1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of Matchday 5
FC Augsburg – Bayer Leverkusen 1:4 (1:2)
FC Bayern Munich – SC Freiburg 7:0 (3:0)
Borussia Dortmund – Hertha BSC 1:2 (0:0)
Borussia Mönchengladbach – 1. FC Kaiserslautern 1:0 (0:0)
VfB Stuttgart – Hannover 96 3:0 (1:0)
FSV Mainz 05 – TSG Hoffenheim 0:4 (0:2)
Werder Bremen – Hamburger SV 2:0 (0:0)
1.FC Köln – 1.FC Nürnberg 1:2 (1:2)
VfL Wolfsburg – FC Schalke 04 2:1 (1:1)
General assessment:
The football that is currently on offer in the Bundesliga is really on an excellent level, and there is no shortage of entertainment in any respect, as long as it is purely about footballing matters. There is everything that could sweep a true football fan off his or her feet. Contested matches, surprises in the sense of underdog victories, but also in dramatic match progressions, successful tackles but also successful attacking actions, the attacker overcoming the goalkeeper but also the other way round, the shot blocked by a world-class save. Regret can only be expressed to every Sky subscriber for having to endure – God forbid – the commentators. But, the advice already given for many years by everyone to urgently turn off the sound cannot be followed here anyway, as one urgently needs certain information (of which one actually gets meaningful ones spoken in facts from time to time), but also as one is already sharpening both pen and tongue to vent about the experienced ordeals.
It is truly unbearable and can only be recited here again and again in the very slim hope that one day you would be better entertained after all. Every commentator has no intention at all of conveying excitement to you. He freezes in sober objectivity, with the intention of making the events on the field inevitable, which a) is absolutely not the case and b) even if it were, it would bore you so much that you wouldn’t watch it anyway, so he could pin the analyses and assessments to his own bedspread to pray them up and down in his sleep and not forget anything, but he couldn’t present them any more, because the sport of football would have been frozen for a long time.
How does one come to repeat such affirmations today? Well, on the one hand, there is the assertion that although football, like the dinosaur egg, cannot be broken, even if one uses hammers (commentaries), axes (interviews) and saws (analyses), in fact NOBODY in this country listens any more. One would like to exchange views on how others feel about it, but this project fails because there is NOBODY who has actually not only watched a game (which would be an absolute exception, since one simply CAN’T look at the drivel that reaches one’s ears), but who has also endured this eardrum and logical thinking harassment throughout, so that one would have a basis for conversation. So: it doesn’t work.
It is already possible that there is a fan here and there who watches AND listens to a game of his team. It’s just that this fan is assumed to be biased, to have experienced and seen and heard everything from one point of view. So he will have been upset about a misjudgement, but this will have affected a player, an action of his team. He will have been even more upset about the action that was stopped by the referee and, even if this was justified, he will have missed the fact that there was the same situation on the other side with the same result.
No, the question here is about the spectator, the listener, who watches a football match for the joy of the sport of football, out of enthusiasm for the game of football, independent of any passions (which, by the way, could also be conjured up quite easily with only the smallest bets) or supporters. Does it exist? It does not exist. And at this point, at the latest, those responsible at Sky should start to think: how can football be brought back to the people? How could they convey real enthusiasm and passion in the knowledge that it is simply not being watched as it currently comes across? How would you have to act as a market shouter if the eggs you had been buying every day for a long time were identified as rotten and you NOW had to sell your goods to the man, if it was no longer enough just to stand there, if these goods were no longer snatched out of your hand, if you still wanted to sell a sham package, just like selling a cat?
So what exactly triggered this latest excursion? It was actually two facts, and the interested reader should not insist that it is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY about the Bundesliga. On Tuesday and Wednesday there was the Champions League. The German teams – see above, the quality of German football – were granted international competitiveness (unlike in many years before, even if there were successes now and then) and were given a lot of credit. Leverkusen also showed this at Chelsea, as all commentators agreed, but still received no reward in the form of points. Dortmund, too, played an outstanding game against Arsenal, and the satisfaction about the 1-1 result was only due to the fact that they managed to keep the one point at least until the end, otherwise the frustration would have been at its maximum: they played their opponents to the wall, but still lost. The equaliser in the 88th saved them from that. Nevertheless, it was bad luck that this great performance was not rewarded.
Incidentally, the betting market saw Dortmund fall further and further – thus confirming the assessment – and the price closed at around 1.86 at kick-off, so that the betting market also recognised (and confirmed) a quite clear favourite position. A 1.86 already speaks for more than 50% pure chance of victory, which therefore speaks quite clearly for the circumstances. The market was not wrong, the result did not correspond to the course of the game and not to the conditions on the pitch. The “can happen” is of course always a possible judgement.
