1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of Match Day 4
Hertha BSC – VfB Stuttgart 1:0 (0:0)
1.FC Kaiserslautern – FC Bayern Munich 0:3 (0:1)
Hamburger SV – 1.FC Köln 3:4 (1:1)
1.FC Nürnberg – FC Augsburg 1:0 (0:0)
TSG Hoffenheim – Werder Bremen 1:2 (1:1)
SC Freiburg – VfL Wolfsburg 3:0 (2:0)
Bayer Leverkusen – Borussia Dortmund 0:0
Hannover 96 – FSV Mainz 05 1:1 (1:1)
FC Schalke 04 – Borussia Mönchengladbach 1:0 (0:0)
Since we have given ourselves a certain amount of freedom as far as the content of this “General Assessment” is concerned, it will be used in a certain direction today. A little focus will be put on the reporting today. But first, in relation to comments made in previous weeks, a small assessment of the referee decisions on this matchday: Goals can still be disallowed at will, penalties NOT awarded. The whistle-blowers are under pressure to justify their decisions EXCLUSIVELY when a goal is wrongly awarded. This has the logical consequence – analogous to the comparison of which swimming is easier: upstream or with the current? — that more and more decisions are directed against the goal actions.
Attention has already been drawn elsewhere to the fact that this collective consciousness (“No, THERE can be no penalty. ” or: “that’s not enough for a penalty”, which at the same time includes the admission that it was a recognised infringement of the rules, but that it was passed over because of the size of the only possible penalty – penalty kick – should not/can not lead to this penalty, because it would turn a tiny infringement of the rules in a harmless situation into a scoring opportunity of gigantic proportions; (so one should urgently and as a matter of urgency think about an alternative penalty for such minor infringements of the rules by the defence in the penalty area) is additionally due to the fact that the value of a single goal is generally felt.
It is, in complete contrast to other, higher-scoring sports, usually accompanied by a gigantic shift in the odds for the outcome of the game (in the sense of victory – draw – defeat, for this or that) that one has a certain awe of this (big) change. This affects everyone, including the commentators, the neutral spectator, the fan, but first and foremost also the rules officials and the executive, the referees. There is a lack of admission at a higher level that this timidity (one can also call it “fear”) exists.
Take the example of the Leverkusen – Dortmund match, in which a multitude of controversial decisions caused much discussion, which was not cleared up (not even illuminated) on all sides. The question should have been asked again: what motivated Mr. Stark to make these decisions (apart from the ridiculous rule paragraphs)?
Thus, the red card for Mario Götze provided food for discussion, but also the withheld injury time. In any case, the possible interpretation of the “concession decision” was missing this time for Götze’s red card (even if this term is used in reporters’ jargon), just to give an example. Every referee knows that — in some reference to the importance of a goal and the fear of it — a game with 11 against 10 is an unequal duel. And he also knows: he has sent a player off the pitch, where it is guaranteed to be discussed (although in the case of Kadlec it was only done in a very limited way: “justified”, according to the general verdict; only Mr. Stark does not know that for sure at that moment). So now they are looking for an opportunity to bring the team strengths back into line.
It is enough, by the way, to introduce a few minor injustices that cause tempers to flare (all this happens, to protect the referee, rather unconsciously). Already one of the opponents is upset, and a yellow is shown under his nose, which of course is tantamount to a new perceived injustice. The team-mates have the same feeling: that was unjust, and this or that person’s collar bursts. In Götze’s case (remember his glorification a few weeks earlier, which was of course based on great deeds), a single omitted whistle is enough to rob him of protection. He is usually more skilful on the ball and difficult to separate from it by fair means. If the opponent now uses unfair means and he, Götze, does not get the due free kick – thus has to feel defenceless – then it can easily happen that he sees red in the true sense of the word in a following scene and actually extends his leg a few centimetres too far towards the opponent. Mr Stark had been waiting for this opportunity and completely ignored the extenuating circumstances (which he could possibly feel on the pitch, not only because of the recent media exuberance regarding the player Götze) and sends him off. Now there is little to stand in the way of a peaceful outcome – which the referee is aiming for, and this statement, true as it is, is surely the most dangerous at this point.
When the ball actually landed in the goal, after a Dortmund free kick, he simply pointed to his whistle and claimed in such a way that the game had not been cleared at all. Strangely, this scene was not reviewed at any point, but you can see after the whistle that the Dortmund players are wildly complaining. So in a way they must have been convinced that the goal was correct.
Last but not least, the injury time was, of course, absolutely ridiculous under the circumstances and only supports the daring thesis that the absurd brevity was in no way based on the application of a rule. He wanted to blow the whistle and call it a day; the fear of further mistakes played a role in this, but even more so the fear that something could still change the peaceful outcome of 0:0.
On the subject of reporting: the author has followed many matches live. The tenor is, of course, always the same: a German reporter has no intention of getting the listener excited about the game. The tone is always sober, mostly condescending, but permanently judgmental. Good actions, inspiring scenes, great goals, emotional outcries at missed chances – all this is omitted. The reasons given are complex(er), but one part is this: only a layman would be thrilled, would fall off his feet or be unable to keep his mouth shut. A real expert – and this is how he thinks he has to understand himself, but this is fundamentally doubted; it is about conveying the emotions, being emotional, according to the view held here – has not only already seen everything (and can therefore hardly be enthusiastic about a “cheap” hack trick) but sees much more long beyond that: the action that is apparently so beautiful for the spectator (i.e. the layman) was nevertheless only possible because of the catastrophic mistakes made by the other side. These “mistakes” are ruthlessly exposed and have long since destroyed any enthusiasm in him. However, he absolutely has to get rid of this and also rob the willing spectator of any enthusiasm that might arise. At least that is how everyone seems to be convinced (the subscription figures at Sky speak a different language: the whole channel is currently available on the stock market at a bargain price).
Well, these are once again generalities so detested by the local side, which are also commonplace in reporting, but are even less appropriate there. Because: a game is made up of individual scenes. Behind the microphone, one should capture these individual scenes as well as possible and thus make the football game in general and this game in particular as palatable as possible for the viewer. Generalisations can only serve to put the person making them in a better light – in the sense of recognising a pattern that he has succeeded in (“mostly they come over the left side…”) — but they have the unfortunate side-effect that they can only mean that the spectator no longer enjoys it, because: you don’t have to watch a game according to a certain pattern.
In this respect, a few concretely captured sentences were recorded with the intention of making something vivid about them. The match between HSV and FC Köln was chosen – and at this point in time unaware of the unusual drama that this match held in store.
The first example: when a Hamburg attacker took a ball from the air with technical perfection and immediately fired it towards the opponent’s goal – a real tongue-twister, a circus-ready performance, one of the reasons why football is still the number one sport – this comment escaped the reporter’s mouth: “Technically flawless. Well, that’s enough to make any spectator jump out of his seat, isn’t it? Those who weren’t watching will definitely slap themselves in the face as to why they missed that particular scene, won’t they?
