong time (i.e. before contact). A crystal clear penalty, as is not only represented here. No problem for the referee not to give it.
But much more you think about how situations are in proportion. If this scene took place on the halfway line, then no referee in the world would hesitate even a tenth of a second with the penalty. After the whistle, he would have enough time to think about the further punishment of a yellow card. In the penalty area, he reacts with a yellow for the attacker. But one spins the thought even further: what if the scene with attacker against defender had taken place like this? The attacker tries to win the ball from the defender with the same action after he has been outplayed? Here, this intervention would be absolutely unworthy, no, one could never allow oneself to do that and the scope for decision would only extend from a straight red or only a yellow. In case of doubt, the experiment of playing scenes to the referees in which the place on the pitch where the action takes place has been made unrecognisable is repeatedly suggested. Only the action, no teammates, no goals in the vicinity, no lines visible. Foul or not foul? Penalty?
Another similar situation was only succinctly commented on with “another disputed scene.” What’s the point of “controversial” if the verdict is always the same? No penalty, of course not, but it was “controversial”. Yes, doesn’t anyone notice anything? THERE ARE NO PENALTIES. It wasn’t just this scene that caught the phrase often enough throughout the weekend, “That’s not enough for a penalty.” So it was a foul but not a penalty, right? Where does it say that in the rules, what are they referring to?
By the way, let’s compare the scene shortly before the end, when Bayern were pushing for the equaliser in Mainz: Gomez gets to the ball on the edge of the penalty area, the defender rushes towards him in a certain panic, stumbles (or: doesn’t know how to help himself) and falls down. There was not even physical contact, but if there had been, it would not have been illegal and, above all, it would not have come from the attacker so much as from the rushing defender. Never ever a striker’s foul – but whistled.
Why did the referee want to recognise from a distance that it was a foul (and stop it without hesitation), even though it was not a foul, but when a defender is fouled by an attacker in the penalty area and the referee is standing right next to him, he says “he probably didn’t see that”, even though it was a clear foul? Wake up, men!
Freiburg pressed the whole second half and really deserved the equaliser long ago, not only because of the penalty(s) that were not given. Gradually, the injury time was approaching and Freiburg already seemed to resign a little. But this is mainly because now comes the phase in which players are constantly changed, whereby the one to be replaced is always the one furthest away from the substitutes’ bench and he first has to be made aware of his surprise substitution by his team-mates, in order to then, amidst applause, thankfully say goodbye to the crowd in a difficult march over 65 metres in about 40 seconds. You don’t get that time back, especially when this procedure takes place after the injury time has been displayed. You can’t stand it as a Freiburg player on the pitch. Another consequence: Hoffenheim has the counterattack opportunity, but uses it in the form of dribbling very skilfully with the ball towards the corner flag. No more effort towards the goal, just holding the ball is the order of the day. They then wait for the next contact with the enemy – which is inevitable in view of this provocation – and let themselves fall theatrically. But that’s not all: the free kick is awarded, only there’s no one there to take it, and the player blown over by a gust of wind is in urgent need of treatment. No, you can’t stand it. But the officials seem to think it’s great. A Yank would … yes, what, he would pick a sensible game with decent rules to watch – and has long since done so. “Soccer? Fucking boring.” But if he were allowed, he would have created good and workable and fair rules within three months.
A new groundlessness could be observed in this match (not that all the scenes described above really happened exactly like that; it was more a general description, of which one has to observe more and more in every match; but this scene now really existed): when Hoffenheim really was awarded another ridiculous free kick near the touchline (and with the defender really rolling), already in the 90th minute, goalkeeper Tom Starke, with no one else ready to take it, took the ball. He deliberately (dare one say) put the ball on the edge of his own penalty area, an estimated 25 metres from the “scene of the crime”. His hope: the referee would now have to claim the spot. He would then pick up the ball and gradually move towards the correct place of execution, constantly pointing his finger, that was the plan. Now he would ask again and again whether it was right here? But he would still be 12 metres away. If found, he would still signal to the referee that he had finally understood and that he was also interested in absolutely correct application of the rules, i.e. interested in closing ranks, so to speak, and then take a 14-metre run-up, during which he still could not find a right place to play. He would gladly take the “yellow” into account, but also the final whistle as soon as the ball had passed the halfway line after his powerful forward strike.
No, it’s unbearable, really. Any sense of justice that one might have left is trampled on and one begrudges the person behind so much to punish this behaviour, only one also knows that in 99% of all cases it does not succeed. In this game it succeeded.
By the way, the announcer had a few compliments for Hoffenheim ready beforehand: “Hoffenheim completely shut down.” This due to the fact that Freiburg came to scoring chances. Then, regarding the goal against, he had the following words of encouragement at hand: “The Hoffenheimers are all watching.” Well, that makes it easy to score goals, doesn’t it? And not only that: it also prevents your own emotional outburst. Because this is to be avoided at all costs, because the long-term goal must not be lost sight of under any circumstances: after all, someone else will subscribe?
The emotional outburst of the Freiburgers, on the other hand, was a real treat and could be easily understood, even if they were known and two days late. No, there were almost tears rolling down your face, you felt so much. Dembélé, who had only been substituted a few minutes earlier, tried a direct shot from the edge of the penalty area after a header had been deflected out of the penalty area, which, if it failed, the announcer, who had already been drawing conclusions for a long time, assured by calling it a “desperate shot”, rushed exactly into the bottom left corner. Great, crazy, super, great, inspiring, thrilling, stunning.
c) An interview
When Marc-André ter Stegen, the Gladbach keeper, was asked by Ecki Häuser after another convincing victory whether he was dreaming of the title? he countered cleverly and sympathetically: “Which title do you mean? Ecki Häuser smiled but, pointing out the obviousness of the direction of the question, added, rather slightly annoyed, “the title of German champion”, whereupon ter Stegen found the really pretty words: “We have a very difficult game next week and we will prepare for that to do as well as possible.”