Chelsea were rated as higher favourites against Leverkusen, with 1.56 at kick-off, but could not really back up this level of favouritism (here too the market corrected towards Leverkusen). The 0:2 score did not quite correspond to the deserved result here either, even if everyone concedes that of course this can also happen and that one would rather orient oneself on the performance, not so much on the result.
In any case, the claim stands here that Dortmund presented themselves as higher favourites against Arsenal than Chelsea did over the 90 minutes on the pitch against Leverkusen. The results speak a different language, but that’s just how objectivity works (which you assume yourself to be). It’s all about judgements here, and forming them is an important step if you want to get serious about the betting market (and maybe even get into it).
It is strange when the author himself always tries not to use the first person although much is told from his own experience. Therefore, here is a little first-person excursus:
I had actually placed some money on the German teams. In this respect, the verdict will probably be thrown into doubt right away, I’ll just talk myself out of my bets, so to speak: “I lost both games, but both bets were good. Basta.” Sure, there’s always a danger, even if you’ve been in the business for many years. But it is also certain that you have already fought many battles and won and lost so many bets (each, of course, running well into the tens of thousands) that you can really pull yourself out of there gradually. The judgements were also mainly made by German speakers, but one senses, especially in player and coach interviews (not from the questioner, only from the answerer), that they are of pleasant objectivity and that THESE judgements are quite reliable. That’s exactly what came out there. Both deserved more, even if you concede that Leverkusen had their chances throughout.
However, I spent Tuesday evening in a completely different way. Not with football? Yes, with football. But neither with Chelsea – Leverkusen (only the summary later) nor with Dortmund against Arsenal. My choice fell on the even more exciting, just from the sound of the names, match Viktoria Pilzen – BATE Borisov.
I really enjoy that kind of thing. This reminds me of a little anecdote: it was in the mid-90s when I once met Grandmaster Mladen Muse at a small chess tournament (he also a football supporter) and he steered the conversation towards football. There were a number of top-class pairings in the World Cup qualifiers that evening, certainly Germany, France, Spain, Italy, England in action, partly in direct duels, but other big decisions were also on the agenda, and he asked which pairing would be important for me? I replied, “The most important match today is Malta against Luxembourg.”
There were absurdly high odds on Luxembourg and indeed – they won the match. Researchers forward!
Yes, so the game Pilzen vs Borisov was commented in Czech. This was also a pure blessing, because you can enjoy the tone of voice alone. You can just hear that these people are excited, ready for passionate outbursts at any time and in any case football fans in the positive sense. They WANT to convey excitement, they ARE excited and take every opportunity to draw the spectator into the action. They have no intention of explaining the game, explaining an action, revealing the flawed nature of an attacking move, but instead to experience the attack – and to comment on it as captivatingly as possible.
In the very long phases, as Borisov displayed the better attacking efforts, it really becomes a bit quieter. So they also make no secret of their supporters. But as soon as their own team kicked into forward gear, there were hoarse exclamations of excitement, fascinating, thrilling, tension-laden anticipation of possible success. Until the ball really did strike, just before the break and completely against the run of play. 1:0. My bet was on Borisov not to lose the game….
Well, the 2nd half was like the 1st. Borisov was the better team and they actually managed to equalise. Only in the few anxious final minutes, when the fans – and with them the commentators – really stepped up the pace, jeopardised the bet. I definitely played the right side. The odds on victory Mushrooms had to pay were around 2.0 (just below at the start of the game). This was justified and saved the evening, so to speak. However, you can hear (and see) how the German games go in the half-time analysis. Of course, also in the post-match analysis.
On Wednesday evening, my choice fell on a less nameless game. I watched Manchester City against SSC Napoli. The main reason, however, was this: now that Sky has cut the sound option for English games, the English commentary (you only hear a soporific German commentator; the difference between him commentating on an English or German game looks like this: with a German one he picks on the players a bit less, because at least he can be sure that the person hears him, can hear him later; with English ones he feels more secure, so he can pick on the players a lot more and better).