The fact is that it didn’t go in. The ball went over the box, albeit just barely. But if it had hit the ground, you can guess what you’d have heard: “Everyone was asleep” is the least you could say. “No one had him on their radar” would be number two, and “everyone’s just watching, no one’s even going for the ball” would probably be number three. Mistake after mistake, there’s no such thing as beauty. But now he went over. Hmmm.
At least the attacker gets a “technically flawless” certificate. Now you have to compare this with the normal actions. In most cases, one would have objections (and also announces them with growing enthusiasm: “technical error” is very popular). but in this case one has no objection. This is one of the highest praises you can receive as a player. There are two states, two ways of behaving. One, the normal one, is “not faultless” and the other, for once, is faultless. The latter has won the day.
Note, by the way, that the judgement is made during the action. So: no way to surprise this person. He has seen everything, experienced everything, actually done everything himself, in the past, in his time as a professional, or what should one assume? Surely one would be able to permit an exclamation at some point, an exclamation of enthusiasm, of anticipation, of excitement? No, that can’t happen with these three-quarter gods. Everything remains sober and objective.
But think about it: even if a commentator with a sudden tendency towards enthusiasm were to be chosen as an alternative to the omniscient, who simply adds an “unbelievable, great, fantastic” to every action, who doesn’t foresee how an action will end, who is there with excitement and enthusiasm and doesn’t constantly tell you what you, as a naïve layman, have just overlooked as a chain of errors (a very popular neologism, since a simple error is no longer sufficient in this world of ever new superlatives): Would one have to fear that all television sets would then automatically switch off? Wouldn’t it be the other way round that would captivate, enthral, fascinate, comparable to catfighting, where tension is artificially created that in reality does not exist, but which nevertheless captivates the spectators?
When FC Köln was leading at the break, but HSV had played a remarkably good game (which, of course, an expert should never say; an expert has recognised the weaknesses, exposed the mistakes and thus explained the apparent coincidence of the score of 1: 2, for him there is no doubt, the one that says “it could have turned out differently”; for him, a seven-eighths god (yes, he has just been promoted), everything is obvious, there is no hiding and no pretence, the score is justified), which the spectators expressed with applause and positive, willing cheers, genuine fan support, he had the following remark ready for them: “The spectators are showing patience. “
What are we to conclude from this? They show patience. So actually they should be whistling, but, hear, hear, amazingly, they are patient, they are giving their team support instead of booing them? What he missed is quite clear (and this sensitivity would distinguish a true expert): the spectators simply honour good performance. They are much less result-oriented. They want to be well entertained. They have been so far, there is nothing to complain about such performances. Apart from that, no, perhaps the most important point of all: surely the game is far from over? A whole half still to come, which you look forward to, in which you want to push your boys forward, cheer them on, to perhaps give the game a turn, which, if accompanied by whistles, would be much less likely to bring about, as these paralyse the legs? No, it is just embarrassing for this man, and sad for the spectator, to have to hear such a thing. Apart from the killed joy of what happened.
What was important, after the interlude of a few more goals (HSV actually turned it around to 3:2), was that he now thought to enlighten us: “… in an entertaining game. NOT high class.” So at least it was recognised by him as entertaining. Well done. Words like exciting, dramatic, thrilling would of course have no place with him, who wants sobriety (and heart sparing for his spectators, apart from the switch-off demand he constantly makes; example? 2:0 in the 63rd minute: “The game is over”, “the drop is in the air”, “the game is through”. Yes, you turn up the volume and never leave your seat again, right?), proclaiming omniscience.
So: what is important is not that he now dismisses it as “entertaining” (which does not exactly express respect per se, but just the same: at least with entertaining one can, in comparison to the otherwise always seen “boring and weak games”, watch it, can’t one?), but that he seems to be almost ashamed of this first almost positive remark and immediately adds the “NOT high class”. That you wouldn’t think there was anything good here, no, no, he certainly didn’t mean it that way.
When FC Köln then equalised (and suddenly tore him out of his hymns about coach Solbakken and FC Köln; by the way, it is popular during all games to have permanent summaries that are oriented exclusively to the current result; a change in the score is in this sense completely and permanently undesirable for the man, as it calls this conclusion into question; however, as a trained smart-ass, one knows how to get out of the situation, as it is usually said shortly afterwards, “yes, the equaliser was announced…”) to 3:3. …”) to 3:3, he had to change the verdict at short notice for at least the third time. In a certain helplessness, but by no means expressing such helplessness, he came to this conclusion: “This is a strange game.”
Well, one would have had the chance, with a 3:3, which should simply captivate every spectator, a game which one would remember for a long time, which simply because of the result, must have a special drama, its own, exciting story, a game for which one must surely wait again for some time, one would have had the chance, at least in that one, to simply enjoy football and, mistakes or not, to simply convey this tension, this drama. Instead, you get a “strange”.
It’s quite possible to illuminate what was odd about it: it exposed the man with the permanent conclusion. Because every judgement sold as conclusive (remember: the praised patience of the spectators, which had paid off in the meantime) was questionable, no, wrong, erased from this course of the game by himself, equipped with sufficient logic.
He made the 3:3 really vivid for the spectator with the following, well-chosen words: “He can still lay down a bath towel there…”.
This was referring to the fact that the HSV defence (well, if he were to write these words himself, the word “defence” would of course come in inverted commas: “What defence?”) actually left the player Clemens, who came out of the background, unguarded. But one should rather enjoy the fact that there are goals, also that (as Podolski explained later) there are successful tricks, that there are variations in the corner kicks that are surprising and sometimes actually bring success and so on…
When the 3:4 was scored, he captured this small miracle, which he really felt in front of the TV, with these words: “Drobny runs over half the pitch, he has no business there. He misses again.” Yes, so that was pure enthusiasm, wasn’t it?
“Over half the pitch” is the reporter’s exaggeration, jelernt is jelernt. He’s still well inside the penalty area, but simply can’t get to the ball (not properly, as desired) because one of his own defenders runs him down, if you like, in any case he’s in the way. By another expert (it was probably Jens Lehman, on Sky 90) he was absolved of any blame (here the comment please. justified). Lehmann said that in many situations he would have prevented the same thing by intervening energetically, but that in this case he had not succeeded. You can’t prevent everything. If he stayed in and a goal was scored, you would know exactly what the speaker would say. “He has to come out of there” or “where is the goalkeeper?”, alternatively: “he’s stuck on the line”.
Incidentally, he dealt exclusively, with both goals to Cologne’s turn, with the mistakes, but this while the action was still going on. No wonder the shares remain in the cellar….
