1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of the 21st Matchday
VfL Wolfsburg – SC Freiburg 3:2 (2:2)
FC Bayern Munich – 1. FC Kaiserslautern 2:0 (2:0)
Borussia Dortmund – Bayer Leverkusen 1:0 (1:0)
Werder Bremen – TSG Hoffenheim 1:1 (0:1)
FSV Mainz 05 – Hannover 96 1:1 (1:0)
VfB Stuttgart – Hertha BSC 5:0 (4:0)
Borussia Mönchengladbach – FC Schalke 04 3:0 (3:0)
FC Augsburg – 1. FC Nuremberg 0:0
- FC Köln – Hamburger SV 0:1 (0:0)
A few observations:
1) Begging for goals against
Oh, how one is in love with reporters’ phrases. You always wonder who came up with this saying and how it gradually crept into the reporters’ jargon. In any case, one thing seems to be certain: the more sneering and scurrilous it is, the faster integration happens. For example, there was some talk about who once thought that when a goal was scored and possibly not every opponent was covered at 0:4, that it “went as easily as in training” (it must have been about 25 years ago). Now this was perhaps meant to make me smile the first time, but it is also possible that the announcer was simply expressing a spontaneous association at the time.
So it remained for a few years that the saying was “quoted” from time to time, until someone got bored of always saying “that was as easy as in training”. He upped it to “there is much more resistance in training.” Whether he thought this was a successful comedic interlude or a reflection of reality remains to be seen, the fact is that this sub-sentence has had a permanent place in the reporter’s phrasebook ever since and, like any other, it is conjured up by Bible-thumping, completely independent of actual circumstances. Whether one should praise his expertise, whether one should smile, whether one should rejoice in the maximum of misperformances presented, along the lines of “oh, there’s football on today, let’s see how they’ve outdone themselves in inadequacies again today, I HAVE to see that”, whether he thinks it’s entertaining at all, or would think so even if he believed, that it was in fact a successful comparison, all this remains hidden from the listener, but presumably for the two reasons that a) he overhears it anyway, just like all the other drivel that comes to his ears during a game or a game analysis and b) the speaker also does it in complete cluelessness and without any associated intention. “That was just the Bible verse I came across. What can I do about it? But my idol Marcel Reif always says that too.”
So it has also become a standing expression that you “beg for goals against”. It’s a bit more infamous, a bit more base, a bit more pejorative, a bit more likely to turn you off, if to anything at all, but that’s just the way of things and the way of the times. Unless someone puts a stop to these blabbermouths, they will continue to excel at exalting themselves in this way. Because, you see, anyone who makes another person feel like a slut with impunity feels a little better, bigger, more valued afterwards. So: out with it, you who have been shortchanged! Use your freedom as long as you have it! That is absolutely understandable! Don’t care about ratings, about journalists’ honour, about the tormented viewer, about those affected by the bad-mouthing, no matter how much you miss the mark. Worry about your own self-esteem, because you must have lost it, if you ever had any, there is the greatest lack that cries out for compensation, here is the need that you, legitimised by incompetent programme directors, can satisfy to your heart’s content, because the principle described above also applies when no one is listening any more. Said is said, the maltreated own soul feels relieved. Although the true listener should actually be more of a rubber cell wall, but what does that matter?
You always beg for goals against when the opposition really presses, when the opposition puts its skills on the line, when the opposition gets its fans behind it, when the opposition has two or three scoring chances in a row, sometimes even when you yourself, in a fit of desperation to close the gap on an overmatched opponent, Sometimes even when, in a fit of desperation to make up a deficit against an overpowering opponent, perhaps even one of two or more goals, you call all your men forward to help the miracle happen, you beg for a goal against when, in a clear deficit, you perhaps keep an eye on your opponent’s health in a duel and don’t, as usual, shoot him down when he has played around you.
Unfortunately, we know too well that in a game in which neither team is begging for a goal against, we will soon be informed that it is a grotto kick in which there are absolutely no goal chances….
The point of this, apart from the aforementioned trifles, is that if the goal is conceded, which was supposedly begged for, the announcer can pat himself on the back. That’s how good one is at foreseeing, one thinks. The fact that the audience is spoilt for fun by the tone of voice and the content of the phrase alone does not matter at all (because they already had none, given all the statements made beforehand). The fact that one would under no circumstances receive a retraction in the event that the goal against which one is begging does not materialise, then probably falls under the guise of natural self-protection…!
Alternatively, and in accordance with the facts, and at the same time captivating the viewer/listener, it would be good to emphasise the positive aspects of the game, to mention that really good, offensive, positive football is being played here, that there is a smell of a goal (which happens rarely enough), that they are in control here, that there is a great power play phase, that there is to be seen here what makes football so worth watching: football with goal chances, even if they are one-sided for the moment.
But who knows what will happen? Because when the pressing team scores a goal and the team begging for a goal against itself goes on the attack and successfully scores, then you know what you’ll get from the orator as an alternative to his own pat on the back: “Yes, if you don’t use so many chances to score, then you shouldn’t be surprised if you…”.
2) The advantage rule
A curious observation was made in a second division match, Union against Dresden. It has already been mentioned many times that the advantage rule is more of a disadvantage rule, which the referee uses as an additional means of preventing goals when nothing else seems to help. This was once the case with a foul on Marek Mintal, then in the Nuremberg kit. Mintal, however, presumably without having formed a judgement about the possible consequences, nevertheless tried to score the (extremely dangerous) goal, but the ball could not find its way into the net from the far post, and everyone agreed, after a final examination of the situation, that he had had his advantage, had played it out, and that he had no right whatsoever to demand a penalty kick. Insane, idiotic, sick, absurd, this interpretation.
Please bear in mind that a) it couldn’t be more obvious than that the advantage was nonexistent and b) that it can only lead to a logical future, so to speak demanded, reaction of the attacker: “Just don’t shoot at it when you’re fouled. Then you won’t get a penalty in any case, you have to let yourself fall down now.” Could this be a desired reaction? Do you want to force the footballers to make deceptive moves, do you want to actually see them, and then not point a finger at them? Do attackers no longer have any rights at all?
The only correct application of the rules, which can also serve to curb fouls and other unsportsmanlike conduct (is that no longer a criterion for banning unsportsmanlike conduct?), would be this in the case of Mintal: let him shoot first, see if the ball goes in, and if not, point to the spot. Everything else is flimsy, wrong and stupid.