Perhaps at some point the announcers should accept that their form of journalism is stale and ridiculous, out of date (if it ever was)? It is the truth that is being answered. Every player knows that every single game is touch and go, that you have to push the envelope in each one to get anything countable out of it, that the opponents are usually not a bit worse and that it is only with continuous good work and the requisite luck that you collect point after point and in the end count them all up and see what comes out. Season goals are passé but even if you had them, you could only achieve them in the way described. Sepp Herberger was the idol in terms of wisdom (and his words of wisdom should be taken to heart much more than they have been lately and probably due to the fact that everyone knows them, which does not detract from their content in the slightest) and he too already remarked: “The next opponent is always the hardest.” Don’t just smile for a moment because of the recognition effect, but think about it for a while.
How pretty this word is and how badly one wants to watch when one learns that someone has “slurred” again. A term that has also been breaking through lately (like the one that as soon as a defender is played out in a one on one, it’s always automatically said: “That’s far too easy.”). They waste here and waste there, yes, yes, the Bundesliga and its level. Or is it just the speakers after all?
This time, the ban beam hit Tobias Werner of FC Augsburg, who has really been observed a lot lately and is somewhat reminiscent of David Jarolim, not only visually but also in terms of playing style. With the score at 1:0, Augsburg had several counter-attacking opportunities in the final minutes. There is a chance, yes, but not every chance is a goal, even when the game is at its best. Here, Tobias Werner was played halfway free in the opponent’s penalty area, he only has the goalkeeper in front of him, who quickly hurries towards him, but the defenders are by no means asleep (as one would be made to believe if the goal was scored), but also try to do everything in their power to prevent the goal from being scored, so they try to set up teammates as well as the attacker who has run away, and they also try to secure their own goal line with an ornamental sprint, so that scoring goals is made as difficult as possible. Even if it is a blazing fire, it is extinguished in a fraction of a second. Tobias Werner might have the chance to flick past the keeper, but it would by no means guarantee success, not only because the latter is particularly wide, but also because a defender is already heading towards the goal line. He decides to do what all coaches would praise him for: he crosses the ball to the better-positioned teammate. The goalkeeper and defenders in the club manage to intercept the ball by straddling it and jumping on it, but it does not reach the player next to him who is ready to shoot.
It’s just a “miss”. That’s exactly how “Verschludern” works. At the highest speed at the highest level of opponents, taking the head high, aiming at the next man — not reaching the next man: “Verschludert”.
He, the speaker, one must now assume, would have easily sunk the thing, wouldn’t he?
No, Tobias Werner did everything right, as one would prefer to have coach Luhukay confirm. That’s how it’s done, that was the best solution and greatest chance for this goal situation. A goal guarantees neither this nor that execution. Why are we being harassed in such a way, also with this unbearable disrespect towards these exceptional players? Sky, go home – and stay there.” Over there, on the island, that’s where you’re at home. Here it won’t work. Not with these narrow-minded polyglots and non-sayers (except for nonsense).
By the way, the “analysis” of the appointed senior expert, which was picked up in the summary of the Mainz – Bayern game, was particularly nice once again. When van Buyten — the central defender, of whom one has known for years how much he likes to go forward and how he loves to play in the opponent’s penalty area, this wolf (striker) in sheep’s (defender’s) pelt – almost managed to equalise shortly before the end (Gomez was even closer, but was stopped by the wrong whistle), and had already scored twice before, one was treated to the following insight: “Van Buyten – by the way, by far the most dangerous Bayern player.”
If he hadn’t said that, I’m sure spectators would have been completely in the dark. Surely up to that point people still thought that van Buyten was harmless and the rest of the squad consistently incendiary?
Does he actually expect his expert status to be elevated by such an “analysis”, which could be made by any toddler with his eyes closed? Are viewers seriously supposed to be a bit smarter than before? Are we supposed to assume that, apart from the two goals and this last chance, there were several other scenes, which were withheld from us due to their multitude and the limited broadcasting time, in which van Buyten demonstrated his offensive skills and the scoring danger he exuded? What is this compressed nonsense all about?
One thing at least can be said with certainty: he is by no means the most embarrassing speaker. The others are almost exactly on a par, a neck-and-neck race, so to speak. One’s own father used to regularly shower one with well-measured and well-considered compliments. One of them was: “You’re not a little fool at all.” One can gladly pass on this compliment to this gentleman.
b. The standings
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 Borussia Dortmund 14 9 2 3 29 29 – 9 +20
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 14 9 2 3 29 23 – 9 +14
3 FC Bayern Munich 14 9 1 4 28 34 – 8 +26
4 Werder Bremen 14 8 2 4 26 25 – 21 +4
5 FC Schalke 04 14 8 1 5 25 28 – 20 +8
6 Bayer Leverkusen 14 6 4 4 22 20 – 19 +1
7 VfB Stuttgart 14 6 3 5 21 20 – 15 +5
8 Hannover 96 14 5 5 4 20 18 – 22 -4
9 TSG Hoffenheim 14 5 3 6 18 16 – 16 +0
10 Hertha BSC 14 4 6 4 18 21 – 22 -1
11 1.FC Köln 13 5 1 7 16 20 – 29 -9
12 VfL Wolfsburg 14 5 1 8 16 19 – 28 -9
13 FSV Mainz 05 13 4 3 6 15 19 – 25 -6
14 1.FC Nürnberg 14 4 3 7 15 14 – 24 -10
15 Hamburger SV 14 3 5 6 14 18 – 26 -8
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 14 3 4 7 13 10 – 18 -8
17 SC Freiburg 14 3 3 8 12 19 – 30 -11
18 FC Augsburg 14 2 5 7 11 12 – 24 -12
365 365 0
Total number of games 125
Goals ø 2.92
Fact. It has come to pass what, on honour and conscience, was thought unthinkable a few weeks ago. Even the author can only put it this way, Bayern have “made the pace” in such an impressive way that one simply could not imagine a collapse. Even if there was talk now and then in the (pre-)reporting (also voiced by coaches, managers or players) that the season was still long and that so much could still happen, such things were really only thought to be causally responsible for the (otherwise rarely aspired to) maintenance of suspense, and not for any serious belief in it.
