1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of the 25th Matchday
VfB Stuttgart – 1. FC Kaiserslautern 0:0
VfL Wolfsburg – Bayer Leverkusen 3:2 (2:1)
- FC Cologne – Hertha BSC 1:0 (1:0)
FSV Mainz 05 – 1. FC Nürnberg 2:1 (2:0)
FC Bayern Munich – TSG Hoffenheim 7:1 (5:0)
Borussia Mönchengladbach – SC Freiburg 0:0
FC Augsburg – Borussia Dortmund 0:0
Werder Bremen – Hannover 96 3:0 (1:0)
FC Schalke 04 – Hamburger SV 3:1 (3:1)
A few observations:
1) Two offside goals?!
Of course, there were again a number of debatable decisions at the weekend. People don’t seem to realise that these are usually against the attacking party and thus have the effect of being against the salt in the soup, namely the goals. If one were to loosen up a little in general – as is constantly repeated here – the significance of an individual goal would inevitably diminish, so that it could consequently be more easily recognised. A propagating effect, so to speak, which could promote the spirit of the game, tension and goals.
The average waiting time for a goal is well over 30 minutes, according to the current interpretation of the rules, and this, so the firm conviction, can at best be expected of the fans of the teams in action, but not of a neutral spectator. Before the 30 minutes have passed, the neutral viewer has already fallen asleep or is watching the “Sendung mit der Maus”, because it has much more entertainment to offer.
The reason for the lame interpretation of the rules has also long been identified and is more or less contained in the above explanation: the significance of a single goal is perceived as so enormous that people prefer to decide against it. And THIS effect is also spreading, far more than a plague would be able to do. The media, blessed with all kinds of insensitivity anyway (or was it cursed? ) would, of course, have the chance to exert their influence by focusing on those decisions that wrongly prevented a goal, instead of also denouncing those few who once allowed a goal, possibly not completely in accordance with the rules, and filling a lot of pages with it for days, while generously ignoring the parallel, no less great injustices of no less than (approximately) seven wrong decisions against the goals.
In this way, the referees are permanently given the chance – the knock-on effect, formerly also referred to in this form as a kind of “vicious circle” – to make “critical” decisions in the future (yes, critical is when a striker is just standing in the five-metre area, waiting for the ball, and the goalkeeper, in Kamikaz manner, rushes at him and the ball waiting somewhere there, knocking out a few of the attacker’s teeth in the process, even with a light one, The goalkeeper himself gets away with a slight horse-kick, thanks only to his skill in falling, which he shows to the referee to draw attention to the rude intervention, while the striker lies bleeding on the ground and is still far from being able to ask himself what he could have done wrong, except to have the general cheek to stay near the goal and possibly, dream or reality, to be able to score a goal; the critical thing? Is there now yellow or red for the striker, which he, gradually coming to consciousness, learns in hospital) to decide even more vigorously against the strikers. Everyone plays an excellent double pass and obviously agrees that the pinnacle of football drama is reflected in a 0:0 (as happened three times at the weekend), after which — what else would one report on? — the opposing fan groups bang their heads because everyone is so frustrated by the, both teams equally affected, only sensed, inarticulate injustices that express themselves in violence.
At the weekend, this observation was illustrated – only by way of example – in the two “offside goals”.
The first was the one scored by 1. FC Köln against Hertha. Also in Sport 1 Doppelpass the experts came to the conclusion that THIS goal was not regular. Now, even if this were covered by the rules, it would still have to be noted that the wrong focus is being placed, as once again this decision has been picked out and a number of others, equally wrong but directed against the attackers, have been passed over. Nevertheless, one can also take a closer look at the realisation that the Cologne goal was offside – current rule paragraphs or not, common sense is being argued here.
So what had happened, how did the goal come about? A lot of Cologne players after a corner kick in the penalty area. One of them actually gets to the ball (a rarity; if you ask yourself why, the answer is simple: it’s not because the defenders are outnumbered or that they are more robust, headers stronger, no, it’s mainly because they are allowed to tug, pull, push, shove, after which there is at best a penalty with a 1 in 1000 chance, while the attackers have already done too much while catching their breath, let alone, in the aforementioned disgraceful intention to score, fight back with the same means; there is only one verdict: Striker’s foul; and if the referee has seen nothing at all, he still blows the whistle, with a chance of about 1 in 2, when the ball is in the air, because: there will have been something). The latter heads the ball forward. In front of the goal, an attacker is actually offside at that moment, as the replay proves. However, it is so thin that one could easily let this pass without immediately making it a “mistake” because of the rule “in case of doubt FOR the attackers”, but it is neither recognisable that the player heading the ball wanted to head it to the offside player at all, nor does the offside player even come close to the ball because it has long been cleared by the many-legged (and -headed) defence in front of him. But it was cleared a little too short, on the edge of the penalty area, in an outside position, another Cologne player got the ball, passed it directly to the goal scorer, who scored with a great shot into the angle – according to Thomas Strunz “the keeper had to have it”; ridiculous – the 1:0, and thus the decision.
If this should really be interpreted as “offside” – as the experts obviously agreed — then this is more than questionable, according to the opinion expressed here, with all the consequences described above. There would be the possibility of stopping every attack, as long as a player was offside for a tenth of a second, regardless of whether it was played or not, because, according to a frequently used argument (but only recently), the offside player already irritates the defence by his mere presence.
What is astonishing is above all this: if there had been a comparable scene 30 years ago, people would have been happy about a goal (except for the few Herthaners), they would not have considered it even remotely necessary to think about an offside position or any violation of the rules at all, but if they had, they would have been decidedly benevolent to the referee or put it down as a matter of interpretation, which in this case would have been more than logically in favour of the attacking party, but never would it have occurred to anyone to use the argument that a player standing offside who did not get near the ball could be construed as “irritating the defence”. The question to be asked in this context: do people today think they are so much smarter that people back then were just too stupid to come up with this powerful idea? Why are arguments used today (emphatically directed against the goals) that would not even have existed as a remote idea in the past? In the past, there was a direct shot on goal where (this was precisely the skill of the attacker with the ball to grasp the situation correctly and shoot directly instead of playing the player who was offside) the question did not even arise as to whether an attacker could have irritated the goalkeeper with his presence somewhere near the goal. And, recognising this today, is it now considered “progress”? There is only one appropriate term for this: it is regression. Only it seems to be widely unrecognised.
No less curious is the second scene (of many possible ones to prove what has been said): Hannover played a great game in Bremen and was the clearly better team for a long time – astonishingly, this was even recognised by the Sky announcer who, after conceding 0:1, spoke somewhat regretfully of “turning the course of the game upside down”. At some point it was 3:0 – two successful actions by Werder directly after the break – and the game seemed to be decided. But when Hannover did score a goal – and, considering the above, please look at the players’ reactions, past and present: with some goals, then as now, one could think of no remotely valid reason why the goal scored could be disallowed, and one cheered equally directly, without a shadow of a doubt — and was delighted to take note of it (there were still two missing), and the announcer also spoke of the 1:3, this joy was abruptly stifled. The flag of the eager assistant was up. No goal, still 3:0.