In Union’s match against Dresden, the referee gave an advantage twice in quick succession. Now, in the first scene, immediately after the “advantage” had been granted, the ball was gone again on the next pass, which was unsuccessful due to the obstruction. So what was the advantage? It could not be more obvious: it was a disadvantage.
But this is a completely normal case of “application of the advantage rule”, which thus degenerated into a disadvantage. This is common practice, this is what prompted us to look at an alternative possibility in the first place. The fact is that the fouled player is asked to act, almost forced to act. He has to decide as soon as possible whether the obstruction was so great that it makes the ongoing attack harmless and whether a free kick would be the better solution, or whether, despite the obstruction, he can still advance the attack favourably. It is a disadvantage in almost all cases, because without an obstruction it would definitely be better, there is no doubt about that, is there?
There was another scene only a short time later, when a Union attacker wanted to enter the penalty area without the ball, but the person passing to him was fouled, the pass nevertheless arrived halfway, but the goal was blocked. Now it was similarly obvious: the scene could only have gone better for the attacking team (Union) without the foul. So it wasn’t a goal, without a foul it couldn’t have been a goal, or it could have been a goal because the pass was perhaps better timed or more accurate.
Now the referee decided, due to the shortness of the sequence, that he could allow himself to sound the foul whistle after all. He could just claim, even without covering up the rules, that putting the whistle in his mouth followed by the whistle took so much time that it included the finish (of course there have been scenes in other games where the finish resulted in the goal, but the referee claimed to have stopped it beforehand by blowing the whistle and thus the goal had no validity; the height of injustice). Whether he did it for this reason or purely out of his own sense of justice (which, in this opinion, has long since been put on ice by the multitude of regulations and paragraphs), he did it in any case and as many as possible may take this as an example. It was not only this fact that was curious (hats off to you, referee and keep up the good work!), but the fact that directly after the decision to call a foul, the Dresden defenders stormed him.
Yes, have they also lost all sense of justice? It was this audacity that amazed us, that showed us once again how far defenders are now prepared to go, all under cover of the rules. In any case, they should know that the opponent did not gain any advantage from the situation, because the ball was not in. At the same time, they knew that they had fouled. So what are they invoking? “They played their advantage and it’s their own fault”.
3) … become human
A good old school friend once had the following nice joke posted on her flat door, which made you smile every time you visited: …and he went to the stones and said, “Become human.” Then the stones replied, “We are not yet hard enough.”
As much as one would like to go on about this topic, there is no room for it today. Nevertheless, this little joke should remain here and perhaps provide a little foretaste for the text on the subject that will soon follow…
4) A given penalty
In Monday evening’s top match in the second division between Fortuna Düsseldorf and Eintracht Frankfurt, Felix Brych was the referee. Of all people, the Frankfurt team thought, the same Felix Brych who had given the most discussed penalty in the cup match between Hertha and Gladbach, when Hertha’s defender Hubnik ran towards Arango and – headbutt or not – Arango fell down theatrically, in a scene without any involvement of the playing equipment, and was given a penalty, the Hertha player at the same time a red card, which decided the match (the whole thing in extra time).
Now the Frankfurt team had studied the penalty statistics well and thoroughly and found out that the home team, the Fortuna from Düsseldorf, was at the top of the ranking of awarded penalties. So there was a chance to cast doubt on the call for the referee – who obviously awards penalties that aren’t penalties – and at the same time to fire a few spearheads against the Düsseldorfers, with the tenor: “They fall very easily, as we all know, (said something like Frankfurt’s coach Veh before the game), …hopefully the referee doesn’t fall for it himself.”
The Düsseldorfers, for their part, had every reason to be offended. For: not only the scribe himself had seen the often irresistible attacks, especially of the fleet-footed and at the same time ball-handling Maximilian Beister, and noticed that there doesn’t even have to be an intention to foul in order to stop the latter irregularly after entering the penalty area. He passed and the leg – despite good intentions – simply came too late. There have been nine penalties so far and about 8 of them have been uniformly called “justified”. So: what would this have to do with “falling sickness”, let alone with the universally so demonised (expressly not at this point!) penalty? The strikers have almost no rights at all, while the defenders have them all!
No, this heating up of the atmosphere plus the choice of this referee made me, as an interested observer and today’s author, make the following statement even before the game: “He won’t give a penalty today, guaranteed. He won’t do that to himself again.”
Comment:
Although at this point at least a small justification for Gladbach’s penalty should be pronounced. The scene can also be described like this: Arango was pretty much free through, on his way towards goal. He is, as is absolutely customary in the industry, hindered a little the whole time in his attempt to break away, by the rushing defender. Now he knows perfectly well that there would be no point in letting himself fall. Not only is the index finger always extended very quickly and energetically against so-called “swallow kings”, while the constantly fouling defenders consistently go unpunished, even if the obstructions are even recognised but only commented on succinctly with a “that’s not enough for a penalty” (although it is precisely this that expresses that it was an obstruction, just that it was not rough enough), no, he knows at the same time that he would irrevocably blow the chance by doing so. So he keeps running (this general behaviour need not apply specifically to this scene; there is a general injustice directed against strikers, as pointed out many times at this point). The finish fails, but at the last moment he does not fall, perhaps in the very slight hope that he will now still be awarded the foul, whereas the caution for swallowing, by virtue of his having sought the finish, goes to nil. While he is lying on the ground, the defender already begins to swear at him, this a fad that almost all defenders have become accustomed to by now. They know that the attackers never get a penalty anyway, so they go straight at the attacker, with additional deterrent effect for the referee, to rub his nose in it: “Now get up, you swallow king. Do you want a penalty for that silly faller?” The attacker – in this case Arango – knows full well that he would have given him the slip if he hadn’t experienced this minimal obstruction all along, which is obviously considered legal. Only he just doesn’t have a chance, not like that and not like that. But it’s also possible that he gave the defender a few suitable words (something like the very modest: “Why, are you going to deny having held me?”). Now the defender is boiling over. He cannot let such a provocation stand. He is allowed to insult, that is clear, after all, the defence not only has the right of way here and always, but also the verbal right, just like that, from the position given to him by the officials and the media. Now the time has come: he aggressively goes after the striker, presumably muttering a few pleasantries like “Now shut the fuck up or I’ll clap” to go with it (the alternative vulgarities dealing with parentage or the classification of the mother {H..e}’s way of life are to be deliberately left out here). The face approaches one’s own in a very threatening manner and, if you will pardon the expression, one would not necessarily want to “defy” the Hertha defender in this way, one takes the chance, creates the contact that the counterpart has offered one through this forced but unwanted proximity and helps a little to indicate the headbutt. Of course, for this one moment, he will be happy about the experienced satisfaction that the defender got away with everything before – perhaps there had already been some illegal but completely unrecognised obstructions, irritations, even verbal injuria, far from camera and microphone – and that he himself could thus far do nothing for his team or his ego, and he gratefully accepts this little “gift”, perhaps even without feeling remorse later.