Of course, one knows – and has increasingly tried to make it understandable in these texts in particular – that, for instance, just as asking Demi Moore for a night with her is supposed to be only a question of the amount of money involved, so too the change in the table situation is only a question of probability. And each, to the extent of its value, has its chance of occurring. Still, by analogy with Murphy’s law, for instance, it must be conceded that it is a question of the number of attempts – and this season there has been only one to make it happen (a teeny one). Now it has happened. After all, if you translate the (intuitive) statement (be it thought) “I can’t imagine Bayern relinquishing the top spot again this season.” then it simply means that you think the chance is very, very small.
On the other hand, in the very same place, people regularly bet on the occurrence of the perceived small miracle, in the sense that they bet virtual units on Bayern’s defeats, which in turn expresses that they thought the miracle was a tiny bit more likely than the rest of the (betting) world. The strange thing is that it seems as if, as soon as one gets involved in thinking and arguing with probabilities, one never gets a clear statement anymore. For, the answer to the question: “Will Bayern be champion?” can only be answered, translated in its sense for the questioner, with “May be, may not be.”
If you think it a bit further, however, the statements become at most what they can become: “Bayern will be champions 48.82% of the time (the “can be”), and 51.18% of the time (the “can’t be”) not.” (see below, “the title question”). Either the respondent then nods or shakes his head. Nodding: “You’re right.” Shaking head: “I have another value out.” If the latter, the conversation just continues, “Then let’s bet.” The mediation of such bets has long since been taken over by “betfair”. In any case, a dispute about the assessments would not help, especially since the statement “may be, may not be” is also made by both of them and, if it was not agreed as a bet, they wanted to meet and reconcile after the season to resolve the dispute. Only the probability values were not identical. But that does not make anyone right…
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 text below) 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 2441 48.82% 2.05
2 Borussia Dortmund 2290 45.80% 2.18
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 145 2.90% 34.48
4 FC Schalke 04 75 1.50% 66.67
5 Werder Bremen 26 0.52% 192.31
6 Bayer Leverkusen 17 0.34% 294.12
7 VfB Stuttgart 5 0.10% 1000.00
8 Hannover 96 1 0.02% 5000.00
Understandably, people are looking forward to such a view. The championship race is almost completely open. The computer still doesn’t quite want to acknowledge the strength of Gladbach’s Borussia, although they themselves foresaw this favourable development quite early in the sense that they backed the Rhinelanders in terms of betting. 2.90% for a team with the same points as the league leader seems really modest. But, intuitively asked: can you seriously imagine Gladbach, who exactly 12 months ago were (almost) hopeless and sitting at the bottom of the table, winning the title? Is it more than 2.90%?
Change in chances compared to the previous week due to the results of matchday 14
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
1 Borussia Dortmund 919 18.38%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 87 1.74%
3 Werder Bremen 13 0.26%
4 Hannover 96 1 0.02%
15 1.FC Cologne -1 -0.02%
16 FC Schalke 04 -3 -0.06%
17 Bayer Leverkusen -7 -0.14%
18 FC Bayern Munich -1009 -20.18%
The gain almost maximum for Dortmund, even somewhat larger (and discussed a week ago, such an effect) the loss of Bayern, and in dimensions not yet experienced here. A loss of over 20%! It must be clearly stated that there is a kind of “turning point” at which it is only possible to record such high losses. The teams are almost exactly equal in terms of table and playing strength. And: they have almost the complete 100% on their side, the higher part of it the previous league leader. A good result against a bad result, that’s how it can happen.
d. The title chances in the development
Impressive curves, even if it’s just two playing a violin. Perhaps such views would be much easier to imagine or understand in other circumstances (say share prices?). Since we are talking about probabilities, and one of the curves was already quite lonely striving towards 100% (it was scraping the 90 mark), it becomes much harder to do so. 90% is already perceived, purely colloquially and intuitively, as “pretty safe” – if one believed in so little at all in those days and didn’t simply utter the sentence: “Nah, it’s not exciting in the title question. The Bavarians will do it. Full stop.”
Should the curves actually intersect at some point in the future?
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 1.58 1.59 63.29%
Borussia Dortmund 3.6 3.65 27.78%
Bayer Leverkusen 65 85 1.54%
VfL Wolfsburg 600 0.17%
Hannover 96 400 1000 0.25%
Werder Bremen 70 75 1.43%
FC Schalke 04 40 48 2.50%
Hamburger SV 1000 0.10%
VfB Stuttgart 350 990 0.29%
FSV Mainz 05 600 0.17%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 23 25 4.35%
TSG Hoffenheim 410 0.24%
1.FC Nuremberg 1000 0.10%
1.FC Cologne 600 0.17%
SC Freiburg 1000 0.10%
Hertha BSC 670 0.15%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1000 0.10%
FC Augsburg 1000 0.10%
As usual, the betting markets are reacting calmly. Will this trend continue? One is puzzled by it oneself. Surely everyone has seen a number of these brilliant performances. But now they have also seen that there can be defeats. Furthermore, we have seen a series of brilliant Dortmund victories, even if (which could even have a positive effect on the championship race) the opposite is said of them in the Champions League. Dortmund is at full strength and – remember that the computer is incorruptible in its logic – the home match against Bayern is outstanding, while the away match was victorious against their direct rivals. That’s a plus that can definitely add a few percentage points.
The recommendation is clearer than ever before: bet Dortmund to win the title. Will the computer logic prove true? Final answers are not to be expected. At least this much can be said about long-term bets: it is possible to materialise a positive development long before the end of the season. One can “settle” a favourable long-term bet on the betting exchange at any time by betting the opposite side with the required amount, thus achieving a secure plus.
Of course, you can also place disadvantageous bets. The effect is that one immediately incurs a certain loss, which, like selling a falling share below the purchase price, need not be a mistake. In technical jargon, this is called “taking a loss” in the context of betting; in stock market jargon, it is probably a “stop loss”.