What had happened here? When the attacker scored, a player was lying in the five-metre area, wearing a red shirt, the colour of Hanover. How he got there is almost irrelevant, in any case he neither interfered in the game nor irritated the keeper, so the claim here, because it was a direct shot on goal, which, however, went quite close to him. Nevertheless, you can see from the goalkeeper’s reaction that the failure to reach the ball has nothing to do with the presence of the striker. The ball is too fast, he can’t get there, the striker is also behind him. When the prone player probably senses the (possible) disaster coming and, with his class and ability to react, realises that touching the ball could be damaging in every way, you see him pull his legs up so that the ball finds an unobstructed way into the goal.
Never ever, or only with very extreme malice, could this be construed as offside. This skill deserves rather an honourable mention, because if he had touched the ball (as Bayern attacker Janker once did when he touched a ball that was sure to go into the net, probably in order to score the goal for himself, even though he was clearly offside; here, according to the opinion held, it was correct, if only because of the stupidity and reprehensible intention behind it, not to give the goal, although everyone could see that he could not have prevented this ball from crossing the goal line even with the greatest effort, as an opposing defender), would indeed have to fear an offside decision.
The terse commentary on this completely correct goal, in the Sky summary: “The player is offside here, moreover he even touches the ball, so: correct decision.” Similar to Hertha, every argument is right to disallow goals. There will be no lengthy analysis of the scene on Monday either, as with the Cologne goal, where people were sure they had found the hair in the (so bland, because without salt…) soup. No one who could or would complain. The goal didn’t count, that was it. It was also correct, as we were told. But only the disallowance. Bygones. There are more exciting scenes worth commenting on, because there were still a few goals scored. The reporters are of the opinion that we can easily get rid of them, if we have our way. Perhaps there will soon be a matchday when all nine games end 0:0?
Where did he see the ball touch? That, rest assured, is truly “vicious”. Apart from that, at what point does the assistant actually raise the flag? Does the commentator think that he does it at the exact moment when the attacker (doesn’t) touch the ball? He would have to imagine his thoughts like this: “Ah, there’s a striker offside. Let’s see if he intervenes. Yes, indeed, he has touched the ball! Then it’s offside!” and the flag goes up? No, that would be completely absurd. The assistant only made one realisation – and was confirmed in it again in the evening: Put the flag up, whatever it is, the main thing is that no goal is scored, because only if one is scored could they follow you up and prove you made a mistake. Otherwise, you are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS in the right when you report something. And if no camera in the world can uncover anything (as happened at least once recently, by the way), keep quiet when asked why you reported something, watch the TV pictures in peace, listen spellbound to the numerous explanations the experts offer you and then go public when you have picked out the least absurd one. Then, rest assured, you are guaranteed to be back on the pitch on the next matchday waving or blowing the whistle.
The fact is that the assistant just takes the flag up like that. He doesn’t give a damn about the player’s intervention anyway. But he is in no way to blame. The blame lies with those who sweep one such action under the carpet and highlight another. The goal action that was prevented is considered to have been correctly recognised and subsequently ignored, while the one that was allowed to happen deserves to be widely discussed until it is proven to be wrong.
What do we assume the referees will decide next week? For or against a goal? The choice is really easy… The signal sent is guaranteed to be the wrong one.
2) How does a football match go? (Pauli – KSC)
If you’re not one of the exclusive (but objectively quite moronic) Sky subscribers, then you have the opportunity to watch a match live once a week without being asked to pay extra. “The opportunity” is, incidentally, a far more appropriate term than “the pleasure”. Even if it’s not so-called “free TV” but requires a satellite connection, it’s still pretty much accessible to everyone these days.
So I use this, exactly, opportunity to enter the torture chamber a little bit, er, no, of course not, rather in such a way that I watch the game on Sport 1, just to become an ear witness of the so alternative coverage (because the Sky commentators day in and day out really make extremely ill-tempered to aggressive). Somehow there’s still a feeling that you’re better off there. By the way, Thomas Herrmann has been the commentator on the Monday night game for years.
He actually has a slightly less negative tone, one that sounds a bit like joy (at first), a very gauzily meaningful tone that makes you think you might actually be looking forward to a game again. At least they seem to have realised that the concept of two commentators is much more coherent, that it should always be done with two. The only thing is that the second commentator hardly ever gets a word in (this time it was Marko Rehmer, but not for the first time) and if he is asked to do so, it is presumably agreed beforehand that he has to say exactly the same thing. It is a completely washed-in gossip that one could very well do without, so in this respect the idea is correct (two speakers), but the implementation is catastrophic. Mind you, the blame is by no means passed on to Marko Rehmer, rather one must assume that he is fitted with blinkers before the broadcast and has to swallow a record with all the platitudes on it. Apart from that, in England they play skillfully with each other, while here, every now and then, a blabbermouth interrogates his neighbour, thereby establishing very clear hierarchies, and the interviewee is not allowed to strike a different tone under any circumstances. No, it doesn’t work like that.
So before the game, Thomas Herrmann plays anticipation. He speaks skilfully, like a true journalist, who has “the story”, which you therefore simply have to listen to and watch. So far, everything is OK. But when he gets to the assessment of the match, you ask yourself for the first time whether he has ever seen a second division match before (which you can be convinced of, since he blows the same horn every week). By the way, it was astonishing that the odds offered by betfair were given before the game. Because, I am convinced, as soon as betting was brought out of this strange twilight, it would be possible to ensure higher viewing figures simply by having the viewers not only participate emotionally, but even be allowed to do so pecuniarily, without immediately being ranked among the ranks of arsonists or child abusers. You bet too? Yes, of course I bet. Who wouldn’t do that? A completely fair affair!
So the winning odds on St. Pauli were 1.36. Of course, this was an absolutely correct assessment (the computer had fair odds of 1.37, amazing, just sighted, congruent). But afterwards one had to hear the words (by the way, directly after the coaches had been interviewed), spoken by Thomas Herrmann, that “anything other than a clear victory for St. Pauli would be a surprise.”
To get a feel for Mr Herrmann, I would offer to record the game for him so that he can neither recognise the players nor the jerseys. Then I would give him 20 minutes to watch the game and tell me afterwards which team he thinks is St. Pauli and which is KSC. He’d probably have a hit probability of pretty much exactly 50%. Anyone who has ever watched second division football, seriously watched games over 90 minutes, should know how close the league is, even if this season in particular is a statistically verifiable exception (further down) in which the table picture is amazingly skewed. There aren’t these gigantic differences he’s fabulating about right now. It’s going to be a close game, it’s going to be a contested game, even if the market estimate of 1.36 is correct and thus there is still a fairly clear favourite.