Consequently, there were not so many opportunities in the game where one would have had the chance to point to the spot, the Frankfurt players managed excellently to keep the slightly inhibited Fortuna away from their own penalty area and goal, but when there was a chance, he waved it aside confidently. No, there is no penalty, not for the one handball (the announcer: “Never ever a penalty”, even if you can see that it was a handball), not for the one foul that was guaranteed to be recognised (but just as “state of the art”, never whistled).
Now Eintracht managed to score the opening goal, after about 70 minutes. Not that it was not recognised that something like that can always happen and that, as co-commentator Peter Neururer rightly pointed out, the teams were on an equal footing, so that a goal for one or the other should never be regarded as “undeserved”, no, it was much more the question of how Düsseldorf now reacted. As long as the score remained 0:0, the home team kept the tiny advantage of the better goal difference and thus the direct promotion place, which would of course no longer be the case with a 0:1.
In these 20 minutes, the Fortunes now showed an excellent game. They played very committed, but at the same time controlled forward. They came again and again into the penalty area, to the baseline, and to some great opportunities, whereby twice the aluminium stood in the way. Now, as the last action (before the 90 minutes expired, but it was, as it turned out, indeed the last playful action) expired, the wide, very precise cross came to the far post, where there really was an attacker ready to shoot, and he was obstructed very slightly, but (in original speed, not slow motion! ), the defender had both his arm on the opponent and his foot in front of him in such a way that it could be interpreted as a foul, because he was there a little too late, the attacker took advantage of the last opportunity that presented itself, or he just couldn’t help it, in any case there was no goal, so he fell down.
Now everything held its breath. Of course, the referee had read about all the accusations, his miscalling and so on, and was now extremely tense about what to do. He didn’t react at all for a while. Highly unusual for such a situation, however, as one soon discovered (sitting on the couch, one exclaimed, “Clear penalty. But he’s definitely not giving it.”), he consulted the man on the sidelines. A few seconds later the time had come: he pointed to the spot, the penalty, like all his predecessors by the same shooter, was sunk, 1-1 and final whistle, after some more scrambling and a red card, 3:30 of injury time without a single scene of play.
My own assessment: this penalty was NOT given by Dr. Felix Brych, but by the assistant. So, in a way, the previously made consideration was right: HE would not give a penalty. Furthermore: the penalty, which he ultimately had to award by pointing to the spot, was given because a) Düsseldorf definitely deserved the goal based on the last 20 minutes shown, b) there were a few other, well, let’s call it “controversial”, scenes beforehand and c) because a drawn outcome, caused by this, has something much more conciliatory than a game decided by this (otherwise it simply would not have been awarded).
Interesting now the views of the experts: coach Veh, the one from Eintracht, did not even come to the interview. The claim made (by the one actually interviewing him): he wanted to protect himself from saying something wrong. Well, one can’t completely disagree with this view. The very coach who had thrown plenty of fuel on the fire before the game is now being robbed of a victory with this, well, debatable (?!) decision. What could he say that would make sense? “As I remarked before the game, Dr Brych is falling for the swallow kings.” Certainly not helpful. On the other hand, however, it is curious that this decision of all things, in which the obstruction was really minimal (which, as has been mentioned many times at this point, is sufficient to prevent a successful conclusion, and in this respect is repeatedly mentioned here as worthy of punishment, but of course not once but when, then consistently), was heard from all mouths in the same way: “Defensible decision.”
This only suggests that the referees could in fact, without major misgivings, decide on penalties much more often, generally speaking, since they are entitled to this kind of leniency in judgement. If something was, even if only minor, the experts go along, agree.
On the other hand, it is interesting that here in particular, because of the questioning of the assistant, there is talk of a “courageous decision”. This is clearly the cowardly way. He shirks the same, possibly because of the (written) history regarding the Gladbach action. He shifts it to the assistant, while the latter automatically shifts out of responsibility, even if he votes for a penalty kick. In this way, both are “off the hook” in terms of possible media scolding. Nothing can happen to them. One says: “Well, if the assistant tells me, I have to…”, the other says: “I saw it as a foul and told him so. Ultimately, it’s up to him to decide.
Perhaps this example should set a precedent? On the other hand, it could lead to more and more of the minor obstructions (and constant hand plays that are interpreted as “not intentional” or “not unnatural” or “he can’t do anything about it” – wrongly, as is always emphasised) being penalised, so that soon nothing will stand in the way of a goal spectacle? The consequence would not be the many assumed penalties, but the fact that the defenders would watch out and would have neither arm nor leg on the opponent and the former would not be on the ball so often.
b. The league situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff1 Borussia Dortmund 21 14 4 3 46 46 – 14 +32
2 FC Bayern Munich 21 14 2 5 44 49 – 14 +35
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 21 13 4 4 43 34 – 12 +22
4 FC Schalke 04 21 13 2 6 41 46 – 28 +18
5 Werder Bremen 21 9 6 33 34 – 35 -1
6 Bayer Leverkusen 21 8 7 6 31 28 – 28 +0
7 Hannover 96 21 7 10 4 31 23 – 25 -2
8 VfL Wolfsburg 21 8 3 10 27 27 – 38 -11
9 VfB Stuttgart 21 7 5 9 26 31 – 28 +3
10 Hamburger SV 21 6 8 7 26 26 – 34 -8
11 TSG Hoffenheim 21 6 7 8 25 23 – 25 -2
12 1.FC Köln 21 7 3 11 24 29 – 41 -12
13 FSV Mainz 05 21 5 8 23 29 – 35 -6
14 1.FC Nürnberg 21 6 4 11 22 19 – 31 -12
15 Hertha BSC 21 4 8 9 20 25 – 36 -11
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 21 3 9 9 18 15 – 26 -11
17 FC Augsburg 21 3 9 9 18 19 – 33 -14
18 SC Freiburg 21 4 5 12 17 27 – 47 -20
530 530 0
Total number of games 189
Goals ø 2.80
Note: Gladbach has the fewest goals conceded (and not, as I’m sure “officially” is usually pronounced, the best defence, which cannot be judged by the number of goals conceded alone). The only team apart from the top 4 with a positive goal difference now Stuttgart by 5:0. Wolfsburg on 8 with -11 goals! Reminds me a bit of MSV Duisburg, who were once still in 1st place after the first half of the season with a goal difference of +1!