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
FC Bayern Munich -8.14%
Borussia Dortmund 6.04%
Bayer Leverkusen 0.00%
VfL Wolfsburg -0.08%
Hannover 96 -0.25%
Werder Bremen 0.25%
FC Schalke 04 -0.63%
Hamburger SV 0.00%
VfB Stuttgart -0.27%
FSV Mainz 05 0.07%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.85%
TSG Hoffenheim -0.01%
1.FC Nuremberg 0.00%
1.FC Cologne -0.03%
SC Freiburg 0.00%
Hertha BSC -0.05%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0.00%
(The order according to the original rankings)
Well, the computer reacts with a whopping (over) 18% gain for Dortmund and an even whopping (over) 20% loss for Bayern, the betting exchange with less than half. It could be interesting to observe whether something moves in the course of the week, i.e. a trade begins (the situation has never been more favourable for this, as the tension is basically at its maximum at the moment, as can be seen graphically), which would cause price corrections. If this were to happen, it would of course be interesting to see in which direction it moves, but it is hard to imagine the Bayern title moving further down in price.
f. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 14
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
1 Borussia Dortmund 1998 39.96%
2 FC Bayern Munich 1896 37.92%
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 464 9.28%
4 FC Schalke 04 293 5.86%
5 Werder Bremen 162 3.24%
6 Bayer Leverkusen 135 2.70%
7 Hannover 96 19 0.38%
8 VfB Stuttgart 17 0.34%
9 TSG Hoffenheim 6 0.12%
10 Hertha BSC 5 0.10%
11 FSV Mainz 05 4 0.08%
12 VfL Wolfsburg 1 0.02%
Here too, logically, it is now a neck-and-neck race. Although the other teams already have a total of over 20%. The dominance of the top two is unmistakable.
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team Win/Loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/Loss in per cent.
1 FC Bayern Munich 661 13.22%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 129 2.58%
3 Werder Bremen 76 1.52%
4 FSV Mainz 05 4 0.08%
5 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
6 1.FC Nuremberg 0 0.00%
7 FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
8 SC Freiburg 0 0.00%
9 Hamburger SV -2 -0.04%
10 1.FC Cologne -4 -0.08%
11 Hannover 96 -4 -0.08%
12 TSG Hoffenheim -8 -0.16%
13 Hertha BSC -9 -0.18%
14 VfL Wolfsburg -9 -0.18%
15 VfB Stuttgart -36 -0.72%
16 Bayer Leverkusen -56 -1.12%
17 FC Schalke 04 -189 -3.78%
18 Borussia Dortmund -553 -11.06%
Here, too, the breakdown of the change is as clear as day. Dortmund loses (desirable) what Bayern wins (undesirable). Because of the exchange for title chances.
g. The relegation question
The distribution of relegation percentages
Note: There would also be a detailed breakdown across 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 through the relegation, whereby the first division team is generally rated as 2/3 to 1/3 favourites over 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 by relegation Total
1 FC Augsburg 59.12% 4.78% 63.90%
2 SC Freiburg 39.24% 5.16% 44.40%
3 1.FC Kaiserslautern 36.88% 5.34% 42.22%
4 1.FC Nuremberg 20.08% 4.24% 24.32%
5 1.FC Köln 13.20% 3.39% 16.59%
6 Hamburger SV 13.06% 3.05% 16.11%
7 VfL Wolfsburg 6.00% 2.20% 8.20%
8 FSV Mainz 05 5.50% 1.85% 7.35%
9 TSG Hoffenheim 2.74% 1.21% 3.95%
10 Hertha BSC 2.42% 0.96% 3.38%
11 Hannover 96 1.08% 0.64% 1.72%
12 VfB Stuttgart 0.58% 0.42% 1.00%
13 Bayer Leverkusen 0.10% 0.01% 0.11%
14 Werder Bremen 0.00% 0.07% 0.07%
15 FC Schalke 04 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Almost a comparable effect in the bottom of the table. Augsburg were already so close to hopelessness, but finally reared back, which, after good performances, was also reflected in a result this time. The first home win and some optimism emanating from it. Since Augsburg themselves were praised and commiserated with at this point last time, one definitely begrudged them the success, even if it still cost more than just virtual money…
The change in chances due to the results of matchday 14 with regard to relegation
Team Change in chances
1 FC Augsburg 11.53%
2 FSV Mainz 05 8.36%
3 1.FC Nürnberg 6.59%
4 Hertha BSC 0.43%
5 Werder Bremen 0.21%
6 Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.01%
7 Borussia Dortmund 0.00%
8 FC Bayern Munich 0.00%
9 FC Schalke 04 -0.01%
10 Bayer Leverkusen -0.04%
11 Hannover 96 -0.35%
12 TSG Hoffenheim -0.61%
13 Hamburger SV -0.63%
14 VfB Stuttgart -0.69%
15 SC Freiburg -2.33%
16 VfL Wolfsburg -4.43%
17 1.FC Köln -7.16%
18 1.FC Kaiserslautern -10.87%
Augsburg also made a gigantic gain of over 11%. A fine thing, since tension is needed and everything is moving closer together at first (and thus ensuring it). On the other hand, one remembers all too well (because of the first encounter with it) when there was an extremely close season in 1968/69, the year of Hertha’s promotion and therefore so well remembered, when on the last matchday Nuremberg and Offenbach had to bite the dust and the Football Week featured the tears of the Nuremberg players (who had started as defending champions!) who left the pitch crying but supported by their team-mates and opponents. Since then, relegation has always been associated with tears, and a more recent example is also constantly played when Rudi Völler takes the crying Andy Brehme, who has been relegated, in his arms and escorts him off the pitch.
h. The relegation issue in development
Little is visible here, except that it surges. Augsburg’s only outstanding curve is moving back towards the rest, this the comparable effect to the top.
i. The point expectations and the deviations
Explanation: for each game, the computer has calculated the chances for 1, X and 2. On the basis of these, a point expectation is mathematically calculated for each team per game 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 19.09 29 9.91 9.91
2 FC Schalke 04 20.92 25 4.08 4.08
3 Werder Bremen 22.04 26 3.96 3.96
4 Borussia Dortmund 26.68 29 2.32 2.32
5 1.FC Köln 14.82 16 1.18 1.18
6 Hertha BSC 17.24 18 0.76 0.76
7 VfB Stuttgart 20.84 21 0.16 0.16
8 Hannover 96 19.90 20 0.10 0.10
9 Bayer Leverkusen 22.27 22 -0.27 0.27
10 TSG Hoffenheim 18.76 18 -0.76 0.76
11 1.FC Nürnberg 16.74 15 -1.74 1.74
12 FSV Mainz 05 16.88 15 -1.88 1.88
13 FC Augsburg 12.94 11 -1.94 1.94
14 1.FC Kaiserslautern 15.31 13 -2.31 2.31
15 Hamburger SV 16.48 14 -2.48 2.48
16 FC Bayern Munich 30.50 28 -2.50 2.50
17 VfL Wolfsburg 19.44 16 -3.44 3.44
18 SC Freiburg 15.48 12 -3.48 3.48
ø Deviation 2.40
Gladbach remains the only outstanding surprise team. That the headlines also focus on it is because it is naturally intuitively perceived to be the biggest surprise, even without numerical evidence (which, it can be argued with some pride, would not be available elsewhere).