Going further, the question is what is he actually interested in? The one question in this context is whether he is firmly convinced that there will be a higher number of spectators who want to listen to him after this assessment has been made, or whether it is decreasing? Or does he think that it doesn’t matter at all, that everyone is watching anyway? Well, I’m quite sure that this is detrimental to the suspense content. People who don’t understand any of this and who perhaps happen to end up at the station will probably switch on more when they hear this sentence. Maybe there were also a few viewers who look now and then and want to pick this or that programme for today (remember that 20:15 is prime time). Now they hear that “anything other than a clear victory for St. Pauli would be a huge surprise” and spontaneously decide to watch Tatort or whatever there is. Doesn’t anyone at Sport 1 think about ratings either? How do I fascinate my audience, how do I force the viewer to stay tuned, even if he was sure until a few minutes ago that he had something better planned? Surely these must be the relevant aspects?
For a modern German commentator, everything is subordinate. There is only one aspect: the main thing is that I’m in a good position, that I’ve seen everything, that I’m constantly oracular about how the game will turn out, only to prove, when things turn out differently, that it could only have happened that way and, above all, that I can expose all these stupid, terrible mistakes. When the ball actually hits the ground, there is never any joy, but always only an analysis of mistakes that begins during the action, who was sleeping when (usually all those who concede the goal), where the bad mistake was in the build-up, who left whom criminally uncovered and, above all, during the impact, the question, apparently considered to be of maximum relevance, whether the goalkeeper is not partly to blame and should have got there.
The background to all this nonsense, and the fatally mistaken view: the spectator watches anyway because it’s football and football is so great that, no matter how weak the game and the actions are declared to be, at what point one has to draw a conclusion and thus declare the game over (which also happens permanently, depending on the score), and how weak and boring it is anyway (just look at the conference of the times league, there they also play a wonderful double pass: “There’s nothing going on here, I’ll pass on to Fürth, how’s it going with you, Manni? ” “No, nothing’s happening here either, let’s go to Dresden.” “Very weak game here, yawning boredom, back to you, Markus.”), eh guaranteed everyone will tune in and watch.
The second question to Mr Herrmann would be whether he is expressing his own expectations with this assessment. “Anything else would be a surprise.” So what does he want for it to be a successful broadcast, a great game? Should it now go like this if possible: 1:0, 2:0, 3:0. Do you see? I was right, a clear victory for Pauli. Oh, you didn’t even watch to the end? What would be the point?
So even if it were true that anything other than a clear victory would be a surprise, the question would still remain whether he should wish for this course of play or whether he shouldn’t be pleased if it didn’t become a one-way street, because this would have to be a fairly reliable viewing argument? The answer to this question was given after about 15 minutes (at the latest). Because: gradually, real disappointment sounded through about the very evenly balanced course of the game. One had to listen to how he “expected more from St. Pauli”, as an example. So he starts to criticise the winner he had predestined, instead of enjoying the exciting transfer, the really excellently acting Karlsruhers, who wanted to spit in the soup of the clear favourites so much.
This tenor stayed with you throughout the game. It was a great game, at an excellent second division level, which was, as is usual in second division games (almost for decades), a very competitive game, in which the game was fought out until the final whistle, despite the 1:0 lead for St. Pauli through a dream goal. Pauli’s 1:0 lead through a dream goal (in which he still wanted to have recognised during the flight of the ball that the goalkeeper was standing TOO FAR in front of his box; there is no joy in this), everything seemed to be in it, especially the Karlsruhe equaliser.
But he didn’t like the game that way either. His expectations were not fulfilled (which were nonsensical anyway) and joy about an exciting game can never arise in him (of course just as little as with a clear outcome).
Now, in conclusion, I would only make one request to Mr. Herrman: please, at the next game – don’t let it be taken away from you, no, you certainly have the place – tell him before the game exactly how you imagine it, how it should go, write it down. But, the request only now: if you actually manage to hit the course of the game like that, then please be satisfied with the game this one time.
Because: the theory is that he would then inevitably pick on the losing team. So: if St. Pauli had actually scored the goals and won clearly, then the Karlsruhe team would have taken it in the neck. The question is — and it’s not really a question any more, because the answer is categorically “no” –: is there any game at all, any course of play, with which a German commentator would be satisfied?
b. The standings
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 Borussia Dortmund 25 17 5 3 56 52 – 16 +36
2 FC Bayern Munich 25 16 3 6 51 58 – 17 +41
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 25 14 6 5 48 37 – 15 +22
4 FC Schalke 04 25 15 2 8 47 54 – 33 +21
5 Bayer Leverkusen 25 11 7 7 40 38 – 32 +6
6 Werder Bremen 25 11 6 8 39 40 – 38 +2
7 Hannover 96 25 8 11 6 35 30 – 35 -5
8 VfB Stuttgart 25 9 6 10 33 41 – 33 +8
9 1.FC Nürnberg 25 9 4 12 31 24 – 34 -10
10 VfL Wolfsburg 25 9 4 12 31 31 – 46 -15
11 FSV Mainz 05 25 7 9 30 37 – 39 -2
12 TSG Hoffenheim 25 7 9 30 28 – 35 -7
13 1.FC Köln 25 8 4 13 28 32 – 46 -14
14 Hamburger SV 25 6 9 10 27 29 – 45 -16
15 FC Augsburg 25 4 11 10 23 25 – 39 -14
16 Hertha BSC 25 5 8 12 23 26 – 41 -15
17 SC Freiburg 25 5 7 13 22 30 – 52 -22
18 1.FC Kaiserslautern 25 3 11 20 16 – 32 -16
628 628 0
Total number of games 225
Goals ø 2.79
After the decision was made last week – as the media wanted to make us believe – the championship battle has now been called anew. A 7:1 seems to be the result of the week, especially as even the sequence of goals was identical to Leverkusen’s game in Barcelona (the loser scored the 1:7 shortly before the end). Well, maybe it brings a lot of self-confidence (which Bayern could well use for Tuesday evening, before the end of which these lines were written here), but nevertheless it is only three points that you get for it. Dortmund did NOT win for the first time in the second half of the season (but did not lose either), and now their crisis is to be declared? No, it really is a tragedy what the media is doing and what they are trying to lure us customers with. The only sensible consideration (on the part of the media) could/must be this: if we talk a lot of nonsense, then people read it BECAUSE it is so stupid and they can give their flaming speeches about this nonsense at the regulars’ table. That would somehow be a sales argument, but on the other hand one would first have to compare the sales figures with how they would develop if one did not spread so much nonsense. Apart from that, one can hardly believe this, because the vanity of these people (although vanity probably affects everyone more or less) would be far too great for that. One could sell jokesheets like this (like the once beloved “MAD”), in which one intentionally writes ONLY nonsense and thus makes people laugh, but in supposedly “serious” media this can never – even if in the end it provides halfway reasonable sales figures – be meant that way.