Everything is very tight at the back, as Hertha now also have less than one point per game. Certainly, one now assumes that Mainz and HSV will bid farewell to the top, but Cologne will get involved again. Whether Hoffenheim, with a new coach, is now already out, thanks to one better performance, remains to be seen. The potential is certainly there, but anyone who has seen Freiburg and Augsburg is inclined to give them a clear Bundesliga format. Still, a few have to make it, even if, to be more precise, with some chance, it would only be “a couple”….
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 probabilities1 Borussia Dortmund 2975 59.50% 1.68
2 FC Bayern Munich 1663 33.26% 3.01
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 261 5.22% 19.16
4 FC Schalke 04 101 2.02% 49.50
5000 100.00%
Dortmund further and even more ahead. Gradually, it is really getting closer to the phase in which every victory, no matter what the competitor does, brings an increase in the percentages. The reason: you get closer to the finish line and keep the lead greater chance of coming in first.
Chance changes compared to the previous week due to the results of the 21st matchday
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage1 Borussia Dortmund 177 3.54%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 102 2.04%
17 FC Bayern Munich -65 -1.30%
18 FC Schalke 04 -214 -4.28%
0 0.00%
Dortmund wins, as you can see, and Bayern loses. Certainly partly because Dortmund had the harder task and the one less goal scored makes little difference compared to getting the job done.
Schalke with big losses, far more than opponent Gladbach gains. Logical: one less candidate, so to speak, and homework done (i.e. won itself, at Dortmund).
d. The title chances in development
Surely Gladbach’s line (as the “rest”) snakes past Schalke? How curious the course of the other two lines is is not really clear graphically. 90% is 90% because it usually goes in the direction of 100% (i.e. at least 90% continues to rise). So: other curves, like the overlapping of Gladbach’s and Schalke’s curves, are far more likely, since they are blatant outsider chances anyway. How could one make this graphically representable? Somehow a 90% curve, if it rises there, would have to become like the alarm level: Red, redder. Or how would that work?
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)FC Bayern Munich 2.1 2.12 47.62%
Borussia Dortmund 2.3 2.32 43.48%
FC Schalke 04 32 34 3.13%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 15.5 16 6.45%
102.07%
Amazing, amazing: Dortmund handles the tougher task, actually sovereign, has a 2-point lead, is not recognisably weaker than its rival in anything, and remains outsiders? Well, maybe soon the last chance for an “all-in” on Dortmund?! Last week’s phenomenon explains why the market remains so “stubborn”, so persistent, but: should we really believe that Bayern is the favourite? Doubts would be reasonable, even if they were really the better team?!
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
Change(Back)FC Bayern Munich -2.63%
Borussia Dortmund 4.42
FC Schalke 04 -3.54%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.45%
-0.31%
(The order according to the original assessments of the ranking)
Minimal shifts, but this remains halfway comprehensible. After all, both HAVE won. Also Gladbach and Schalke with less movement, but maybe there is no real action there on the market?
The development at betfair in the graphic
A somewhat sluggish movement towards each other, even weakening.
f. The direct Champions League qualification over 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 21.
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in percentage1 FC Bayern Munich 2319 46.38%
2 Borussia Dortmund 1485 29.70%
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 828 16.56%
4 FC Schalke 04 359 7.18%
5 Bayer Leverkusen 5 0.10%
6 Werder Bremen 3 0.06%
7 VfB Stuttgart 1 0.02%
5000 100.00%
Bayern now sovereignly in front for this place. Of course, two rivals played against each other and at least one of them lost (a draw would probably have been even more favourable for them).
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 269 5.38%
2 FC Bayern Munich 230 4.60%
3 VfB Stuttgart 1 0.02%
14 Werder Bremen -1 -0.02%
15 Hannover 96 -3 -0.06%
16 Bayer Leverkusen -4 -0.08%
17 Borussia Dortmund -8 -0.16%
18 FC Schalke 04 -484 -9.68%
0 0.00%
But Gladbach gained more than Bayern. Why? Well, presumably because they have single-handedly eliminated a rival. But one thing is for sure: the result plays a role. Not because of the goal difference but because of the increasing playing strength.
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 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 by relegation Total1 SC Freiburg 62.58% 5.47% 68.05%
2 FC Augsburg 57.68% 5.93% 63.61%
3 1.FC Kaiserslautern 38.90% 6.88% 45.78%
4 Hertha BSC 19.98% 5.41% 25.39%
5 1.FC Nuremberg 10.66% 3.86% 14.52%
6 1.FC Köln 6.08% 2.78% 8.86%
7 FSV Mainz 05 2.14% 1.33% 3.47%
8 TSG Hoffenheim 0.72% 0.58% 1.30%
9 VfL Wolfsburg 0.56% 0.35% 0.91%
10 Hamburger SV 0.40% 0.49% 0.89%
11 VfB Stuttgart 0.26% 0.19% 0.45%
12 Hannover 96 0.04% 0.04% 0.08%
13 Werder Bremen 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Swap of places at the very “front”. Freiburg now with more percentages on the undesirable event. Sure, they lost (even if with a bomb performance, as coach Magath, the opponent’s, also said after the game), at the same time away at a better opponent, while Augsburg “only” got a draw against a rival at home, but nevertheless this sequence of events is enough for the place swap. A point is better than none, even if Augsburg were (also) not really satisfied. Coach Luhukay, as usual objective, however, confirmed the judgement made at this point about his team: they are fully in the action and have shown that they can fully keep up with all teams (from below). They had to accept the point, even if they were closer in the first half, they could have lost in the end. That’s how evenly matched the Bundesliga is and it’s often just a matter of one scene.