As you can see, it is even tighter at the other end of the table than at the top, with a maximum negative deviation of “only” 3.48 points at Freiburg, which could be compensated for fairly quickly. Bayern have pretty much blown through, which in their case is mainly due to the fact that expectations are so high (yes, not only those of the fans but also those of the computer) that losses can initiate a real crash, especially consecutive ones.
Nevertheless, one thing is clear: the deviations are moderate in all directions (exception: Gladbach), the table well ordered, completely different from the previous season.
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 5.56 0.27 144
2 France 1 3.75 0.44 150
3 England 1 3.66 -0.16 129
4 Spain 1 2.76 0.12 129
5 Italy 1 2.74 0.00 118
6 Germany, 1.BL 2.40 -0.03 125
The proof of the above statement in the figures. The first league ranks at the bottom of the table in terms of surprises, or even better in terms of order in the table, compared to prior expectations. The second division, on the other hand, is still in the lead, but they say, perhaps not without reason, that anyone can beat anyone. What is surprising is not only the teams Duisburg and Bochum in a negative sense and, above all, Paderborn in a positive sense, but also the gap between the top teams and the rest, which was much smaller in other years.
So: even if you expected Frankfurt to be at the top and they are (almost) there, the points yield can still be (surprisingly) far too high. So remember: a surprise team in the terminology would also be one that occupies the right place in the table (usually then last or first) but still misses expectations by a long way in terms of points.
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 19.24 23 20.13 9 14.88
2 Borussia Dortmund 23.86 29 12.61 9 8.75
3 FC Bayern Munich 30.22 34 11.98 8 7.76
4 FC Schalke 04 20.15 28 17.68 20 5.53
5 VfB Stuttgart 22.19 20 19.94 15 2.74
6 Hertha BSC 18.08 21 21.74 22 2.66
7 TSG Hoffenheim 18.92 16 19.80 16 0.89
8 Werder Bremen 23.58 25 19.25 21 -0.33
9 1.FC Kaiserslautern 16.10 10 22.16 18 -1.94
10 FC Augsburg 12.85 12 22.32 24 -2.53
11 Hamburger SV 18.29 18 23.22 26 -3.07
12 Bayer Leverkusen 22.22 20 17.79 19 -3.43
13 1.FC Köln 17.16 20 22.72 29 -3.44
14 FSV Mainz 05 17.44 19 19.14 25 -4.30
15 SC Freiburg 17.05 19 23.43 30 -4.62
16 Hannover 96 19.80 18 18.85 22 -4.95
17 1.FC Nürnberg 16.66 14 21.03 24 -5.63
18 VfL Wolfsburg 19.07 19.10 28 -8.96
352.89 365 352.89 365 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 4.80 2.82 2.92
Of course, Gladbach is also in the lead here, as they are now also winning big (most recently 5:0 and 3:0). But: Bayern remains in the lead thanks to their excellent goal ratio, even if Dortmund has “outstripped” them there in the meantime. At the end, Wolfsburg, who have disappointed often enough (themselves, in the sense of successful bets). Nuremberg have also crept up behind, even with a win last time. Surprisingly, Hannover has already slipped all the way to the back (in this table) with their little negative streak, although one would still feel that they are actually having quite a good season?
At the same time, one remembers the last season, in which Hannover was among the top teams for a long time, but partly with a negative goal difference.
The international comparison for the average goal difference
(Note: crazy results do not necessarily have to be reflected in the tendency. 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 8.12 0.42 144
2 Germany, 1.BL 4.80 -0.18 125
3 England 1 4.61 -0.06 129
4 Spain 1 3.86 0.04 129
5 France 1 3.34 -0.25 150
6 Italy 1 2.75 0.00 118
The 1st division here almost at the top, which still means that there are surprising results, but these only concern the level of the goal yields, not the ultimate winner. The 2nd division, however, cannot be topped. There, things are going haywire, as you can call it. In terms of results, Italy does typical (and readily associated with them) “service by the book”. Score 1:0, see it through, that’s about it.
k. The strength of play ranking
Note: The strength of play is measured in goals expected against the average team (which does not exist in practice). There is offensive strength, which is measured in expected goals scored, and 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 Borussia Dortmund 1.87 0.76 2.47 +0.08 +1
2 FC Bayern Munich 2.18 0.89 2.45 -0.21 -1
3 FC Schalke 04 1.57 1.23 1.28 -0.03 +0
4 Bayer Leverkusen 1.63 1.30 1.25 -0.01 +0
5 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.47 1.21 1.21 +0.09 +0
6 Werder Bremen 1.62 1.49 1.09 +0.04 +1
7 VfB Stuttgart 1.52 1.47 1.03 -0.03 -1
8 Hannover 96 1.40 1.47 0.95 -0.01 +0
9 Hertha BSC 1.43 1.55 0.92 -0.00 +2
10 TSG Hoffenheim 1.26 1.38 0.91 -0.02 +0
11 VfL Wolfsburg 1.43 1.58 0.91 -0.05 -2
12 FSV Mainz 05 1.44 1.60 0.90 +0.05 +0
13 Hamburger SV 1.28 1.58 0.81 +0.01 +0
14 1.FC Köln 1.42 1.90 0.75 -0.04 +0
15 1.FC Nürnberg 1.14 1.59 0.72 +0.01 +0
16 SC Freiburg 1.23 1.73 0.71 +0.01 +0
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.00 1.51 0.66 -0.02 +0
18 FC Augsburg 0.92 1.55 0.60 +0.03 +0
25.79 25.78 +0
Goals ø expected 2.86
Here, too, the impact is serious: Dortmund ahead of Bayern for the first time! Sure, it’s understandable if you don’t feel that way right away (Number 1? Clearly Bayern!). But: even last season, people didn’t want to believe it for a long time, but towards the end of the season they took off their hats nationwide – and bowed to Dortmund. The computer has its (ingrained) logic and one would never be willing to change it (main reason: proven over many years). Intuition can easily be influenced by it, after all, one has many years of experience: why shouldn’t the last results – especially Dortmund’s highly praised victory in Munich – possibly really contain this statement: the difference is marginal? Visually, too, you see (even Borussia’s Champions League results didn’t quite do justice to their performances) yellow-robed players darting across the pitch as quick as an arrow and confident in their combinations (oh, no, please, no names: er, Götze? All right, one!), who on top of that complete an attack every now and then. For the Reds, it’s been a few matchdays. In Mainz, strangely enough, you never had the feeling that Bayern were better and would win. Strange it was, but that’s how it was.