So why do you want to declare the title fight decided one week, and after a matchday with two absolutely not remote results to call it completely open? In principle, the truth is that which has already been hinted at here several times: it is about a world view, as high trotting (and in that sense exaggerated) as it sounds.
To explain this: if an expert were asked today (as happened on Sky 90, for example, Michael Ballack, who was present) how the title fight is developing, he would have to say (precisely: as of today) that it will be exciting. It has nothing to do with wanting to artificially create suspense (a stylistic device that the commentators unfortunately don’t use even when it’s not only really exciting, but when it threatens to become really boring, for the sake of increasing sales; for them, however, always being clever takes precedence over the inherently self-evident need to ensure ratings, but that’s just in passing), but rather that, in view of the most recent, no, the very most recent (! that’s important, because a week ago it looked different).
The only correct view of the world held here is that there is only one answer to the question “Who will be German football champion in 2012? This answer, however, is neither that Borussia Dortmund will win, nor that Bayern Munich will win, nor that Schalke or Gladbach will win, but rather, as you can read below: “Bayern Munich will win by … percent” – we don’t want to anticipate the suspense in this question) and “Borussia Dortmund will … percent”, just like the answers to Gladbach and Schalke.
This is the only way to achieve true expert status. Now, one problem is that no one can really calculate it (although there are supposed to be a few who try…), another is that if you now come up with 5% for Borussia Dortmund on a matchday (as has already happened, after the 8th or so matchday), and they end up with … per cent, you can’t really calculate it. The third is that one is convinced that a probability is not something tangible and that anyone could offer such numbers, thus forfeiting one’s own expert status.
However, all this is only very temporarily the case, provided one thinks the world view through to the end. Those who today speak of an open championship fight, and thus want to make themselves experts, would now simply have to be probed a little deeper to prove their exceptional knowledge and understanding: “For you, open means that the two have equal chances, i.e. about 50:50? What could the expert now answer? “No, not equal chances, but it will be exciting.” “Well, if the chances are not equal, then I suppose Dortmund are still favourites?” “Yes, that’s it.” “And, please, another assessment: how much of a favourite are they?” Now it has to come out. Is it 70%? Is it 75%?
Although up to this point there is no problem in pronouncing such a figure, since 75% could both happen and, with a 25% chance, be missed, at least you get a clue. But, thinking a little further: “Do you believe in your assessment? Do you believe that 75% is the right number, the correctly measured chance of Borussia Dortmund becoming German champions in 2012?” “Yes, sure, that’s why I said it yes. Stupid question.” “No, that’s why I’m asking: on the market it is currently offered that you can bet Borussia Dortmund at a rate of 1.53. You would have to do that immediately, after this statement that you believe in it.”
It goes without saying that one would expect this from him, as from any other moral German commentator, from anyone who is at all self-respecting, from anyone who has not yet been infected by this unbelievable, horrible epidemic, from anyone who still has a shred of decency, from anyone who would be prepared to die for his ideals, from anyone who does not want to deceive his fellow human beings, in other words: from everyone you asked, regardless of whether they haven’t long since made a few small bets here and there for themselves or go to the casino themselves from time to time, play this or that game for money online, have been playing the lottery or Toto for decades or have drawn a few tickets at the Southwest German class lottery or at the fair for their children (of course) in order to perhaps still crack the jackpot, they would receive the same answer: “No, I do not bet. “
But still, he should actually do it. It’s the only effective way to get his assessments across credibly. It’s all about those nuances of percentages that make the difference (see below). And as soon as you develop your own assessment that deviates from the market, you are actually obliged to back it up with financial means.
Of course, one could say: “No, I don’t believe that strongly in my assessments either”. Or even like this: “In my opinion, the market is right. That’s the best place to see how the odds are distributed. Accordingly, you look there calmly.” Now one would give up one’s expert status, but on the other hand one would have documented the understanding of the world view.
Everyone knows, everyone feels, that it can still be close. What was announced last week in this place (as one of many possibilities) has materialised, albeit in reverse order, but nevertheless, and immediately. It was announced here that if Bayern won in Dortmund (which, as an advocate of the world view, could not be ruled out anyway, but here it is surely true that everyone suspects that Bayern have a realistic chance there) and Dortmund conceded ONLY ONE MORE REMIS, with continued Munich victories, that they would then – even if late in the season – remain within striking distance, with then a two-point deficit. Since Bayern would (now again) have the clearly better goal difference, not even a Dortmund defeat on the last matchday would be needed, unlike with Bayer Leverkusen, then, in Unterhaching, but even a draw could ensure that Bayern would overtake them.
One part of that scenario has now come to pass. There are now, logically, any number of other ways in which the title race, how each individual matchday, each individual game, can unfold. Nevertheless, it is, for now again, exciting. The questions about the size of the odds – to stay in the world view – will be answered in the aftermath, as will how the market sees it.
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 that are also calculated (also given in the further text) and in each case the final table is considered to determine the winner.
Team Number of German champions in 5000 simulations Championships in percent Fair odds as reciprocal of probabilities
1 Borussia Dortmund 3826 76.52% 1.31
2 FC Bayern Munich 1129 22.58% 4.43
3 FC Schalke 04 25 0.50% 200.00
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 20 0.40% 250.00
The computer sees it roughly similar to the virtual expert quoted above. The chances are even a little over 75%. On the other hand, there is the aforementioned problem that Bayern still has to play Dortmund and, if it concentrates all its efforts, might be able to tickle out a bigger chance than the one calculated by the computer – which could then explain the market’s divergent assessment.
Change in chances compared to the previous week due to the results of match day 24
Team Gain/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Gain/loss in per cent
1 FC Bayern Munich 599 11.98%
2 FC Schalke 04 10 0.20%
17 Borussia Mönchengladbach -36 -0.72%
18 Borussia Dortmund -573 -11.46%
A 12% shift in the odds is already something that the expert world senses and expresses in their comments, although Dortmund’s 0:0 was both somewhat announced (in the betting recommendations, where it was declared possible, as was demonstrated, at least with a virtual bet on Augsburg) and not really bad or terrible, but at the same time, due to the unfairness of the three-point rule, caused a higher slump.
d. The title chances in development
If last week one had still oraculated whether there would ever be a convergence of the curves again or whether it would perhaps now go purposefully in the direction of 100%, one sees, quite vividly, the answer today. Of course, one should by no means forget that the 7:1 in the amount meant a boost in playing strength, which is reflected.