The table situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 FC Bayern Munich 4 3 0 1 9 9 – 1 +8
2 FC Schalke 04 4 3 0 1 9 10 – 6 +4
3 Werder Bremen 4 3 0 1 9 9 – 5 +4
4 Hannover 96 4 2 0 8 6 – 4 +2
5 Borussia Mönchengladbach 4 2 1 1 7 6 – 3 +3
6 Borussia Dortmund 4 2 1 7 5 – 2 +3
7 FSV Mainz 05 4 2 1 1 7 7 – 6 +1
8 Bayer Leverkusen 4 2 1 1 7 2 – 2 +0
9 TSG Hoffenheim 4 2 0 2 6 5 – 4 +1
10 1.FC Nürnberg 4 2 0 2 6 3 – 4 -1
11 Hertha BSC 4 1 2 1 5 4 – 4 +0
12 VfB Stuttgart 4 1 1 2 4 – 3 +1
13 SC Freiburg 4 1 1 2 4 9 – 9 +0
14 1.FC Köln 4 1 2 4 6 – 12 -6
15 VfL Wolfsburg 4 1 0 3 4 – 8 -4
16 FC Augsburg 4 0 2 2 3 – 6 -3
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 4 0 2 2 2 – 7 -5
18 Hamburger SV 4 0 1 3 1 6 – 14 -8
100 100 0
Total number of games 36
Goals ø 2.78
After getting used to a surprising picture throughout last season, it wouldn’t be surprising to see a “normal” one for a while. “Normal” is, in principle, almost always when the only constant, over many years, is FC Bayern at the top. You can put it this way, in terms of the championship question, also over the whole years of their Bundesliga affiliation: either Bayern are first or Bayern are not first. About 50% in each case. Only: if they aren’t, it’s someone else, and not a special team. Despite losing their opener (and conceding the only goal), they are already in first place after 4 rounds. Of course, that alone is no reason to speak of “boredom”.
Dortmund has not scored a goal in two away games, but as you can see above, they came very close a few times in Leverkusen. It was a very strong performance and, which is the hallmark of a top team, the game was designed to win, not at all to stonewall for a point, and this at a direct competitor. So: the 7 points are the lower limit, but of course they still leave all possibilities open.
Hertha have proven themselves to be absolutely Bundesliga-capable, as has been pointed out here several times (except after Matchday 1). A home win like that can loosen a lot of shackles. In any case, the performance over 90 minutes (observed by the author logically, since it was a Friday evening and a single match) was quite strong. even if the match must be described as even overall. Well, after this long series without a home win (and the last one, the one against Hannover at the start of the relegation season, was anything but deserved) it shouldn’t come as a surprise that we don’t just go for the win in hurrah style. Nevertheless, it was inspired football for long stretches, which was nice to watch and conjured up enough goal danger, even if Stuttgart came to equally good chances (according to kicker, by the way, 5:5, which confirms this impression).
HSV’s performance was also definitely at Bundesliga level. Of course, the points are missing at the moment, along with (or: accompanying) self-confidence, then calmness and probably, triggered by the media, patience at some point. At this point, I would like to express the hope that there will not be one of those horrible hunts for the coach. The team has the class to make it. Of course, there is no guarantee, but that would not be the case with personnel changes in responsible positions, the weakest link in the chain.
Augsburg, on the other hand, once again kept up quite well, but you still don’t see how they want to dominate a game, play out victories properly. Points will certainly stick here and there, but at the really and seriously meant extremely high level it is probably too difficult for them to get the necessary points over the long distance. There are too many good teams, according to the assumption expressed here, it will not be enough.
b. 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
FC Bayern Munich 2728 54.56% 1.83
Borussia Dortmund 1273 25.46% 3.93
Bayer Leverkusen 328 6.56% 15.24
FC Schalke 04 197 3.94% 25.38
Werder Bremen 167 3.34% 29.94
Hannover 96 88 1.76% 56.82
FSV Mainz 05 64 1.28% 78.13
Borussia Mönchengladbach 56 1.12% 89.29
TSG Hoffenheim 31 0.62% 161.29
VfB Stuttgart 28 0.56% 178.57
VfL Wolfsburg 23 0.46% 217.39
Hertha BSC 7 0.14% 714.29
1.FC Nuremberg 6 0.12% 833.33
SC Freiburg 2 0.04% 2500.00
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1 0.02% 5000.00
FC Augsburg 1 0.02% 5000.00
1.FC Cologne 0 0.00%
Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
It is clear that Bayern not only holds the top position but, especially with clear victories, and even better when achieved away from home, but extends it. HSV and Cologne have not scored a single goal in 5000 attempts, but Augsburg has. Of course, these are small coincidences in the simulation, which can be especially important when the chances are very small. Otherwise, Dortmund of course remain on top, even if they only have less than half the chances of Bayern. Schalke, after all, emerges in 4th place with a recognisable percentage.
Change in chances compared to the previous week due to matchday 4 results.
Team Win/Loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/Loss percentage
FC Bayern Munich 353 7.06%
Werder Bremen 31 0.62%
FC Schalke 04 14 0.28%
SC Freiburg 2 0.04%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 1 0.02%
FC Augsburg 1 0.02%
Hertha BSC 1 0.02%
1.FC Cologne 0 0.00%
1.FC Nuremberg 0 0.00%
FSV Mainz 05 0 0.00%
Hamburger SV -3 -0.06%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -15 -0.30%
VfB Stuttgart -19 -0.38%
TSG Hoffenheim -24 -0.48%
Bayer Leverkusen -49 -0.98%
VfL Wolfsburg -49 -0.98%
Hannover 96 -50 -1.00%
Borussia Dortmund -194 -3.88%
The big winner is clear. Wins, away from home, with the biggest rivals losing points. Once again we see that the three-point rule is nonsense: Dortmund and Leverkusen did nothing wrong, both absolutely played to win (only Mr. Stark did not, the undecider), and yet BOTH forfeit percentages. No, there are much simpler and better solutions to promote the offensive spirit, as shown here many times: think per goal, lay out per goal, instruct the referees per goal. Then there would be no more draw problems, no lack of goals and no need for an artificial (and unfair) solution like the three-point rule. Get rid of it!
c. The title chances in development
It looks like a clear development. If it were, of course, there would be no problem with it. It would be a boring season in a way, but as a spectator you would a) either be happy for Bayern (as a fan of the team or as a fan of beautiful, great football, b) look enviously at them and still hope for a series of slip-ups or c) concentrate on other decisions with more explosiveness, of which there are of course quite a few.
d. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 1.54 1.55 64.94%
Borussia Dortmund 5.1 5.2 19.61%
Bayer Leverkusen 21 22 4.76%
VfL Wolfsburg 120 170 0.83%
Hannover 96 110 120 0.91%
Werder Bremen 50 55 2.00%
FC Schalke 04 23 24 4.35%
Hamburger SV 360 1000 0.28%
VfB Stuttgart 140 170 0.71%
FSV Mainz 05 180 250 0.56%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 95 120 1.05%
TSG Hoffenheim 110 160 0.91%
1.FC Nuremberg 330 1000 0.30%
1.FC Cologne 310 640 0.32%
SC Freiburg 600 1000 0.17%
Hertha BSC 500 1000 0.20%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 460 1000 0.22%
FC Augsburg 400 1000 0.25%
It remains the case that the market has Bayern even further ahead than the computer. At the moment the market is on course, if you like.