The change in chances due to the results of the 21st matchday in relation to relegation
Team Change in chances1 1.FC Nuremberg 2.56%
2 Hamburger SV 2.55%
3 VfL Wolfsburg 2.44%
4 VfB Stuttgart 2.00%
5 FSV Mainz 05 1.31%
6 TSG Hoffenheim 1.20%
7 FC Augsburg 1.19%
8 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.25%
9 Hannover 96 0.03%
16 1.FC Köln -2.04%
17 SC Freiburg -4.27%
18 Hertha BSC -7.21%
0.00%
There is only one big loser, with a 0:5 understandable, both for points and goals as well as playing strength. Freiburg loses, of course, due to the defeat, as does Cologne, the rest with more or less gain, due to points scored on their own. At least you can see that 9 of the candidates have scored, which is a phenomenon that can be observed every year. The “problem children” are not worse than the rest, it’s just that they gain a little in the seasonal phase because, like a panic reaction, they can scrape out a few extra points.
h. The relegation question in development
Lots of movement, and it’s sure to stay that way until the end.
i. The points expectations and the deviations
Explanation: for each game the computer has calculated the odds 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 victory * 3 points + probability of draw * 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 absolute1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 29.03 43 13.97 13.97
2 FC Schalke 04 33.43 41 7.57 7.57
3 Borussia Dortmund 41.68 46 4.32 4.32
4 Hannover 96 29.30 31 1.70 1.70
5 Werder Bremen 31.65 33 1.35 1.35
6 Hamburger SV 25.19 26 0.81 0.81
7 1.FC Köln 23.74 24 0.26 0.26
8 VfL Wolfsburg 28.95 27 -1.95 1.95
9 1.FC Nürnberg 24.05 22 -2.05 2.05
10 FC Augsburg 20.16 18 -2.16 2.16
11 Bayer Leverkusen 33.21 31 -2.21 2.21
12 TSG Hoffenheim 27.43 25 -2.43 2.43
13 FC Bayern Munich 46.47 44 -2.47 2.47
14 VfB Stuttgart 29.79 26 -3.79 3.79
15 FSV Mainz 05 26.86 23 -3.86 3.86
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 22.75 18 -4.75 4.75
17 SC Freiburg 23.28 17 -6.28 6.28
18 Hertha BSC 26.65 20 -6.65 6.65
-8.62 68.59
ø Deviation 3.81Gladbach clearly extend their lead in the duel 1 against 2. Yes, they are THE sensational team. At least Schalke holds 2nd place quite clearly, although Dortmund is gradually creeping up.
Hertha and Freiburg are pulling away a little at the back, but are still far from uncorrectable. The main problem child (at the beginning of the season) and the old stalwart HSV are already in positive territory!
The international 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 6.13 0.09 188
2 England 1 4.63 0.00 250
3 France 1 4.05 0.03 226
4 Germany, 1.BL 3.81 -0.02 189
5 Spain 1 3.30 0.03 220
6 Italy 1 2.92 0.06 222
Very minimal movement across Europe. Germany 1 remains in 4th place, which is even below average.
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 deviation1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 28.32 34 28.65 12 22.34
2 Borussia Dortmund 36.90 46 17.57 14 12.66
3 FC Schalke 04 32.69 46 25.77 28 11.08
4 FC Bayern Munich 47.38 49 17.96 14 5.58
5 VfB Stuttgart 32.52 31 31.36 28 1.85
6 TSG Hoffenheim 27.26 23 29.87 25 0.62
7 1.FC Kaiserslautern 23.31 15 33.17 26 -1.14
8 FC Augsburg 19.16 19 31.97 33 -1.19
9 Hamburger SV 27.23 26 33.68 34 -1.56
10 1.FC Köln 28.40 29 38.36 41 -2.03
11 FSV Mainz 05 28.71 29 32.15 35 -2.56
12 Hannover 96 28.78 23 28.11 25 -2.67
13 1.FC Nürnberg 23.94 19 31.78 31 -4.16
14 Werder Bremen 34.51 34 30.65 35 -4.85
15 Bayer Leverkusen 33.42 28 27.19 28 -6.24
16 Hertha BSC 27.65 25 31.67 36 -6.98
17 VfL Wolfsburg 29.85 27 30.77 38 -10.08
18 SC Freiburg 25.71 27 35.06 47 -10.65
535.75 530 535.75 530 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 6.01
2.83 2.80 Even clearer 1st place here, with 22.34 goals better than expected. The defence contributes more than 16 of them, but you don’t get the feeling that Gladbach ever plays “defensively”? Rather the opposite: the strengths lie in the offensive?
Dortmund, Schalke, Bayern remain at the top of this statistic because they have excellent goal differences.
SC from Freiburg is at the bottom, even though they have performed very well recently. Wolfsburg also with a clear upward trend, but still on 17 here (thanks to the -11). Leverkusen and Hertha are also gradually “behind” with disappointing results. Hoffenheim, on the other hand, look and be amazed, in positive territory!
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 8.81 -0.21 188
2 England 1 6.77 0.35 250
3 Germany, 1.BL 6.01 0.24 189
4 Spain 1 4.28 -0.30 220
5 Italy 1 3.95 0.26 222
6 France 1 3.78 0.31 226
Here the 1st league in 3rd place, with a decent high deviation. The 2nd league clearly ahead in both rankings, which speaks for some event richness.
k. The playing strength ranking
Note: Playing strength 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 Shift1 Borussia Dortmund 1.99 0.76 2.62 +0.05 +0
2 FC Bayern Munich 2.09 0.89 2.35 +0.03 +0
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.53 1.03 1.48 +0.10 +1
4 FC Schalke 04 1.74 1.22 1.43 -0.09 -1
5 Bayer Leverkusen 1.53 1.30 1.18 +0.02 +0
6 Werder Bremen 1.57 1.56 1.01 -0.02 +0
7 Hannover 96 1.26 1.27 1.00 +0.01 +0
8 VfB Stuttgart 1.51 1.55 0.97 +0.07 +1
9 FSV Mainz 05 1.39 1.50 0.93 -0.01 -1
10 TSG Hoffenheim 1.21 1.35 0.90 +0.02 +0
11 Hamburger SV 1.29 1.45 0.89 +0.02 +0
12 VfL Wolfsburg 1.33 1.53 0.87 -0.00 +0
13 Hertha BSC 1.25 1.66 0.75 -0.06 +0
14 1.FC Köln 1.32 1.79 0.74 -0.02 +0
15 1.FC Nürnberg 1.06 1.46 0.72 -0.01 +0
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.93 1.42 0.65 -0.01 +0
17 SC Freiburg 1.21 1.89 0.64 +0.01 +0
18 FC Augsburg 0.94 1.53 0.61 -0.01 +0
0.94 1.53 0.61 -0.01 +0
Goals ø expected
2.80 Not all the moves here have to seem logical to you. Why do Dortmund AND Leverkusen win? Well, it is a phenomenon with top-ranked teams that the reduction in the number of goals conceded has a positive effect on the quotient, and after all, both conceded fewer than expected. The swap of places between Gladbach and Schalke is somehow more than logical?