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 2.96 2.98 33.78%
Borussia Dortmund 1.53 1.56 65.36%
FC Schalke 04 85 200 1.18%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 80 95 1.25%
The fact remains: Dortmund should be played again and again. The phenomenon already explained: perhaps the betting market nevertheless assumes that Bayern has the higher potential in the end and can thus influence the odds favourably (through a possible victory in Dortmund).
The changes in the odds estimates at betfair
FC Bayern Munich 9.97%
Borussia Dortmund -10.98%
FC Schalke 04 0.59%
Borussia Monchengladbach -0.57%
(The order according to the original estimates of the ranking)
The change in the odds is nevertheless somewhat lower on the market than calculated by the computer, which is actually a good sign (for the quality of the computer calculations).
The development at betfair in the graph
The curve is identical, the fluctuations somewhat more subdued.
f. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after the 25th matchday
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
1 FC Bayern Munich 3290 65.80%
2 Borussia Dortmund 1054 21.08%
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 348 6.96%
4 FC Schalke 04 304 6.08%
5 Bayer Leverkusen 3 0.06%
6 Werder Bremen 1 0.02%
Practically without comment.
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
1 Borussia Dortmund 524 10.48%
2 FC Schalke 04 11 0.22%
3 Werder Bremen 1 0.02%
16 Bayer Leverkusen -42 -0.84%
17 FC Bayern Munich -104 -2.08%
18 Borussia Mönchengladbach -390 -7.80%
Dortmund wins about what they lose in 1st place. That is understandable. Gladbach lose mightily, by their draw, thereby Bayern with less loss on this place. In other words, Bayern’s results have stabilised their chances of 1st OR 2nd place.
g. The relegation question
The distribution of the percentages for relegation
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 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 Total
1 1.FC Kaiserslautern 69.44% 4.72% 74.16%
2 SC Freiburg 42.76% 7.01% 49.77%
3 FC Augsburg 38.24% 7.84% 46.08%
4 Hertha BSC 37.70% 6.87% 44.57%
5 1.FC Köln 7.04% 3.37% 10.41%
6 Hamburger SV 3.48% 1.95% 5.43%
7 TSG Hoffenheim 0.56% 0.48% 1.04%
8 1.FC Nuremberg 0.28% 0.43% 0.71%
9 VfL Wolfsburg 0.20% 0.39% 0.59%
10 FSV Mainz 05 0.30% 0.26% 0.56%
11 VfB Stuttgart 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
12 Hannover 96 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
A week ago, the question was raised whether HSV or Wolfsburg would still get involved. HSV did, in its own way, and 5% is something. Although the game didn’t look bad at all in the first half, on the contrary, they played on a completely equal footing with Schalke and the result didn’t do justice to the course of the game. On the other hand, it’s still “only” 5%, while Cologne has of course distanced itself with the win and the other four candidates are quite a bit away with well over 40% each.
Augsburg, for so long clearly number 1, now already only in 3rd place.
The change in chances due to the results of the 25th matchday in relation to relegation
Team Change in chances
1 1.FC Cologne 10.29%
2 FC Augsburg 4.40%
3 VfL Wolfsburg 2.53%
4 SC Freiburg 2.49%
5 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.87%
6 FSV Mainz 05 0.44%
7 VfB Stuttgart 0.04%
15 1.FC Nuremberg -0.35%
16 TSG Hoffenheim -0.77%
17 Hamburger SV -2.01%
18 Hertha BSC -17.93%
Cologne, of course, in a direct duel as the winner, the big winner in the relegation battle. Augsburg still did well with the one bonus point, since it was scored against the championship favourites, despite being underpaid (with one point instead of one and a half). Lautern’s 0:0 in Stuttgart didn’t help that much, as good as it was morally. The problem is at some point that even such mainly moral successes don’t help anymore when you’re already behind and time is running out.
Hertha with a gigantic collapse, as the only really counting loser (HSV, Hoffenheim and Nürnberg were not yet considered serious candidates).
h. The relegation question in development
How can one make sense of this picture? At least it continues to reveal this much: it is exciting. All curves have their ups and downs.
i. The point expectations and the deviations
Explanation: For each game, the computer has calculated the chances for 1, X and 2. Based on 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 36.77 48 11.23 11.23
2 FC Schalke 04 40.20 47 6.80 6.80
3 Borussia Dortmund 50.74 56 5.26 5.26
4 1.FC Nuremberg 28.46 31 2.54 2.54
5 Werder Bremen 38.02 39 0.98 0.98
6 Hannover 96 34.56 35 0.44 0.44
7 Bayer Leverkusen 39.59 40 0.41 0.41
8 1.FC Köln 28.48 28 -0.48 0.48
9 FC Augsburg 23.55 23 -0.55 0.55
10 FSV Mainz 05 32.11 30 -2.11 2.11
11 TSG Hoffenheim 32.35 30 -2.35 2.35
12 Hamburger SV 29.63 27 -2.63 2.63
13 VfL Wolfsburg 33.71 31 -2.71 2.71
14 VfB Stuttgart 36.25 33 -3.25 3.25
15 FC Bayern Munich 54.91 51 -3.91 3.91
16 SC Freiburg 26.17 22 -4.17 4.17
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 26.72 20 -6.72 6.72
18 Hertha BSC 31.05 23 -8.05 8.05
ø Deviation 3.59
Gladbach’s lead is still so big that even a couple of worse results don’t matter. But their game was by no means bad, as the Freiburg coach’s thanks to his keeper Baumann documented (and the summary he saw also taught you). Gladbach was on it, the goal didn’t fall.
Nuremberg with a 4th place finish? Their season doesn’t seem that outstanding, but, as you can see, plus 2.54 points were already enough to get it this year. Hertha at 18 is understandable, although it could also be because you (me, the computer) slightly overestimated them. Bayern on 15, but with a negative deviation of “only” 3.94 points not overly bad after all.
Interesting: if you look at the expected points, Bayern is clearly ahead with 54.91 compared to Dortmund’s 50.74. The reason for this is that Bayern’s outstanding first-round results (from the computer’s point of view, but surely also from the point of view of the rest of German football?) led to higher expectations. Apart from that, as already mentioned, Dortmund was even very thinly ahead of Bayern in the rankings before the season.
The international comparison for the average point deviation
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting of 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 6.95 -0.05 224
2 France 1 5.22 0.53 270
3 England 1 4.92 -0.18 279
4 Germany, 1.BL 3.59 -0.41 225
5 Italy 1 3.57 -0.25 269
6 Spain 1 3.49 0.21 260
The 1st league competes for the last place. This is, so to speak, “no special occurrences” (except Gladbach), at least proportionally less than the rest (although Spain and Italy are still ahead from this point of view).
The 2nd division, on the other hand, far ahead. The table picture is extremely skewed, with 1st to 5th place having two or more points per game – an absolute exception for this league – and from 12th place onwards all teams have less than one point per game.