The changes in the odds estimates at betfair
FC Bayern Munich 4.70%
Borussia Dortmund -2.13
Bayer Leverkusen -0.95%
VfL Wolfsburg -0.60%
Hannover 96 -0.27%
Werder Bremen 0.67%
FC Schalke 04 0.50%
Hamburger SV 0.06%
VfB Stuttgart -0.96%
FSV Mainz 05 -0.62%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -1.22%
TSG Hoffenheim -0.52%
1.FC Nuremberg 0.17%
1.FC Cologne 0.15%
SC Freiburg 0.00%
Hertha BSC 0.06%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.08%
FC Augsburg 0.14%
(Again the order according to the original rankings)
Again, you can see the (this week again lower) increase of the Bavarian chances, but also the decrease of the Dortmund AND Leverkusen chances. The rest of the shifts are irrelevant, especially in the market, as there is probably no trading of the very high prices.
e. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
Whether this item will be included in the upcoming season is still undecided.
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 4
The changes compared to the previous week:
At least there is the betting offer “placing among the first 3” on the market. It’s possible that they’ll take the trouble to include that here soon.
f. 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 Total
1 FC Augsburg 51.42% 4.56% 55.98%
2 1.FC Kaiserslautern 38.40% 4.84% 43.24%
3 Hamburger SV 28.28% 4.14% 32.42%
4 1.FC Cologne 25.38% 4.55% 29.93%
5 SC Freiburg 15.88% 3.41% 19.29%
6 1.FC Nuremberg 9.86% 2.57% 12.43%
7 Hertha BSC 9.32% 2.25% 11.57%
8 VfB Stuttgart 5.00% 1.63% 6.63%
9 VfL Wolfsburg 5.02% 1.56% 6.58%
10 TSG Hoffenheim 3.78% 1.07% 4.85%
11 FSV Mainz 05 2.56% 0.77% 3.33%
12 Borussia Mönchengladbach 2.30% 0.81% 3.11%
13 Hannover 96 1.30% 0.51% 1.81%
14 Werder Bremen 0.80% 0.37% 1.17%
15 FC Schalke 04 0.40% 0.20% 0.60%
16 Bayer Leverkusen 0.30% 0.08% 0.38%
17 Borussia Dortmund 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
18 FC Bayern Munich 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
HSV has already “earned” quite a decent percentage (and as the last dinosaur, in since the founding year) you certainly look a bit more attentively at the development. Cologne, too, despite their victory, are still involved in the relegation places, which are so undesirable but so important for the preservation of the sport (there has to be a constant change, of course, as motivation for lower-ranked teams). Hertha have already played their way down to 7th place, so that there may be a certain satisfaction in the capital regarding the future of the old, but therefore no less beloved lady.
The biggest problem child of the last season – especially thanks to Marco Reus, who has been seen and admired in all appearances so far – has little to do with the award mentioned. There would have to be a lot of water flowing down the Rhine until the end of the season almost for a while in the wrong direction for them to still be implicated (so a friend of probability calculation dares to reduce the reported 3.11% argumentatively and prophetically?! 3.11% would always be 3.11%, no matter how good the team is, and that’s all there is to prediction, according to the view expressed here. So sentences like “Borussia stays in” are useless as soon as you have a percentage estimate; this figure is, so to speak, the answer to the question of whether they stay in; dialogue: “You as an expert: tell me, will Gladbach stay in the class?” “Yes, 96.89% yes, 3.11% no.” Does this answer increase one’s knowledge?).
The change in chances from the 3rd to the 4th matchday with regard to relegation
Team Change in chances
1 Hamburger SV -9.35%
2 1.FC Kaiserslautern -9.32%
3 FC Augsburg -8.73%
4 VfL Wolfsburg -3.51%
5 VfB Stuttgart -2.07%
6 TSG Hoffenheim -0.91%
7 Borussia Mönchengladbach -0.77%
8 Hannover 96 -0.56%
9 FSV Mainz 05 -0.13%
10 Bayer Leverkusen -0.01%
11 Borussia Dortmund 0.01%
12 FC Bayern Munich 0.01%
13 Werder Bremen 0.47%
14 FC Schalke 04 0.49%
15 1.FC Nuremberg 3.73%
16 Hertha BSC 4.40%
17 1.FC Cologne 11.31%
18 SC Freiburg 14.92%
Clearly, HSV is the big loser. A home defeat against a direct rival? So much for the question of whether six-point games exist. “Yes. That was one.” It might be interesting (but is not done) to enter a 3:2 instead of 3:4 and then run the simulation. Presumably Cologne would then have a 7% gain (less than the 9.35% since they were away), while HSV would probably have won 9% instead of losing. Thus, although Cologne have made a gigantic jump with the 11.31%, they have not even achieved the last place (and thus, in the sense of “desirable”, the first place), which, thanks to a clear victory (3:0) against an even much higher rated opponent, both the points and the playing strength swing more in the favourable direction. Lautern, too, despite the expected defeat, clearly loses its chances of staying in the class because of the 0:3. Augsburg slipped deeper into it. Although a 0:1 is close, it was achieved against a rival and is therefore very sensitive.
g. The relegation question in development
Is there anything in the offing? Hardly. Augsburg stands out, yes, and always goes in the same direction. FC Köln perhaps still interesting with some ups and downs. Well, let’s wait and see what happens here.
h. The point expectations and the deviations
Explanation: for each match the computer has calculated the chances for 1, X and 2. Based on these, a point expectation is mathematically calculated for each team per match according to the formula probability of winning * 3 points + probability of drawing * 1 point. The deviations given below compare the points actually achieved with those expected by the computer.
In total, the deviation does not have to be 0 for all teams, as the number of expected draws does not have to be congruent with those that have occurred (nor can it even be), but an imbalance is forced by the three-point rule. Too many points scored means that there were too few draws.
Team Name Points scored Deviation Deviation absolute
1 Werder Bremen 6.01 9 2.99 2.99
2 FC Schalke 04 6.09 9 2.91 2.91
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 4.21 7 2.79 2.79
4 FSV Mainz 05 5.41 7 1.59 1.59
5 Hannover 96 6.75 8 1.25 1.25
6 TSG Hoffenheim 4.81 6 1.19 1.19
7 Bayer Leverkusen 5.90 7 1.10 1.10
8 1.FC Nürnberg 4.97 6 1.03 1.03
9 FC Bayern Munich 8.51 9 0.49 0.49
10 Hertha BSC 4.72 5 0.28 0.28
11 SC Freiburg 4.68 4 -0.68 0.68
12 Borussia Dortmund 7.71 7 -0.71 0.71
13 1.FC Köln 4.71 4 -0.71 0.71
14 VfB Stuttgart 5.41 4 -1.41 1.41
15 1.FC Kaiserslautern 4.50 2 -2.50 2.50
16 VfL Wolfsburg 5.50 3 -2.50 2.50
17 FC Augsburg 4.79 2 -2.79 2.79
18 Hamburger SV 4.89 1 -3.89 3.89
ø Deviation 1.71
You can see that this season there is only a slight deviation between the total number of points expected and the total number of points scored. This means (as you can surely see later in the league statistics) that the draws have been well hit.