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.
2010/2011 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
Balance of the 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 Match1 1st Bundesliga 9 4 2 0 6 0.667
2 France 9 4 0 2 6 0.667
3 2nd Bundesliga 10 4 0 4 8 0.800
4 Italy 8 7 4 0 11 1,375
5 Spain 10 4 4 0 8 0.800
6 England 9 3 1 5 0.556
Total balance 55 26 11 7 44 0.800
A pretty average match day. Only in Italy did the action pick up again.
Trend changes in the major leagues in the 2011/2012 season.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total per Match1 1st Bundesliga 189 99 33 24 156 0.825
2 2nd Bundesliga 188 92 34 23 149 0.793
3 France 226 114 31 30 175 0.774
4 England 250 116 31 42 189 0.756
5 Spain 220 96 41 23 160 0.727
6 Italy 222 89 31 22 142 0.640
Total balance 1295 606 201 164 971 0.750
At least the German leagues hold the top positions here. Even if everything looks pretty close.
m. The mathematical review of the results of matchday 21.
Note: here the deviation of expected goals with 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 DeviationWolfsburg Freiburg 2.06 1.01 3.07 3 2 0.94 0.99
FC Bayern Kaiserslautern 2.48 0.51 2.99 2 0 -0.48 -0.51
Dortmund Leverkusen 2.12 0.79 2.91 1 0 -1.12 -0.79
Werder Hoffenheim 1.89 1.15 3.04 1 1 -0.89 -0.15
Mainz Hannover 1.45 1.19 2.64 1 1 -0.45 -0.19
Stuttgart Hertha 1.82 1.30 3.12 5 0 3.18 -1.30
Gladbach Schalke 04 1.45 1.18 2.63 3 0 1.55 -1.18
Augsburg Nuremberg 1.18 1.04 2.22 0 0 -1.18 -1.04
FC Köln HSV 1.57 1.45 3.02 0 1 -1.57 -0.45
16.02 9.61 25.64 16 5 -0.02 -4.61
Expected Goal Total Expected Goal Average Scored Goal Average
25.64 2.85 2.33 ø expected goal difference 1.87 ø goal difference 1.99
Another time too few goals, which suggests that it could be relatively well inferred (even if it is not shown in the expectations). In winter, it is not the pitches that are much worse (as perhaps used to be the case), but the scoring battles take place in which everyone is afraid of conceding a goal. This sentiment carries over to the referees, who are even less likely to lay out for goal action.
Otherwise, the home teams almost lived up to expectation, only the away teams fell far short of theirs. All just coincidence?
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
Wolfsburg Freiburg 61.53% 20.83% 17.64% 45.31%
FC Bayern Kaiserslautern 80.63% 13.71% 5.65% 67.22%
Dortmund Leverkusen 67.94% 19.36% 12.69% 51.52%
Werder Hoffenheim 54.53% 22.66% 22.82% 40.07%
Mainz Hannover 42.70% 26.40% 30.91% 34.75%
Stuttgart Hertha 49.36% 23.29% 27.35% 37.27%
Gladbach Schalke 04 43.19% 26.41% 30.41% 34.87%
Augsburg Nuremberg 38.87% 29.39% 31.73% 33.82%
FC Köln HSV 40.25% 24.63% 35.13% 34.60%
4.79 2.07 2.14 3.79
average expected fixing: 42.16%Always as a reminder, the expected values from the previous week’s text. So what has reality brought?
The determination arrived Pairing 1 X 2 Tendency
Wolfsburg Freiburg 61.53% 20.83% 17.64% 1 61.53%
FC Bayern Kaiserslautern 80.63% 13.71% 5.65% 1 80.63%
Dortmund Leverkusen 67.94% 19.36% 12.69% 1 67.94%
Werder Hoffenheim 54.53% 22.66% 22.82% 0 22.66%
Mainz Hannover 42.70% 26.40% 30.91% 0 26.40%
Stuttgart Hertha 49.36% 23.29% 27.35% 1 49.36%
Gladbach Schalke 04 43.19% 26.41% 30.41% 1 43.19%
Augsburg Nuremberg 38.87% 29.39% 31.73% 0 29.39%
FC Cologne HSV 40.25% 24.63% 35.13% 2 35.13%
5 3 1 4.16
average determination received: 46.25%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 definitely nothing new.
The expected determination was exceeded. Of course, yes, almost only home victories and the high favourites all prevailed.
o. Overall league statistics
Note: such a statistic is regularly produced by the 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 Heimvortarrived 189 86 52 51 316 215 1.190
expected 189 87.75 43.37 57.86 304.4 231.2 1.137
abs deviation 0 -1.75 8.63 -6.86 11.60 -16.20 0.05
rel. Deviation 0 -2.03% 16.60% -13.45% 3.67% -7.53% 4.50%
Determination expected Determination received
40.41% 40.26%
ø Goal deviation ø Goal deviation expected
1.85 1.88 Nevertheless, the average determination calculated for the season remains slightly undercut. The goal expectation values are very satisfactory, the only thing one would have to worry about is the home advantage (too big in reality) and the draws, of which there have already been more than 8 too many in absolute terms by now. Well, one trusts in the many years of experience and in the built-in adaptation of the computer to such developments.
On the whole, of course, the results remain satisfactory. You would have to compare other values anyway to have a real comparison. What would be the swings with a different model? Would someone come up with a higher expected determination and be able to meet it similarly well? This would definitely be a criterion for better predictions. But of course the other values above that should not be neglected. Well, who would have other numbers available? Probabilities on match outcomes 1-X-2 paired with goal expectations for each team per match?