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 35.13 37 32.05 15 18.92
2 FC Schalke 04 39.69 54 30.82 33 12.13
3 Borussia Dortmund 44.99 52 20.24 16 11.25
4 FC Bayern München 55.49 58 21.48 17 6.99
5 VfB Stuttgart 39.47 41 36.80 33 5.33
6 FSV Mainz 05 33.70 37 37.77 39 2.08
7 FC Augsburg 22.69 25 38.70 39 2.01
8 1.FC Nürnberg 28.39 24 37.81 34 -0.58
9 Bayer Leverkusen 39.64 38 32.10 32 -1.55
10 1.FC Köln 33.67 32 44.81 46 -2.86
11 Werder Bremen 41.08 40 35.93 38 -3.15
12 TSG Hoffenheim 32.15 28 35.84 35 -3.31
13 1.FC Kaiserslautern 27.11 16 39.17 32 -3.94
14 Hannover 96 34.00 30 33.78 35 -5.22
15 Hamburger SV 32.37 29 40.54 45 -7.83
16 SC Freiburg 29.90 30 43.74 52 -8.16
17 Hertha BSC 32.41 26 38.14 41 -9.27
18 VfL Wolfsburg 34.70 31 36.87 46 -12.84
636.60 628 636.60 628 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 6.52 2.83 2.79
Bayern are already giving Dortmund a run for their money here. As you can see, 55.49 goals were expected for them and they scored 58. So from about 5:1 against Hoffenheim, they would have already exceeded the expectation. Dortmund, on the other hand, were expected to score “only” 44.99 goals, they scored 52. In terms of goals conceded, you can see that Bayern expected a little more – and this was fulfilled (in the sense that Dortmund should have had the better defence).
Wolfsburg remain at the bottom, despite winning against Leverkusen.
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 10.62 -0.18 224
2 England 1 6.69 -0.10 279
3 Germany, 1.BL 6.52 0.21 225
4 Italy 1 5.65 0.84 269
5 Spain 1 5.01 -0.35 260
6 France 1 4.83 0.25 270
The 2nd division clearly stands out. Otherwise it is astonishing that France causes fewer deviations here than in the points, where they are in 2nd place. Accordingly, there are close but surprising results there.
k. The playing strength ranking
Note: The playing strength is measured in goals expected against the average team (which does not exist in practice). There is 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 1.92 0.74 2.60 -0.00 +0
2 FC Bayern Munich 2.10 0.87 2.41 +0.12 +0
3 FC Schalke 04 1.78 1.22 1.46 +0.03 +0
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.40 1.01 1.38 -0.03 +0
5 Bayer Leverkusen 1.65 1.27 1.30 -0.05 +0
6 Werder Bremen 1.55 1.48 1.05 +0.06 +3
7 VfB Stuttgart 1.59 1.55 1.02 -0.02 -1
8 FSV Mainz 05 1.48 1.45 1.02 +0.01 -1
9 Hannover 96 1.32 1.42 0.93 -0.06 -1
10 TSG Hoffenheim 1.21 1.47 0.83 -0.08 +0
11 VfL Wolfsburg 1.30 1.59 0.82 +0.03 +2
12 1.FC Nürnberg 1.08 1.36 0.79 -0.00 +0
13 Hamburger SV 1.23 1.57 0.79 -0.01 -2
14 1.FC Köln 1.24 1.74 0.71 +0.01 +1
15 Hertha BSC 1.12 1.61 0.70 -0.02 -1
16 FC Augsburg 1.03 1.50 0.68 +0.02 +0
17 SC Freiburg 1.17 1.77 0.66 +0.01 +0
18 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.84 1.40 0.60 +0.01 +0
25.03 25.02 +0
Goals ø expected 2.79
This time Werder gain three places, thanks to the 3:0 against Hannover, against less good results of the competitors, including Hannover. Well, the gaps are narrow and also the conviction is low that this or that one deserved it more. One matchday with different results, and everything is upside down again. But actually Hannover played a very good game in Bremen and was clearly the better team for a long time. An example of the potential injustice in football. It’s all about getting the round ball into the square. Sometimes they manage to do this many times from a few chances, sometimes not at all from many chances. The fact remains that there are too few goals, so that a single one – even in a game where more are scored later – has too great an influence on the distribution of chances and the course of the game. Hannover knew after the 0:1 that it was “a mountain to climb”. That’s actually unfortunate, because they played such great football until the goal against and you’d much rather wish there was justice and they could turn it around. It’s just that the road is too far. As an observer you can feel it, how will the players feel?
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
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 match
1 1st Bundesliga 9 1 1 0 2 0.222
2 France 9 4 2 0 6 0.667
3 2nd Bundesliga 11 6 0 3 9 0.818
4 Italy 10 3 2 0 5 0.500
5 Spain 10 4 0 3 7 0.700
6 England 13 4 0 1 5 0.385
Total balance 62 22 5 7 34 0.548
In the 1. league it was totally lukewarm at the weekend. Only Wolfsburg turned the game around against Leverkusen, which already accounts for the two changes in tendency. But: three games 0:0, from three relegation candidates (Freiburg, Augsburg. Lautern) of all places, speaks volumes for the attitude of the teams from the bottom: just don’t allow anything and the main thing is not to lose. Even the referees hardly dare to make an important decision in favour of a goal at 0:0 (not to indicate offside, to give a penalty).
Also internationally the value is below the normal average, which again speaks for the seasonal phase and what was said above (everywhere).
Trend changes in the major leagues in the 2011/2012 season
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goal Away Leading Goal Total per match
1 2nd Bundesliga 224 113 45 27 185 0.826
2 1st Bundesliga 225 109 38 25 172 0.764
3 Spain 260 119 47 32 198 0.762
4 France 270 134 36 34 204 0.756
5 England 279 126 34 44 204 0.731
6 Italy 269 105 35 26 166 0.617
Total balance 1527 706 235 188 1129 0.739
The two German leagues remain ahead, even if League 1 is only just. The rest, except for the Italian tacticians, are close.
m. The mathematical review of the matchday 25 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
Stuttgart Kaiserslautern 1.98 0.87 2.85 0 0 -1.98 -0.87
Wolfsburg Leverkusen 1.20 1.48 2.68 3 2 1.80 0.52
FC Cologne Hertha 1.67 1.31 2.98 1 0 -0.67 -1.31
Mainz Nuremberg 1.58 0.98 2.56 2 1 0.42 0.02
FC Bayern Hoffenheim 2.27 0.61 2.88 7 1 4.73 0.39
Gladbach Freiburg 2.38 0.88 3.26 0 0 -2.38 -0.88
Augsburg Dortmund 0.62 1.83 2.45 0 0.62 -1.83
Werder Hannover 1.70 1.17 2.88 3 0 1.30 -1.17
Schalke 04 HSV 2.09 0.93 3.03 3 1 0.91 0.07
15.50 10.06 25.57 19 5 3.50 -5.06
Expected goal total Expected goal average Scored goal average 25.57 2.84 2.67
ø expected goal difference 1.86 ø goal difference 2.43
The computer had seen few goals especially in Augsburg – this came true. Gladbach were expected to score a flood of goals, but scepticism was already expressed here last week. Nevertheless, it was obvious that they tried and had enough chances. If the first one went in, more could follow, since one of the two would have to score afterwards…
Otherwise it was noticeable that despite an eight-goal game, the goal expectation remained underfulfilled.