Werder and Schalke ahead of Gladbach? That makes sense and is in line with what you’d consider the biggest surprises. All three had a terrible last season and are now ahead. Gladbach lost the Schalke game but played far more than decently there too. Even if – hats off to him though – Tranier Favre’s post-match verdict (confirmed by this site) was: “Schalke were better.” They were better, but not by much. A great game from both teams. Schalke did force the opening goal through Raul’s knee-foot-knee triple, but could have conceded one at any time both before and after (and the greatest respect to Gladbach for that). The kicker has 6:4 chances, which is correct in proportion, but in its own count, often well presented attacks without completion would also fall into the score. If, by the way, the losing team were to score the winning goal at 6:4, no one would be surprised, but you would be guaranteed to read that it was deserved, because the opponent was poor in the use of chances, whereas the winner was “effective”. Just so, by the way, but based on the above nasty criticism of the reporting.
Mainz and Hannover, who shared the points (and here, too, you notice the injustice of the three-point rule: they didn’t share the points at all. There were 3 to be awarded, but they didn’t get one and a half each, through no fault of their own, which is the sole responsibility of the desk players), are still clearly in the black – and incidentally both underpinned this assessment in a top-class match (also acknowledged by the kicker). By the way, the match was rated 2.5. How does a match actually get a 1 in the kicker? One would have an idea: the legendary 4:4 between Werder and Stuttgart about 3 years ago. Aha, as you can see, a game with many goals can rise to this grade. Should that make you think?
At the end, of course, HSV is the problem child, but Augsburg is also in the same league. Of course, they are also disadvantaged by the three-point rule (if only they had managed their goals better; instead of 2:2 and 1:1 in games 1 and 2, they would have had more points with 2:1 and 1:2; fair?), but they are disadvantaged by the (supposedly) easy start. Wolfsburg there is not surprising and Lautern also has to struggle to keep up. Dortmund are 0.71 points behind, but only 0.71 points. Bayern is marginally up, which is fine. They always have high expectations and a first place is usually only just ok…
The foreign comparison for the average point deviation
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting among Europe’s top leagues. This finding is rather intuitively derived, but so far “accepted” both in this country and abroad. Of course, the higher goal average is an indication of this, as well as the(perceived) lower predictability when it comes to the title, relegation, but also other issues. Balance is a criterion and possibly the main reason for this.
The measure used here for the deviation in average points expectation provides measurable information about this, but it was probably a “problem” specific to the 2010/2011 inaugural season (the fan thanked) that the Bundesliga produced a particularly large number of surprises. This was reflected in the figures. Now the phenomenon can be observed further. Is the Bundesliga also exciting in this respect? More exciting than elsewhere?(At the same time, a large deviation in this category could simply mean that computers or feeders do not know their business well)
Liga 1 ø Deviation Change from previous week
Germany, 1st BL 1.71 0.12
Spain 0.91 —
France 1.77 0.05
England 1.83 0.46
Germany, 2.BL 3.13 0.20
The values are growing everywhere. Certainly, as the dependence on the number of games has long been recognised. If something is to be made visible here – the tension in Germany – one must at least be patient. But maybe this season won’t be so exciting at all? Conceivably, yes.
i. 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 5.03 6 7.59 3 5.56
2 Werder Bremen 6.45 9 5.74 5 3.29
3 FC Schalke 04 5.79 10 4.92 6 3.13
4 FC Bayern Munich 8.95 9 3.89 1 2.94
5 TSG Hoffenheim 4.92 5 5.95 4 2.03
6 Hertha BSC 5.14 4 6.39 4 1.25
7 SC Freiburg 4.69 9 5.93 9 1.24
8 VfB Stuttgart 6.06 4 6.26 3 1.21
9 FSV Mainz 05 5.34 7 5.50 6 1.16
10 Hannover 96 6.60 6 4.75 4 0.15
11 1.FC Nürnberg 4.66 3 5.58 4 -0.08
12 Borussia Dortmund 6.73 5 3.46 2 -0.27
13 Bayer Leverkusen 6.09 2 5.47 2 -0.62
14 FC Augsburg 4.22 3 5.14 6 -2.08
15 1.FC Kaiserslautern 4.84 2 6.50 7 -3.33
16 VfL Wolfsburg 5.48 4 5.49 8 -4.00
17 1.FC Köln 5.17 6 6.42 12 -4.76
18 Hamburger SV 5.34 6 6.51 14 -6.83
101.50 100 101.50 100 101.50
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 2.44 2.82 2.78
Gladbach remain top of the table here. A 1:0 at the top favourite and a 4:1 against the strong (!?) Wolfsburg are the maximum. Even the 0:1 at Schalke only hurts very mildly in this category. Werder is also right up there, as is Schalke. It’s clear that Bayern have more plus points here: 9:0 goals in three games (i.e. clear victories) have an impact.
At the back, HSV, it can’t be helped, but Cologne, due to the 1:5 at Schalke, are close behind. Wolfsburg and Lautern have already been mentioned. Here, too, you can see: only a very small deficit for Dortmund.
Rank Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week
1 Germany, 1.BL 2.44 0.35
2 Italy 1
3 Spain 1 1.38 —
4 England 1 3.02 1.12
5 France 1 1.70 -0.09
6 Germany, 2.BL 4.18 0.45
The same applies here as for the points expectations.
j. 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 FC Bayern Munich 2.07 0.96 2.16 +0.10 +0
2 Borussia Dortmund 1.66 0.82 2.04 +0.06 +0
3 Bayer Leverkusen 1.58 1.15 1.38 +0.02 +0
4 FC Schalke 04 1.45 1.20 1.21 +0.02 +0
5 Werder Bremen 1.66 1.44 1.15 +0.03 +0
6 Hannover 96 1.44 1.34 1.08 -0.01 +1
7 VfL Wolfsburg 1.39 1.36 1.02 -0.09 -1
8 FSV Mainz 05 1.44 1.43 1.01 +0.01 +1
9 Borussia Mönchenglad 1.41 1.42 0.99 -0.01 -1
10 VfB Stuttgart 1.50 1.55 0.97 -0.02 +1
11 TSG Hoffenheim 1.38 1.43 0.97 -0.02 -1
12 Hertha BSC 1.28 1.47 0.87 +0.01 +0
13 1.FC Nürnberg 1.16 1.44 0.81 +0.01 +0
14 SC Freiburg 1.30 1.65 0.79 +0.06 +1
15 Hamburger SV 1.31 1.73 0.76 -0.02 -1
16 1.FC Köln 1.35 1.87 0.72 +0.03 +1
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.11 1.66 0.67 -0.03 -1
18 FC Augsburg 0.91 1.51 0.61 -0.01 +0
25.415 25.41 +0
Goals ø expected 2.824
Newly included this week is the size of the change in terms of the quotient. Dortmund are also gaining. Here you have to take into account that although they were very slight favourites at Leverkusen, meaning that a 0:0 can’t actually bring an increase, a reduction in the goal expectation (which is only consistent with a 0:0) ensures a favourable change, even if the value changes just as much or even just a little less. So: logically, the quotient becomes more favourable. The effect of lower goal expectations with the same quotient was already discussed a fortnight ago: it favours the one who scores more goals in terms of chances for the title.