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 it have messed with the betting market? And: if he messes with it, with the great mass intelligence, does he have good reasons for doing so? 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
Wolfsburg Freiburg 1.83 3.65 5.00
FC Bayern Kaiserslautern 1.17 9.90 21.00
Dortmund Leverkusen 1.48 4.40 8.20
Werder Hoffenheim 1.97 3.80 4.10
Mainz Hannover 2.00 3.60 4.20
Stuttgart Hertha 1.89 3.85 4.50
Gladbach Schalke 04 2.44 3.55 3.15
Augsburg Nuremberg 2.72 3.30 2.88
FC Cologne HSV 3.10 3.65 2.38
Goals scored 3.02
Goals scored 2
Money Evaluation -3.73
The Wolfsburg bet was not good at all for this match. Freiburg was the better team and Wolfsburg got the points, as did coach Magath after the game, who kept saying: “I don’t know what was wrong with my team today.” Wonderfully objective, that sort of thing. Of course, one would like to recall Sepp Herberger now and then: “You always play as well as your opponent allows you to.” Freiburg was simply good.
Kaiserslautern is hardly worth saying. A 21.0 is too difficult to judge. In the summary, you saw two shots on goal after all. No, the bet was somehow not good after all.
Werder against Hoffenheim doesn’t like it either, no, absolutely not. After everything you saw, Hoffenheim was rather better, even if it was said later that Werder deserved the equaliser. That’s absolutely not enough for a good bet, especially since the price was under 2. Whether it was due to the change of coach or Werder was simply underestimated or just a bad day for all own teams? Of course a goal in the 4th minute (or when was it?) against one is not exactly favourable for the course of the game. Maybe it would have been good without the goal against?
The bet of the day was clearly Hannover’s win at Mainz. This game was picked as a one-off and it was clearly Hannover who set the tone in the first half as well as having the better chances. Even if Mainz were even slightly better than their opponents in half 2, it remains the same: an absolutely top bet and a little unlucky not to have won it. The required 25% for a win was always there, rather much more, of course. But last week it was already the case that the best games were not won.
Hertha in Stuttgart was ridiculous, no question. But the talk of “playing against the coach” was already doing the rounds. This much should at least be mentioned: the market had completely changed its mind, so that personally before kick-off they even took the Stuttgart side, because there were 2.16. Curious, this “market error”.
Gladbach against Schalke was, of course, a pure feast for the eyes, even for the programmer and the betting recommendation. So much for “a few simple double passes that can also be defended” (according to the former admired and now only nonsense-talking ex-coach Ewald Lienen). That was top-class football and underlined the justified quality of last week’s bet (only the geographical proximity was a cause for concern).
Augsburg against Nuremberg was also a good bet. After all, the reward was a 2.72, a handsome rate. The lack of goals that the computer had predicted came true this time. Nevertheless, Augsburg was clearly closer in half 1, in half 2 perhaps minimal advantages for Nuremberg, but at least there was still the crossbar goal for Augsburg, followed by the follow-up shot, when a defender once again in handball goalkeeper manner “turned into the shot” and insofar, according to the completely crazy opinion of the announcer, “could not avoid the handball, and therefore no penalty kick was due (a view which the referee had already anticipated). Ridiculous and a clear penalty. If everyone now turns with arms outstretched into shots, then no one can foresee that the ball will go against it? What about the idea of simply keeping the arms close to the body, convinced that hitting the arm would inevitably result in a penalty kick? See where the arms would be at the next kick…. Another remark: when you start a game from superiority, the goal is not to be able to say later, after the 0:0 (or 0:1), that you were better, but actually to score a goal. So Augsburg was closer, had fewer chances and could have simply capitalised on them. Well, the bet was good. Full stop.
But the market’s assessment of HSV was astonishing. Sure, Poldi was missing, sure, there was the interview on Sunday, printed in the BILD, in which he was not exactly positive about his club. But should that make HSV the favourite? No, one could not and would not believe that. And yet it was so. Cologne had a few chances, sure. But they only came from counterattacks, and in their own stadium. So: the market was right. HSV were favourites and the better team throughout. For 3.10 one would repeat, but the bet was not really good.
Recommended bets Statistics of the individual match days
Matchday Nr 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
15 6 1 2.18 -1.18 -4.65
16 6 2 2.13 -0.13 -0.53
17 7 3 3.13 -0.13 -0.54
18 7 3 2.57 +0.43 +2.34
19 4 1 1.51 -0.51 -1.70
20 6 2 2.32 -0.32 +0.63
21 8 2 3.02 -1.02 -3.73
The bets were not particularly good overall – in contrast to those of the previous weekend – and thus one has to accept the loss. Nevertheless, especially lately too few of the very good bets (like Hanover this time) have come in. Consequently, the minus signs predominate.
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
94 33 +18.85 20.05% 34.12 -1.12
100 35 +18.32 18.32% 36.25 -1.25
107 38 +17.78 16.62% 39.38 -1.38
114 41 +20.12 17.65% 41.95 -0.95
118 42 +18.42 15.61% 43.46 -1.46
124 44 +19.05 15.36% 45.78 -1.78
132 46 +15.32 11.61% 48.80 -2.80
The overall statistics are thus approaching a fairly “normal” result. Of course, anyone who managed to earn 11.61% should be far more satisfied. Nevertheless, the downward trend is depressing for the moment. Particularly since the conclusion suggests itself that one is only feeding off a few lucky events and that in the long run it will turn out that the whole thing is nothing but lies and deception: the market is simply right. Full stop. How are you going to fight it?
So one is left to point to the virtual stakes, wait for the next weekend and meticulously continue the statistics.
q. The preview of the 22nd matchday
Note: The computer calculates the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) to 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 TotalHoffenheim Mainz 1.40 1.15 2.55
Freiburg FC Bayern 0.91 2.22 3.13
Hertha Dortmund 0.75 1.98 2.72
Kaiserslautern Gladbach 0.75 1.29 2.04
HSV Werder 1.68 1.41 3.08
Nuremberg FC Cologne 1.61 1.27 2.88
Leverkusen Augsburg 1.87 0.82 2.69
Schalke 04 Wolfsburg 2.27 0.99 3.26
Hanover Stuttgart 1.61 1.18 2.79
12.84 12.31 25.15
Expected goal total Expected goal average
25.15 2.79 .