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 125 66 25 18 109 0.872
2 France 150 78 19 18 115 0.767
3 2nd Bundesliga 144 64 23 19 106 0.736
4 England 129 56 16 19 91 0.705
5 Spain 129 51 22 11 84 0.651
6 Italy 118 46 15 13 74 0.627
Total balance 795 361 120 98 579 0.728
Balance of trend changes from last week:
Instead of listing the changes of tendency, from now on a small table with the changes of tendency from the past weekend will be included here.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goal Away Leading Goal Total per match
1 1st Bundesliga 9 5 1 7 0.778
2 France 10 4 1 3 8 0.800
3 2nd Bundesliga 9 4 2 1 7 0.778
4 Italy 10 3 1 0 4 0,400
5 Spain 10 3 2 1 6 0.600
6 England 10 6 1 2 9 0.900
Balance WE 58 25 8 8 41 0.707
An average balance on WE, no outliers, at most that not much happened in Italy.
Trend changes of all leagues covered in the season 2011/2012
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goal Away Leading Goal Total per match
1 1st Bundesliga 125 66 25 18 109 0.872
2 France 150 78 19 18 115 0.767
3 2nd Bundesliga 144 64 23 19 106 0.736
4 Italy 118 46 15 13 74 0.627
5 Spain 129 51 22 11 84 0.651
6 England 129 56 16 19 91 0.705
Total balance 795 361 120 98 579 0.728
The 1st division clearly in front, as in the last season, which in any case speaks for a certain tendency (with the changes in tendency). One plays forward in Germany. Point 1. you try to equalise as soon as you are behind. Point 2: When you are leading, you don’t retreat for a long time. Point 3.
In some other countries it’s different. It’s good for entertainment in this country and that’s always taken care of. The sustainability of the (time-honoured) statement that one should “just not switch to results management too early, as this will take its revenge” must be determined by the international comparisons in which this tactic is used. So far, however, the German teams are doing quite well, and the Nati (as it would be called in Switzerland) is also causing a sensation. Verdict: everything is OK in Germany as far as level and excitement are concerned (coverage? Where is that cloak, that, yes, of silence, over with it! But only for this moment. Ok.).
m. The mathematical review of the matchday 14 results.
Note: here the deviation of expected goals with scored goals 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
FC Köln Gladbach 1.33 1.45 2.78 0 3 -1.33 1.55
Nürnberg Kaiserslautern 1.35 1.07 2.42 1 0 -0.35 -1.07
Hoffenheim Freiburg 1.83 1.04 2.87 1 1 -0.83 -0.04
Dortmund Schalke 04 1.83 0.77 2.61 2 0 0.17 -0.77
Augsburg Wolfsburg 1.13 1.43 2.56 2 0 0.87 -1.43
Hertha Leverkusen 1.27 1.42 2.69 3 3 1.73 1.58
Hannover HSV 1.74 1.26 2.99 1 1 -0.74 -0.26
Werder Stuttgart 1.92 1.49 3.41 2 0 0.08 -1.49
Mainz FC Bayern 0.88 2.15 3.03 3 2 2.12 -0.15
13.30 12.07 25.37 15 10 1.70 13.30
Expected Goal Total Expected Goal Average Scored Goal Average 25.37 2.82 2.78
ø expected goal difference 1.87 ø goal difference 1.84
If surprising, then the renewed multitude of home wins. Other deviation moderate and within bounds, slightly too few goals after several times too many recently. Also the expected goal deviation (marginally) too low, nothing sensational in this balance.
n. The determination
Note: The fixing is calculated for each game 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
FC Cologne 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: 39.12%
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
FC Köln Gladbach 35.05% 24.27% 40.68% 2 40.68%
Nürnberg Kaiserslautern 43.71% 26.31% 29.97% 1 43.71%
Hoffenheim Freiburg 56.44% 22.18% 21.38% 0 22.18%
Dortmund Schalke 04 62.97% 21.75% 15.28% 1 62.97%
Augsburg Wolfsburg 30.31% 25.38% 44.32% 1 30.31%
Hertha Leverkusen 34.24% 24.79% 40.97% 0 24.79%
Hanover HSV 49.08% 22.84% 28.08% 0 22.84%
Werder Stuttgart 48.25% 21.48% 30.27% 1 48.25%
Mainz FC Bayern 14.34% 19.00% 66.66% 1 14.34%
5 3 1 3.10
average determination arrived: 34.45%
Here, on the other hand, the favourites failed to make their mark. An underdog matchday, which of course can mainly be determined by the occurrence of the smallest probability given: Mainz realised the 14.34% chance by beating Bayern. The performance was certainly classy (like the one against Stuttgart a few weeks ago). Three draws also ensure a far below-average chance of winning. Last but not least, Augsburg won as underdogs, even if this did not quite reflect market opinion (otherwise there would not have been a bet on Wolfsburg).
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 no longer has any 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 deviation of 3.98 goals) and carry out this procedure for each match result, you get the expected average goal deviation.