So only slight shifts are to be expected every week, and this has proven to be true over the years. The fundamental strength of a team does not change with one win, it has to develop over the long term, with many good results. Bayern with a gain of +0.10, thanks to the 3:0 away, Freiburg with +0.06 points with an equal home win. Loser, of course, Wolfsburg with -0.09, whereas Lautern loses only 0.03 points. What is the reason for that? Hmm… Do goals conceded have less of an adverse effect on the quotient for teams from the bottom half? That could be it…
k. 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: with 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.
At the weekend, there were the following changes in tendency: in the really dramatic game in Hamburg, every (further; after the 1:0) goal caused a change in tendency. Accordingly, there were 6: the 1:1, 2:1 for Cologne, 2:2, 3:2 HSV, 3:3, 4:3 Cologne. Werder turned the game in Hoffenheim, from 0:1 to 2:1, makes 2, Hannover equalised against Mainz, 1:1. Altogether there are therefore 9, which is again above average. But it remains caused by a single really crazy game (and, hand on heart, which football supporter wouldn’t fervently wish for such progressions more often?).
Also for the trend changes every week the foreign comparison:
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
A look back at last season should once again remind us of the “averages”. League 1 was far ahead, but the English Premier League had still come between League 1 and League 2.
Country Matches Equalisation HF AF Total per match
Germany 1 36 20 8 5 33 0.917
England 29 7 2 11 0.379
Germany 2 54 21 9 5 35 0.648
France 40 21 5 5 31 0.633
In England, virtually nothing happened in this respect on the last matchday. There was ManU’s spectacular 8:2 over Arsenal, but even that was a one-way street and only spectacular because of the amount of the victory and the number of goals (which of course always remains an aspect: you want to see goals, at least as a neutral spectator, the more the better, even if not every goal provides budding drama about the uncertainty of the match outcome). Otherwise, there were only 2 changes of tendency in 10 games. England thus with a total of 0.379 changes of tendency per game with a terrible record in this respect (much, much boredom, translated).
Germany 2 had 6 changes of tendency, which is somewhat in line with the international average. Bochum equalised against Fürth, but still lost 1:4, Rostock also equalised in Ingolstadt, but lost later. Union’s fate in Munich, at the Löwen identical: scored the 1:1, lost 1:3, makes a total of 6 changes of tendency.
In France, on the other hand, things went really well: 12 changes of tendency on one matchday. Bordeaux turned the game around in Valenciennes, from 0:1 to 2:1, Paris turned the game around in Toulouse, from 0:1 to 3:1, Sochaux came back from a deficit in their home game against St. Etienne. Etienne, Sochaux came from a goal down to win, 0:1 to 2:1, Lorient achieved the same feat against Nancy, and the top match between champions Lille and championship contenders Marseille was a hot one: Marseille turned around a 0:1 deficit to win 2:1, but Lille turned the game around to win 3:2. So: pure drama in the league (in which, by the way, there was already an unbelievable comeback in the season before last, in an absolute top match, which are otherwise often not known for exaggerated tension: Serial winner Lyon against perennial contender Marseille: 1:0 Lyon, 3rd minute, 1:1 in the 12th, 2:1 Lyon in the 14th, 2:2 shortly before the break, in the 44th minute, Marseille takes the lead in the 47th, 2:3, extends the lead in the 79th (!), 2:4, Lyon turns (!) the game, 3:4 in the 81st, 4:4 in the 84th, 5:4 in the 89th minute. Still not over: Marseille equalised in injury time: 5:5!, unbelievable! ; another game from the 90s in the league was once Marseille against Montpellier: half-time 0:4, final score 5:4. The only game remembered which was still turned around after a 0:4; one may like to research and bring up other, comparable games).
Spain started with 6 changes of tendency (in 10 games). Worth mentioning, however, is Valencia’s dramatic comeback against Santander: down 1:3 after 56 minutes, still 2:3 after 88, then the two goals to win, 4:3.
l. The mathematical review of the results of matchday 3.
Note: here the deviation of the expected goals with the 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.
Home Away Total Deviation
Hertha Stuttgart 1.62 1.44 3.06 1 0 -0.62 -1.44
Kaiserslautern FC Bayern 0.91 2.01 2.92 0 3 -0.91 0.99
HSV FC Cologne 1.91 1.25 3.15 3 4 1.09 2.75
Nuremberg Augsburg 1.43 0.86 2.29 1 0 -0.43 -0.86
Hoffenheim Bremen 1.61 1.36 2.97 1 2 -0.61 0.64
Freiburg Wolfsburg 1.30 1.47 2.77 3 0 1.70 -1.47
Leverkusen Dortmund 1.11 1.20 2.32 0 0 -1.11 -1.20
Hannover Mainz 1.66 1.19 2.85 1 1 -0.66 -0.19
Schalke 04 Gladbach 1.71 1.05 2.76 1 0 -0.71 -1.05
13.24 11.84 25.08 11 10 -2.24 -1.84
Expected goal total Expected goal average Scored goal average 25.08 2.79 2.33
ø expected goal difference 1.87 ø goal difference 2.04
Goal poverty returned once again. Only 2.33 goals on average, but now the discussion should not be reopened. Just wait and see how it develops. The computer was usually quite good.
As a special service, here are a few statistics from previous years regarding this goal average.
Goal statistics of the 1st Bundesliga, 2010/2011 season over all match days
Here, first of all, in the diagram with the goal totals. As you can see, there were a little too many goals on the first matchday compared to expectations. As you can also see, the (well-fed) computer made an adjustment, albeit minimal: due to the excess of goals, the pink curve goes up a little. In the entire first half of the season there were a little too many goals (who remembers? There were already these records), but in the second half there were too few. This could well be assumed to be a systematic development. Another example follows, but here first the updated goal average arrived in each case, compared to the expected one:
As you can see here a little better, the goal average was too high in the entire first half of the season. Since it continues to rise from time to time, it can’t be because it was only too high at the very beginning and then returned to normal. There were always match days that were far above expectations in terms of goals scored.
In the second half of the season, the opposite effect occurred. In this respect, the rather gentle adjustment (which was justified here just under a year ago) is appropriate, because, oh miracle, at the very end the two lines meet, with the final result: arrived (almost) = expected. A triumph for the computer, if you will.
Goal statistics of the 1st Bundesliga, season 2009/2010 over all match days
If you now thought you had recognised the system: Many goals in the first half of the season, fewer in the second half. The reality is that a year earlier it was the other way round. In the first half of the season there were (quite systematically) too few goals (compared to expectations), in the second half of the season rather too many. Perhaps it becomes even more vivid with the second graph:
Oh, lucky you, tirili (Otto), also this season the lines meet almost exactly at the end. The course before that was quite changeable in the other direction: for a long time there were clearly too few goals. The computer allowed itself to be only very moderately influenced by this and goes down with the expected line of about 2.9 goals to 2.84 (despite the actual in-between at only just over 2.6 goals per game, and this after already 15 match days, so quite a considerable number). Late he is rewarded for this patience and thus has not done very much wrong.