Very many goals especially in Schalke, and somehow you can imagine that. The 3.13 in Freiburg will hardly come as a surprise and possibly not even collide with market estimates (whereas it does for Schalke). At HSV – Werder it is also said to be over 3 goals, which is only questionable insofar as in the classic from the north a few other laws possibly take effect than temporary, even if current conditions.
The very few goals in Kaiserslautern, on the other hand, can be imagined again. Gladbach hardly allow any goals, and Lautern manage just as few at present.
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
Hoffenheim Mainz 42.23% 27.05% 30.72% 34.59%
Freiburg FC Bayern 14.13% 19.05% 66.82% 50.27%
Hertha Dortmund 13.12% 20.67% 66.22% 49.84%
Kaiserslautern Gladbach 21.42% 29.32% 49.25% 37.45%
HSV Werder 43.70% 24.21% 32.09% 35.26%
Nuremberg FC Cologne 44.97% 25.04% 29.99% 35.49%
Leverkusen Augsburg 62.10% 22.17% 15.73% 45.96%
Schalke 04 Wolfsburg 66.08% 18.89% 15.03% 49.50%
Hanover Stuttgart 47.02% 25.19% 27.79% 36.18%
3.55 2.12 3.34 3.75
Average expected commitment: 41.61A slightly above-average determination, which in this case probably has mainly to do with the (supposedly) quite easy tasks of the top favourites, although they have to play away.
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
Hoffenheim Mainz 2.37 3.70 3.26
Freiburg FC Bayern 7.08 5.25 1.50
Hertha Dortmund 7.62 4.84 1.51
Kaiserslautern Gladbach 4.67 3.41 2.03
HSV Werder 2.29 4.13 3.12
Nuremberg FC Cologne 2.22 3.99 3.33
Leverkusen Augsburg 1.61 4.51 6.36
Schalke 04 Wolfsburg 1.51 5.29 6.65
Hannover Stuttgart 2.13 3.97 3.60
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % average
Hoffenheim Mainz 2.20 3.45 3.65 101.84%
Freiburg FC Bayern 11.00 5.60 1.35 101.02%
Hertha Dortmund 8.00 4.30 1.53 101.12%
Kaiserslautern Gladbach 3.40 3.45 2.36 100.77%
HSV Werder 2.16 3.65 3.55 101.86%
Nuremberg FC Cologne 1.85 3.60 4.90 102.24%
Leverkusen Augsburg 1.55 4.40 7.40 100.76%
Schalke 04 Wolfsburg 1.70 4.00 5.70 101.37%
Hannover Stuttgart 2.58 3.40 3.05 100.96%
A quick comment on the betting recommendations:
As strong as Mainz have played lately, you definitely want to recommend them. Sure, Hoffenheim has made a promising start under new coach Babbel, but it hasn’t been a win yet, and opponents Werder don’t look that stable at the moment either. Mainz, on the other hand, don’t seem to care whether they play home or away. They want to score goals. So: 4/10.
Freiburg against Bayern is one of the numerous bets against Bayern that hardly need any commentary (and are not worth it). But Freiburg have been good and Bayern have just returned from Breisgau a couple of times (even once with a 1:5) quite unhappy. And it is worth remembering at this point that a large part of the still existing profit is recruited from bets against Bayern. 1/10 of course, no more.
Gladbach at Lautern seems almost optimal as a bet. Gladbach are flying, and after this number of matchdays, really can’t be called a flash in the pan anymore. Their performance last time out against Schalke was outstanding and it’s inconceivable that they won’t play to win at Lautern. They will have the confidence to do it, that’s for sure. Of course, Lautern will do everything in their power, no question about that. But: the course is so high just because the opponent is Gladbach and not Dortmund or Bayern. Although the quality of Gladbach’s performances is hardly inferior, and not even their points tally is. Please bear in mind that the odds on Dortmund or Bayern in Lautern would also be about 1.50. The difference simply can’t be that huge. No, maximum stake is required here (even if this has not been evaluated so far): 10/10.
Werder in Hamburg does not feel like a good bet. Werder are simply not playing convincingly at the moment, whereas HSV, since Fink, are. Maybe there is no difference between the teams at all. In this case, the North derby character would simply speak a little in favour of the bet, as different laws apply in this game (and the local proximity always ensures more fan support). So the bet is justifiable, but only with 2/10 units.
Well, what else can be said about betting on Cologne? A fortnight ago, after all, they pulled off the whole weekend with the win in Lautern. Sure, the last performance wasn’t outstanding, but it was also a home game, which sometimes causes a certain paralysis (with the moody diva from the Rhine), as aspiration and reality diverge a bit. Away everything was ok, and even in the home game against HSV there were huge opportunities in some counterattack situations. And Nürnberg may even be the better team (if Köln without Podolski), but a 4.90 is still a huge reward for a possible win. So: 2/10.
Schalke, of course, can be highly recommended. They lost 0:3, which is sensitive. They couldn’t win the last home game (against Mainz) either, also true. Wolfsburg was a bit more stable lately, but, as mentioned, it was rather only the result that was right against Freiburg. This can be a little deceptive. Traditionally, Wolfsburg is more of a home team. Schalke will do everything they can to get their act together. Perhaps, given the slightly worse results recently, the fans will even lower their expectations a little and bet on unconditional support. No, the bet is not as good as the one on Gladbach, but still worth 8/10 units.
Augsburg at Leverkusen can be just as recommended for these odds. Especially as Leverkusen play in the Champions League during the week, and every now and then a return to the daily grind is a little harder. No, Augsburg will undauntedly look for their chance and their performances lately showed: they are a normal member in the Bundesliga (even if this period might end soon). 7.40 is too much, so quiet 2/10.
Hannover, like Gladbach, continue to be underestimated. The name doesn’t give anything away, so probably the market, and in general they don’t belong up there. The last performance was outstanding, at least by the standards (which are there; just above average, the team), the victory would have been deserved, the draw, despite a strong opponent, more than deserved, even if scored just before the end. Stuttgart had a very long crisis (and of course it’s quite possible that it’s more than a crisis; it’s exactly their quality where they are?!) and now they’ve only bumped themselves healthy against a weakening opponent, Berlin’s Hertha?! No, that would be a premature conclusion. The rate of 2.58 is far exaggerated, suggesting that Stuttgart are clearly the better team. Neither the table nor recent performances provide evidence of this. A very good bet, expressed at 7/10.
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