The statistics of the results so far Matches Hsiege Drais Asiege Htore Atore Heimvort
arrived 125 60 27 38 219 146 1,200
expected 125 57.68 28.66 38.65 199.2 153.6 1.129
abs Deviation 0 2.32 -1.66 -0.65 19.80 -7.60 0.07
rel. Deviation 0 3.87% -6.15% -1.71% 9.04% -5.21% 5.90%
Determination expected Determination received 40.04% 40.03% ø Goal deviation ø Goal deviation expected 1.89 1.87
A new form of presentation should help make it easier to read. Home wins were outscored by 2.32, which of course a) is within reason and b) could look corrected or even reversed in no time. The draws are still undercut by 1.66, but the winter and thus the result battles are still to come, where an equalisation could be ensured in the shortest possible time. The away wins, on the other hand, fit pretty well. Only the away team’s goal record doesn’t look quite as good: 7.6 too few scored and 19.8 too many conceded. Well, one remembers the surprisingly many high home victories, and this shoe fits as well. The “surprisingly” many is, of course, a trick to conceal the “mistakes”. Well, little joke: there are deviations, but all of them are as one must always expect and not different or more than usual. In the long run, the figures fit well. Care must always be taken to see whether fundamental things change that require intervention. This does not seem to be the case at the moment.
The fixing gives a good indication of this (in its own way), in that it has been scored almost exactly, the expected, and the average goal deviation is also not remotely rough, despite the perceived too many too high results.
p. Review of the betting recommendations
More explosive, however, is always this question: which bets should/must have occurred 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
FC Cologne Gladbach 3.35 3.55 2.32
Nuremberg Kaiserslautern 2.08 3.55 4.00
Hoffenheim Freiburg 1.67 4.10 5.80
Dortmund Schalke 04 1.68 4.10 5.70
Augsburg Wolfsburg 3.05 3.50 2.44
Hertha Leverkusen 2.86 3.50 2.60
Hanover HSV 2.30 3.60 3.40
Werder Stuttgart 2.14 3.65 3.70
Mainz FC Bayern 10.00 5.30 1.37
Goals scored 2.63
Goals scored 2
Money score 4.68
It is clear that one looks pleased at such a result. Mainz pulled it all out and one remembers how they talked about “throwing units out of the window” x times in advance in the same place (even if they should have used the slogan “in the rubbish”). Now just the overpowering Bayern have virtually financed the whole season. It means so much that, approaching it with due sobriety, perhaps one has the greatest “value”, the greatest advantage, where one faces the absolute and by all recognised outstanding top teams. These may still be “over-bet”, following an intuition, so that the prices do not quite reflect the truth.
Of course, we also know very well that in all cases some luck was needed, which was also required in Mainz (but was perceived as much smaller here, in front of the TV).
Dortmund against Schalke was certainly a good bet, as Dortmund showed everything that makes a top team, while Schalke could not quite back up this claim.
Kaiserslautern would be played again in a heartbeat (hoping to find them in better shape), but in this game it was a disastrously bad bet. No scoring chances and no build up at the end. As if there was something in the tea…
Freiburg at Hoffenheim was a fantastic bet. Hoffenheim may have had the advantage in the first half, but Freiburg showed enough in half two to take advantage of their chances to win that were attributed to them. The kicker counted 6:5 chances for the home side, which may well be about right, but thus awards the underdog a good bet on them for a 5.0.
Wolfsburg were by no means favourites in terms of the game shares and chances seen (5:6 against them, according to kicker) and one would have to withdraw their supporters long ago, at least for the away games. Augsburg had very well been argued for before, so on the one hand you are a bit horrified about your own bet, but on the other hand you gladly admit to having been wrong here. Not a good bet.
The bet on Leverkusen a week ago was not necessarily justified with fervour. But the game showed that while Hertha are good, Leverkusen are really better and even capable of turning a 0:2 into a 3:2. That they conceded the 3:3 so close to the end was certainly a bit unlucky and should not happen, as the coach also complained. Nevertheless, the performance and the bet were ok so far.
Hannover against HSV was also a rather technical bet and without too much conviction (which does not refer to the fact that one considers the occurrence impossible, but merely that one acknowledges that the market could be right). The game confirmed the fears: HSV is simply good, has an outstanding player in Töre in particular (of whom one had absolutely no prior assessment) and is also otherwise a team with a very reasonable Bundesliga level. A manual adjustment is necessary. The kicker counted 6:6 chances, which seems almost coloured pro Hannover. HSV was rather the better team, even if you saw that Hannover would also be able to score at any time. Not a good bet, at least that’s the assessment. But the fault-finding is done, especially as the derby character was mentioned here as inhibiting conviction.
Betting recommendation 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
14 7 2 2.63 -0.63 +4.68
The black figures predominate, also in their amount, so it goes without saying that one has to be satisfied.
Statistics in total
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
88 32 +23.50 26.70% 31.38 +0.62
Again, all in the green-black, even if the hit yield is only very slightly positive (the reason, repeatedly stated: too many high odds hit). 26.70% is in any case a proud figure, but certainly not representative in the long run (which, in the first year of recording, readers might otherwise assume).
q. The preview of the 15th matchday
Note: According to a specially developed – of course explainable and highly logical – algorithm, the computer calculates the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) to these goal expectations. 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
Leverkusen Hoffenheim 1.77 1.04 2.81
FC Bayern Werder 2.67 0.82 3.49
Kaiserslautern Hertha 1.28 1.39 2.67
Gladbach Dortmund 0.90 1.31 2.21
Freiburg Hannover 1.41 1.34 2.75
Wolfsburg Mainz 1.73 1.34 3.07
Stuttgart FC Cologne 2.37 1.31 3.68
HSV Nuremberg 1.59 1.04 2.64
Schalke 04 Augsburg 1.95 0.68 2.62
15.67 10.27 25.94
Expected goal total Expected goal average 25.94 2.88
Nothing spectacular, 2.88 goals expected on average means: a high-scoring matchday is expected (if you can feel that 2.88 can equal “high-scoring” compared to other values of 2.78). After all, 3.49 goals in Munich, which points to the one “over”, even more in Stuttgart, with 3.68 goals. There are supposed to be very few in Gladbach. The computer anticipates the wise reporter’s saying, so to speak: the good teams neutralise each other.