If you don’t get tired of such statistics yet (and on this side of the keyboard you almost never will), look at another season, perhaps with the task of interpreting the graphs yourself?!
Goal statistics of the 1st Bundesliga, season 2008/2009 over all match days
Quite changeable course, this time without recognisable tendencies. First half of the season a bit too many goals (like 2010/2011).
Also in this season, the lines met almost exactly. The moderate adjustment has proven its sustainability.
m. The determination
Note: The fixing 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
Hertha Stuttgart 42.12% 23.48% 34.41% 35.09%
Kaiserslautern FC Bayern 16.24% 20.56% 63.20% 46.81%
HSV FC Cologne 52.94% 22.01% 25.05% 39.15%
Nuremberg Augsburg 50.51% 26.65% 22.84% 37.83%
Hoffenheim Bremen 43.58% 23.79% 32.64% 35.30%
Freiburg Wolfsburg 33.60% 24.80% 41.60% 34.74%
Leverkusen Dortmund 34.00% 27.67% 38.33% 33.91%
Hanover Mainz 48.55% 23.84% 27.61% 36.88%
Schalke 04 Gladbach 52.95% 23.62% 23.43% 39.11%
3.74 2.16 3.09 3.39
Average expected fixing: 37.65%
To reiterate, just above the expected figures given in last week’s text. A matchday with below-average favourites or, to put it another way, fairly even games. What did the practice bring?
The determination arrived
Pairing 1 X 2
Hertha Stuttgart 42.12% 23.48% 34.41% 42.12%
Kaiserslautern FC Bayern 16.24% 20.56% 63.20% 63.20%
HSV FC Cologne 52.94% 22.01% 25.05% 25.05%
Nuremberg Augsburg 50.51% 26.65% 22.84% 50.51%
Hoffenheim Bremen 43.58% 23.79% 32.64% 32.64%
Freiburg Wolfsburg 33.60% 24.80% 41.60% 33.60%
Leverkusen Dortmund 34.00% 27.67% 38.33% 27.67%
Hanover Mainz 48.55% 23.84% 27.61% 23.84%
Schalke 04 Gladbach 52.95% 23.62% 23.43% 52.95%
3.74 2.16 3.09 3.52
average determination received: 39.06%
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.
Well, practice exceeded expectation. The higher favourites all won, such as Bayern, Nuremberg and Schalke, the favourite event also occurred (!) at Hertha, whereas the least likely event only occurred in the two draws. All in all, this is enough to already exceed the expectation in a fairly even matchday.
n. 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 has no significant probability). There would be a goal deviation for each result. So if you multiply the probability of, for example, a 3:4 by the deviation that would then occur (in the case of the match Mainz – Gladbach, below, with goal expectations of 1.77:1.25, this would be 3 – 1.77 = 1.23 for Mainz plus 4 – 1.25 = 2.75 for Gladbach, i.e. a total of 3.98 goal deviation) and carry out this procedure for each match result, you get the expected average goal deviation.
1st Football Bundesliga 2010/2011 Statistics of the actual results
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals conceded Home advantage
36 16 8 12 58 42 1.160
Statistics of expected results
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
36 16.58 8.45 10.96 57.4 44.05 1.132
Statistics of absolute deviations
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 -0.58 -0.45 1.04 0.56 -2.05 0.02807
Percentage difference statistics
Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 -3.62% -5.62% 8.67% 0.97% -4.88% 2.42%
Determination expected Determination arrived 39.07% 39.54% ø Goal deviation ø Goal deviation expected 1.98 1.87
Moderate variances across the board. There was just one home win too few, half a draw too few, but one away win too many. The goals also fit almost perfectly. It was already discussed earlier that the away teams were two goals short, but still scored one victory too many. What does that mean? If, away has won narrowly, if lost from and then clearly.
There is also no significant deviation in the determination arrived at/expected, so that one, as the inventor of the system, can be satisfied all round with the assessments so far.
o. Review of the betting recommendations
More explosive, however, is always this question: which bets should/must have occurred according to the computer? Where would he have messed with the betting market? And: if he messes with it, with the great mass intelligence, does he have good reasons for it?
Pairing 1 X 2 % average
Hertha Stuttgart 2.72 3.55 2.78 100.90%
Kaiserslautern FC Bayern 6.80 4.60 1.55 100.96%
HSV FC Cologne 1.94 3.80 4.30 101.12%
Nuremberg Augsburg 1.83 3.75 5.20 100.54%
Hoffenheim Bremen 2.40 3.55 3.20 101.09%
Freiburg Wolfsburg 2.96 3.55 2.56 101.02%
Leverkusen Dortmund 2.82 3.50 2.70 101.07%
Hannover Mainz 2.28 3.50 3.40 101.84%
Here is last week’s graph as a reminder. Strangely (and equally unintentionally), the Schalke – Gladbach game was “slipped under the table”. Presumably (but still not subsequently included in the statistics) a Gladbach victory would have been indicated.
As a small compensation mentioned here namely: with HSV – Cologne one could have picked both a Cologne victory (4.30 the market odds, 3.99 the fair odds according to the computer).
So: Hertha really won, so a profit of 2.72 – 1 = 1.71 units, the other two games were lost, but Augsburg kept the game open for a long time (the Nuremberg goal came in the 76th minute; chance ratio 5:2). In the last scene of the game, a defender from Mainz desperately tried to stop a striker breaking through with a foul, but failed, threw himself into his heels, without success, but to the indignation of all Hanover supporters – and the sport of football – the whistle man ruled it 1-1, er, a striker’s foul. Immediately, coach Slomka, like the reporter here at this point, turned into Rumpelstiltskin, while the whistle-blower calmly declared the game over, amid the whistles of the (supposedly oh-so-partisan and thus forfeiting the right to a say) spectators. Unbelievable and actually much more appropriate in the introduction, this digression here (under the “General Assessment”). A scandal would have been due, as is so often the case, except that there is no such thing in the case of a) a drawn outcome (more likely) and b) disallowed goals. Slomka had already rejoined the interview shortly after the final whistle and spoke only of a clear theft of chances.
Recommended bets Statistics of the individual match days
Matchday No. Number of bets Number of hits expected hit deviation win/loss
1 7 5 2.84 +2.16 +7.96
2 7 3 2.77 +0.23 +1.75
3 2 0 1.00 -1.00 -2.00
4 3 1 1.14 -0.14 -0.28
Yes, in the red for the second time.
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
In total, the balance remains good beyond expectation. +1.26 hits are still too much, but far too few to be able to run riot with.
p. Preview of the 5th matchday
Note: The computer calculates the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) according to a specially developed – of course explainable and highly logical – algorithm. These in turn are offset against the probabilities of occurrence, in the past by simulation, today long since by a function derived from the simulation results). These goal expectancy values have also long since proved to be competitive in goal number betting on the betting market.