n. The determination
Note: The determination 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
Stuttgart Kaiserslautern 63.16% 21.18% 15.66% 46.83%
Wolfsburg Leverkusen 30.62% 26.10% 43.28% 34.92%
FC Cologne Hertha 45.61% 24.35% 30.04% 35.76%
Mainz Nuremberg 51.19% 25.56% 23.25% 38.14%
FC Bayern Hoffenheim 75.16% 16.56% 8.27% 59.92%
Gladbach Freiburg 70.65% 17.30% 12.04% 54.36%
Augsburg Dortmund 11.85% 21.68% 66.47% 50.28%
Werder Hannover 49.57% 24.30% 26.14% 37.30%
Schalke 04 HSV 63.92% 20.28% 15.80% 47.47%
4.62 1.97 2.41 4.05
Average expected commitment: 45.00%
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
Stuttgart Kaiserslautern 63.16% 21.18% 15.66% 0 21.18%
Wolfsburg Leverkusen 30.62% 26.10% 43.28% 1 30.62%
FC Cologne Hertha 45.61% 24.35% 30.04% 1 45.61%
Mainz Nuremberg 51.19% 25.56% 23.25% 1 51.19%
FC Bayern Hoffenheim 75.16% 16.56% 8.27% 1 75.16%
Gladbach Freiburg 70.65% 17.30% 12.04% 0 17.30%
Augsburg Dortmund 11.85% 21.68% 66.47% 0 21.68%
Werder Hannover 49.57% 24.30% 26.14% 1 49.57%
Schalke 04 HSV 63.92% 20.28% 15.80% 1 63.92%
6 3 0 3.76
average determination arrived at: 41.80%
The high expected value could not be fulfilled. Of course, mainly because of Dortmund’s draw at Augsburg and Freiburg’s at Gladbach. The home teams dominated once again.
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 225 106 61 58 381 247 1,213
expected 225 104.52 51.72 68.74 361.9 274.6 1.137
abs deviation 0 1.48 9.28 -10.74 19.10 -27.60 0.08
rel. Deviation 0 1.40% 15.21% -18.52% 5.01% -11.17% 6.28%
Determination expected Determination received 40.68% 40.41% ø Goal deviation ø Goal deviation expected 1.88 1.87
Yes, the missed home goal advantage is a bit concerning. Especially as it clearly translates into goals. The achieved value of 1.213 (home goals divided by brackets on total goals by 2 brackets closed) is even above that from previous years in the European Cup, where there really was a higher one (absence of cameras giving free rein to the referees, and often long journeys with quite changed, unknown playing conditions as the cause), which was around 1.2. The expected one is about the recent one, also from other leagues, seen over the years. So one may not yet believe in a fundamental change. Whether further results can convince us of this? However, due to the automatic adjustment, one problem is not really foreseeable.
The determination expected is somewhat higher than the one arrived at, but well within the bounds. The average goal difference has now finally exceeded the expected one (which is not a great result, but was to be expected sooner or later). One should only expect NO deviation here (in the long run) if every prediction were completely accurate. And this would probably not be possible even for the dear God — if he would be interested at all. Talk about worldview!
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 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
Stuttgart Kaiserslautern 1.75 3.95 5.10
Wolfsburg Leverkusen 3.15 3.50 2.40
FC Cologne Hertha 2.54 3.40 3.10
Mainz Nuremberg 1.99 3.55 4.40
FC Bayern Hoffenheim 1.28 5.80 14.50
Gladbach Freiburg 1.56 4.20 6.40
Augsburg Dortmund 9.40 4.90 1.41
Werder Hannover 2.04 3.65 3.85
Schalke 04 HSV 1.79 3.75 4.90
Goals scored 2.63
Goals scored 2
Money score -1.67
Well, another regrettable result. To finally come up with some words of “justification”: a bet on Augsburg has been a really good one, just like many others at high odds lately, almost all of which ended in a draw. However, it is usually much more advised to make a “lay” bet on the favourite. It is an inherently reliable way to bet on miscalculations. The realisation of the profit happens more often – even if in smaller denominations – and one is much less exposed to these fluctuations. Of course, this would also (and even more so) apply to the bet on Hoffenheim, but less vividly in this case, since it was lost (by a huge margin).
So there are two possibilities for the next season, if this task is continued here, which could also be realised individually: a) dividing the bets into “lay” and “back” bets, and b) evaluating the bets according to the recommended units. Let’s see if one of these, both or neither.
Stuttgart was still a good bet. They tried quite a lot to score the goal. The question of whether they really wanted it answered itself. It was about the one successful action that just didn’t happen. If a goal had been scored, we would have seen a completely different game anyway and would have formed a new, possibly different judgement (who takes the lead? How does the man behind react?). So it remains: bet justifiable.
The bet on Cologne was perhaps the best of all. Hertha’s one win didn’t have the significance and the game was anything but great from Hertha. Cologne, on the other hand, was propped up for almost the whole season (although it was recognised that it only ever made sense WITH Podolski) and could see quite a one-way street with really very good actions by the Cologne players. The price was too high, the bet excellent, the win deserved, as good as a win can be.
One should not debate too long about the one unit on Hoffenheim. It started with the 1:0, and then things took their course….
The bet on Gladbach would, after the seen pictures of the summary, nevertheless be repeated, although it is clear that for a 1.56 you do need a quite clear superiority. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the ball only has to go in once and you see a completely different game. Perhaps one where Gladbach, when leading, suddenly have the spaces to let fly and that could ensure a clear victory? So here too: justifiable bet, even if only just.
The bet on Augsburg has already been commented on: it was great for this course anyway. It could have almost gone down to the wire, even if Dortmund, undisputedly, still had more chances and more of the game. For a 9.40 you can hardly expect better chances than the ones scored.
Schalke won quite clearly, so you don’t want to criticise the bet, but nevertheless HSV was equal for a long time in the first half. Just as you can talk up lost bets – or try to be objective — you can also easily discover this or that little hernia in the seemingly tasty soup when you win. So the bet was not SOOO good, no, HSV was too strong for that. Schalke only gained safety (after three defeats) through the goals they scored.