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 is, 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
Leverkusen Hoffenheim 54.85% 22.82% 22.33% 40.28%
FC Bayern Werder 76.70% 14.25% 9.05% 61.68%
Kaiserslautern Hertha 34.95% 25.06% 39.99% 34.49%
Gladbach Dortmund 25.88% 27.61% 46.52% 35.95%
Freiburg Hannover 39.16% 24.57% 36.27% 34.53%
Wolfsburg Mainz 47.09% 22.84% 30.06% 36.43%
Stuttgart FC Cologne 61.28% 18.69% 20.03% 45.05%
HSV Nuremberg 50.52% 24.41% 25.07% 37.77%
Schalke 04 Augsburg 67.60% 20.22% 12.18% 51.27%
4.58 2.00 2.42 3.77
Average expected fixing:
A clear favourite matchday with an expected value of 41.94%, and thus above the average by just under 2%. Reasons: Bayern at home (even if against Werder), and also Stuttgart and Schalke with well over 60%. Even HSV has already worked its way up to a solid 50%.
The fair odds
Note: the fair odds are only 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
Leverkusen Hoffenheim 1.82 4.38 4.48
FC Bayern Werder 1.30 7.02 11.05
Kaiserslautern Hertha 2.86 3.99 2.50
Gladbach Dortmund 3.86 3.62 2.15
Freiburg Hannover 2.55 4.07 2.76
Wolfsburg Mainz 2.12 4.38 3.33
Stuttgart FC Cologne 1.63 5.35 4.99
HSV Nuremberg 1.98 4.10 3.99
Schalke 04 Augsburg 1.48 4.95 8.21
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
Leverkusen Hoffenheim 1.82 3.90 5.00 100.59%
FC Bayern Werder 1.35 5.70 11.00 100.71%
Kaiserslautern Hertha 2.56 3.50 2.92 101.88%
Gladbach Dortmund 3.75 3.65 2.14 100.79%
Freiburg Hannover 2.58 3.50 2.90 101.81%
Wolfsburg Mainz 2.38 3.60 3.10 102.05%
Stuttgart FC Cologne 1.47 4.70 8.60 100.93%
HSV Nuremberg 1.96 3.70 4.30 101.30%
Schalke 04 Augsburg 1.38 5.00 10.00 102.46%
Goal expectation 2.18
A short comment on the betting recommendations:
Hoffenheim played quite a few games very well and rarely got a reward for it lately. Leverkusen, on the other hand – they had themselves set to win in Berlin and spoiled it by conceding the third goal shortly before the end – continue to lack consistency. Conclusion: one can well imagine a Hoffenheim victory there, at least in proportion to the odds.
The fact that one can now think about betting on Bayern (and even decides to do so) shows at least one curiosity of the market, which in a way reacts irritated to the sequence of recent unfavourable results. For: the computer already has Dortmund very close ahead of Bayern in terms of playing strength. This assessment is not confirmed by the market by the stoic calm with which the team reacts to the series of failures in the sense of long-term goals, i.e. winning the title. There, the market claims, Bayern will prevail, at least with a (far) higher chance than the computer assumes. However, it is just the opposite for the next game. Here, Bavaria is given less of a chance than the computer would have it.
If you wanted to, you could bet against Bayern to win the title, but at the same time insure yourself (cheaply) with a bet on Bayern winning at the weekend. The two assessments of the market do not fit together properly. Cause, already mentioned: Irritation.
One could, of course, start to look for the error at Werder, but there is little confirmation of this in the past. The computer almost wanted Werder to play against Stuttgart and remember that before this (corrective) victory last weekend there was the 0:5 defeat in Gladbach, which was almost followed by “crisis talk” or “lack of stability” at Werder. It remains the same: the advantage is very small, but one risks this unit, representing the view that Bayern is a good bet.
Hertha, as previously announced and feared in terms of the Leverkusen bet, now put in another excellent performance, even if Leverkusen showed superior class in between. Kaiserslautern put in a really weak game in Nuremberg, where, in their own live view, you actually didn’t feel a bit of a surge towards the end. The players, the coach also agreed that this was the weakest performance of the season. So why not trust the computer? Hertha have always scored recently, even away from home, and you can certainly trust them to do it in Lautern. A good bet.
When betting on Wolfsburg, you can never get the sense that they are favourable. Still, remember that they have usually managed to pull off a home win after a sobering away performance. After all, their home record of 4 – 0 – 2 is comparatively favourable, even including the defeat against Bayern, plus the one just before the end against Hertha (! see above). So: you play Wolfsburg, but you don’t really like the bet, especially against Mainz, who are in top form.
Cologne’s win in Stuttgart is a must-win bet and above all a numbers bet. The defeat against Gladbach should not be overrated, as the opponent was simply overpowering, as acknowledged by all sides. In that game, so ar one agrees, they did not play that badly, but had no chance against that opponent in that form, as sad as it may sound (especially in the Rhineland derby).
Stuttgart were basically almost entirely lucky in the last home game against Augsburg, and did nothing in the first half in Bremen either. That one went completely to Werder. The revival in half 2 (despite conceding goals then, of all things) was mainly due to Werder not taking their excellent chances (cause: bad luck and nothing else). So why shouldn’t Cologne pull off the coup de grâce? The reward with 7 units won would be rich.
The unit on Augsburg also seems excellently invested, even if the 9 units to be won might only be collected with a lot of imagination combined with a fair amount of luck. Augsburg were very good in Stuttgart, against Bayern before that too, have now even received a reward with the home win against Wolfsburg and will do everything they can – certainly without tensing up, as it would still be a sensation if they could keep the class — to also spit in the soup of the Schalkers, who are coming from the derby defeat in Dortmund, in which the limits were nevertheless shown to them. As unlikely as it may be that they can celebrate next week in the same place and possibly meekly send a “well, it wasn’t that good” after these glorious words: the chance is postulated here as greater than 1 in 10, so: a good bet.
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