Goal expectation Home Away Total
Augsburg Leverkusen 0.86 1.50 2.36
FC Bayern Freiburg 2.79 0.79 3.58
Dortmund Hertha 2.02 0.66 2.67
Gladbach Kaiserslautern 1.90 0.98 2.89
Stuttgart Hannover 1.63 1.39 3.02
Mainz Hoffenheim 1.65 1.25 2.90
Bremen HSV 2.36 1.14 3.51
FC Cologne Nuremberg 1.52 1.31 2.82
Wolfsburg Schalke 04 1.31 1.21 2.52
16.04 10.23 26.26
Expected goal total Expected goal average 26.26 2.92
Above average goals expected, home teams ahead in the normal range, what would be left to say? Those looking for over/under bets seem to find a promising match in Werder – HSV (which would certainly trade at other values on the market). However, the concerns here: a) derbies – and as such it is called, the North derby – are always to be enjoyed with a little more caution, moreover, there is the conviction here that HSV will first try to stop the flood of goals conceded. Whether this will be successful is, of course, questionable. Werder, on the other hand, have been convincing on the offensive, so not a bad bet.
Note: The determination is calculated as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher a favourite position is, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, one can check the quality in the long term by comparing expected/occurred events.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2
Augsburg Leverkusen 21.63% 25.85% 52.52% 38.94%
FC Bayern Freiburg 78.97% 13.17% 7.85% 64.72%
Dortmund Hertha 69.54% 19.38% 11.08% 53.34%
Gladbach Kaiserslautern 59.01% 21.77% 19.21% 43.26%
Stuttgart Hannover 43.70% 23.53% 32.77% 35.37%
Mainz Hoffenheim 47.01% 23.77% 29.21% 36.29%
Bremen HSV 64.53% 18.39% 17.08% 47.94%
FC Cologne Nuremberg 42.49% 24.46% 33.06% 34.96%
Wolfsburg Schalke 04 39.19% 26.27% 34.54% 34.19%
4.66 1.97 2.37 3.89
Average expected fixing: 43.22%
As you can see a typical favourite matchday, as Bayern and Dortmund play at home. Otherwise, the computer also shows Werder as having a big advantage, which traditionally does not seem to be that gigantic. Gladbach has also become a clear favourite with 59% for a win. This seems justified to a certain extent. The performances of the two have been quite contrary and Gladbach has really convinced so far (even in defeat). Wolfsburg favourite against Schalke? The computer gives them a chance to prove themselves, so to speak….
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
Augsburg Leverkusen 4.62 3.87 1.90
FC Bayern Freiburg 1.27 7.59 12.74
Dortmund Hertha 1.44 5.16 9.03
Gladbach Kaiserslautern 1.69 4.59 5.20
Stuttgart Hannover 2.29 4.25 3.05
Mainz Hoffenheim 2.13 4.21 3.42
Bremen HSV 1.55 5.44 5.85
FC Cologne Nuremberg 2.35 4.09 3.03
Wolfsburg Schalke 04 2.55 3.81 2.89
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
Augsburg Leverkusen 4.70 3.90 1.82 101.86%
FC Bayern Freiburg 1.18 8.20 23.00 101.29%
Dortmund Hertha 1.41 4.90 9.20 102.20%
Gladbach Kaiserslautern 2.04 3.55 4.10 101.58%
Stuttgart Hannover 1.94 3.70 4.40 101.30%
Mainz Hoffenheim 2.28 3.50 3.40 101.84%
Bremen HSV 1.63 3.85 5.60 105.18%
FC Cologne Nuremberg 2.52 3.45 2.84 103.88%
Wolfsburg Schalke 04 2.54 3.45 2.48 108.68%
A slightly larger number of betting recommendations this week. The main reason: with virtual money (at this point recently also dubbed “Moospenny”) it is quite easy-going to play.
The one unit on Freiburg is gambled on recklessly, although everyone knows that Freiburg cannot win in Munich under any circumstances? Bayern have already lost at home this season, and besides, and in general… Well, contrary to this consideration is the size of the odds. And, if we may lapse into journalistic jargon for a moment, Cissé is actually scoring at will at the moment, plus he definitely wants to get one over on Bayern after their brazen cancellation, and anyway, they proved with the 3:0 against Wolfsburg that they can beat top teams (as much as Wolfsburg has been lagging behind this fame for some time: they should be, and not only by their own standards), so: a unit in the rubbish. And even there, a little money could grow out of it?
Gladbach, as the attentive reader has surely long since noticed, has become a favourite on the part of the author. They have done everything well so far and they are underestimated, these criteria for (always temporary) “favourite teams”. You can bet on them and they have already made money. Keep at it. Full conviction behind it and gladly (as a tip for the willing bettor) more than one unit on it.
The unit on Hannover is also a compulsory unit. We have seen Stuttgart’s partly good performance. But: that they were considered better in advance (according to the betting market) and have so far outplayed Hannover even to some extent is cast into maximum doubt. Hannover were further ahead last season, have improved this season and are once again ahead of VfB. There is no reason to consider them weaker, this would only be due to tradition. However, odds of 4.3 would express this, as the long-term average on an away win is around fair odds of 3.5. So: with some vehemence, the view is expressed here that Hannover is not worse than Stuttgart. In this respect: a good bet.
Mainz also deserve their support unit. They were very good, even in the Hannover game, even if inferior there (in terms of game shares), and have indicated in all games that the original assessment – slightly above average – is not far-fetched. Even if Hoffenheim have certainly impressed, Mainz could still be a little better. The average odds on a home win over the years are close to 2.28, but rather below (range 2.10 – 2.15). The argumentation is analogous to the Hannover game, but the tradition argument certainly does not apply to Hoffenheim.
Werder against HSV is not a pleasant bet for the reasons mentioned above. HSV will be looking for a good performance, especially in the derby, and will probably stabilise the defence. Nevertheless, Werder can be trusted to win at home. It all depends on the “opening goal”. As soon as it is scored (no matter for whom), the game is “opened” or “opened up”. Werder definitely have the potential up front and Hamburg’s central defence must first prove its Bundesliga level (as soon as the duo is found, which is not yet the case).
Cologne can also be recommended with a good heart, despite only slight deviation fair odds to bet market. It is a handsome odds and as much better as it expresses Nuremberg was certainly not so far. The only thing to mention would be a kind of home complex of the FCK, but they went on an excellent way to put this on the record in the game against Kaiserslautern. The spectators are guaranteed to be ready, in a forgiving mood, probably even euphoric or at least easily inflamed. The audience has a much finer nose for the quality of performances than the dumb reporters anyway.
So, out with the text and into the weekend… The 2nd division will have to wait (and possibly be cancelled completely; no Hertha, no fun?!).
2) The 2nd Bundesliga
a. The standings
Please be patient. In the first few weeks, the workload was significantly higher with regard to these texts. The 2nd league will be included soon, without adding a “promised”.
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 league third place team has against the first league third last.
c. Point expectations and discrepancies
d. Evaluation of the 5th second division matchday
e. Preview of the 7th Second League Matchday