Bet 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
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
22 8 4 2.85 +1.15 +2.19
23 5 1 2.19 -1.19 -3.24
24 9 2 3.24 -1.24 -0.30
25 6 2 2.63 -0.63 -1.67
Red the dominant colour, also in the author’s face.
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
140 50 +17.51 12.51% 51.65 -1.65
145 51 +14.27 9.84% 53.84 -2.84
154 53 +13.97 9.07% 57.08 -4.08
160 55 +12.30 7.69% 59.71 -4.71
There are still 12.3 units won. Let’s see if anything remains (or even if it becomes more?). In any case, the losses cannot be blamed on the seasonal phase. The fact is that a few very good bets have not been won recently, even some at very high rates.
q. The preview of the 26th matchday
Note: According to a specially developed algorithm – which can of course be explained and is highly logical – the computer calculates the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) into 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
Hoffenheim Stuttgart 1.50 1.37 2.87
Leverkusen Gladbach 1.34 1.12 2.46
Dortmund Werder 2.41 0.74 3.15
Augsburg Mainz 1.16 1.33 2.48
HSV Freiburg 1.83 1.28 3.11
Nuremberg Wolfsburg 1.50 1.07 2.56
Hertha FC Bayern 0.80 1.94 2.74
Kaiserslautern Schalke 04 0.85 1.47 2.32
Hannover FC Cologne 2.02 1.16 3.17
13.41 11.46 24.86
Expected goal total Expected goal average 24.86 2.76
The expected goal total is going down. That seems very reasonable. Nevertheless, there should be a lot of goals in Dortmund, in Hamburg and in Hanover. Well, at Dortmund you can well imagine it. Werder will certainly not want to play pure “results football”, and even if they did, it would have to look different after the (possible) 0:1. No, Werder will certainly play along and it can hail goals very well (sentence with Rehhagel).
In Hamburg there will certainly be a relegation fight. HSV wants to win this game at all costs, Freiburg doesn’t want to lose under any circumstances. Should we expect goals? Maybe not even Töre, since he only got a 4.5 from the kicker after his substitution at Schalke…. Of course, it’s still conceivable that the fans in the stadium will push their team forward and that there will be an exchange of blows. As always, it depends on the timing of the opening goal. Or will the 0:0 series continue?
In Hannover against Cologne, on the other hand, you can imagine goals again. Although Cologne will have to play without Podolski after the completely nonsensical one-game suspension, they certainly won’t be fighting for points in the current situation (it’s not precarious enough for that) and Hannover will do everything they can to sneak back into Europe anyway. Their performances have been really impressive lately, that football has been fun (even the 2-2 in Liege).
Very few goals in Lautern? Yes, you could well guess that.
r. The fixing
Note: The fix 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
Hoffenheim Stuttgart 40.30% 25.47% 34.23% 34.44%
Leverkusen Gladbach 41.28% 27.69% 31.02% 34.34%
Dortmund Werder 74.29% 16.21% 9.50% 58.72%
Augsburg Mainz 32.22% 27.61% 40.17% 34.14%
HSV Freiburg 50.23% 23.24% 26.53% 37.67%
Nuremberg Wolfsburg 46.89% 26.36% 26.74% 36.09%
Hertha FC Bayern 14.68% 21.39% 63.92% 47.60%
Kaiserslautern Schalke 04 21.58% 26.91% 51.51% 38.43%
Hanover FC Cologne 57.08% 21.65% 21.27% 41.79%
3.79 2.17 3.05 3.63
average expected commitment: 40.36%
At 40.36% a very average match day from the laying.
The fair odds
Note: the fair odds are just 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 Stuttgart 2.48 3.93 2.92
Leverkusen Gladbach 2.42 3.61 3.22
Dortmund Werder 1.35 6.17 10.53
Augsburg Mainz 3.10 3.62 2.49
HSV Freiburg 1.99 4.30 3.77
Nuremberg Wolfsburg 2.13 3.79 3.74
Hertha FC Bayern 6.81 4.67 1.56
Kaiserslautern Schalke 04 4.63 3.72 1.94
Hannover FC Cologne 1.75 4.62 4.70
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
Hoffenheim Stuttgart 2.44 3.50 3.15 101.30%
Leverkusen Gladbach 2.16 3.50 3.65 102.26%
Dortmund Werder 1.41 5.00 9.40 101.56%
Augsburg Mainz 3.15 3.40 2.46 101.81%
HSV Freiburg 1.80 4.00 5.00 100.56%
Nürnberg Wolfsburg 2.10 3.50 4.00 101.19%
Hertha FC Bayern 9.00 4.80 1.43 101.87%
Kaiserslautern Schalke 04 3.55 3.45 2.22 102.20%
Hannover FC Cologne 1.62 4.20 6.20 101.67%
Goal expectation 2.54
A short comment on the betting recommendations:
The victory of Stuttgart in Hoffenheim can be imagined very well, not only in view of the geographical proximity. Hoffenheim could have a few bumps after the 1:7 and Stuttgart haven’t scored at all lately, but will surely try again. This is a good bet and at 4/10 the odds express this well.
Gladbach at Leverkusen is also a similar derby, and the back story similar too: the home team badly bumped (Leverkusen even double), and the away team with a goalless but by no means bad game before. The odds are even a little higher, but the bet size is not. Also 4/10.
If you have the chance to bet on Dortmund, you should do it urgently. Werder lost in Berlin, were really not good there, and then won the game against Hannover, but were not convincing there either. Dortmund have only failed to win one game and will do everything they can to bounce back in front of their own crowd. The bet is good, but the advantage is small: still 8/10.
A win by Freiburg also seems conceivable. HSV is desperate for it, but Freiburg has also caught the eye with some very good results (five points against Bayern, Schalke and Gladbach, which only goes one way…). No, an equally defensible bet, for this course at 3/10.
Hard to imagine, on the other hand, that Hertha will defeat Bayern. If you ticked it, it’s only because Bayern, of all teams, have financed practically the whole season. They have six defeats, all of them had been bet on, all of them achieved a great course. And: wasn’t it just that Rehhagel who scored a 1:0 victory in Munich with Lautern after promotion, after which the fairy tale began, which had its happy ending in the first championship of a promoted team? Well, not more than 1/10.
The Schalke victory in Lautern only seems hard to imagine because Lautern now want it even more urgently and their performances have been absolutely flawless lately (0-0 twice). They are still in touch and can turn the tide with a win. In addition, Schalke still have a tough task ahead of them on Thursday, with Twente, after a 0:1 in the first leg. Nevertheless, it is at least about a direct Champions League place, and if not about that, then at least about securing 4th place downwards. So a must-win bet at 2/10.
Well, should they play Cologne another time WITHOUT Podolski? After all, the last time he was out, they won the first game in Lautern straight away. A good omen? Well, if you have nothing else? The team looked so good overall and Hannover still play the second leg against Standard on Thursday too, so you risk the one unit: 1/10.
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