This play WAS with English commentary. It gives me such great pleasure that I just can’t help watching this game. Once you decide to play a game like this, you have to watch it like a feature film. The girlfriend has talked you into watching a film, now you have to watch, but as soon as you do, you can find your way into it. You’re bound to discover something that makes it worth watching. And: it can become a story. Both in a film and in a football match. An Englishman has nothing else in mind. He wants to entertain the viewer. He doesn’t WANT to know everything in advance, he wants to remain tense, he wants to remain objective. He wants to go along, capture the tension and transport it into the viewer’s living room. And he doesn’t want to explain the game of football to you under any circumstances. He sees what he sees and describes it as best he can. THAT is enlightening, THAT radiates competence. There is something expectant in the tone throughout. You just HAVE to look when you hear them speak. It’s impossible to escape thinking, “Something is happening. Or it’s happening in the next moment.”
There was ONE SINGLE critical remark, but it was very carefully worded. A Manchester City player (Julian Lescott) got on the end of a precise corner kick quite unchallenged for a header. The header went over. One of the two announcers (always two) then said that if you get a chance like that at this level, you might be able to place the ball a bit better. Well, since it was the only critical remark (whereas with us they clearly go in the direction of uncountable, since they are continuous teachings that you get, the players on the field with them, of course) you have some reason to actually think about whether he could be right about that. One wonders why he says something critical, to that extent one listens. In the replay, he puts the statement – pleasantly uncommented by the other commentator, by the way – into perspective by recognising that in order to get to the header, the man has to run one or two steps backwards, away from the goal, which makes the possible, so to speak demanded precision somewhat more difficult. Nevertheless, you can’t help it: you think about whether he could have done better. And this differs at most from a German commentary, where you would merely prefer to temporarily replace your punching bag with this…, at the latest after the fifth grouchy saying, of which you know anyway that it is nothing but stupid smartassery.
Otherwise, the game was just great. It went back and forth constantly (by the way, there was a second reason for the choice: I don’t deny a certain devotion to Italy and Italian teams, to Italian football as a whole), Napoli also played very bravely forward throughout, thus underpinning their own assessment that a 1.39 as a winning price was far too low on Man City, and that they could now easily pay it under any circumstances, it was still much lower than Chelsea’s against Leverkusen. Surely the Italians can’t have suddenly become that bad?
Napoli had several excellent chances, including one when one of their highly-rated attackers, the long-suffering Argentine Ezequiel Lavezzi, now 26, took a clearance on the edge of the box so excellently that he got a clear run, even if there were still three defenders around him. He has this outstanding shooting technique, however, that he managed to take a flick with his right outside arm that came unparalleled for the keeper but unfortunately bounced off the crossbar. The biggest chance went to the visitors.
Nevertheless, they did not let up. Man City, of course, also had some pressure phases and great actions, so that one had to expect an impact at any time. But Napoli were able to break free again and again and in their own actions, which were carried out as fast as lightning and with sure passing, they were always able to create a goal threat. In fact, well past the 60th minute, they took a 1-0 lead when one of those actions, which even resulted in overtime play (that’s how fearless they were going forward), allowed a player to get free in front of the goalkeeper and tunnel home.
Man City once again stepped up their efforts and came up with more promising actions. A free-kick in the half-right position, 25 yards from goal, sent two players forward to take it. One of them was already about to be substituted, but he stayed on for the action – and he alone flicked the ball with his left foot so irresistibly, but also so easily looking, into the short corner, where even the goalkeeper lost any reaction: You really couldn’t get close to that now.
The over, which had been placed as a safeguard before the equaliser, now came to life. A goal was still needed, but a rich reward beckoned. Of course, the goal should not have been scored by Man City (then only a small profit would have remained), but please, please, Napoli. That would make for a real jackpot. There were still 15 minutes to go and of course the biggest worry was that Man City would manage it after all. So: better clearly 1:1 than 2:1, optimally 1:2 (or even 2:2, no difference).
Napoli still didn’t hide, but the worry didn’t decrease, because they moved up with five, six players every time, but then were extremely endangered at the back every time the action didn’t finish. On one occasion there was a chance to hit the jackpot when the Man City right-back played a short back pass to his keeper, a Napoli attacker got in the way but was pushed too far out (outside the penalty area!) by the oncoming goalkeeper and failed to finish. Nevertheless: until the last minute – as the English commentators also recognised – Napoli tried (“they are going for the winner here”), but it remained at 1-1. A fantastic football match, with excellent commentary, which of course is always quite easy to say when you have won (money).
The table situation
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 FC Bayern Munich 5 4 0 1 12 16 – 1 +15
2 Werder Bremen 5 4 0 1 12 11 – 5 +6
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 5 3 1 1 10 7 – 3 +4
4 Bayer Leverkusen 5 3 1 1 10 6 – 3 +3
5 TSG Hoffenheim 5 3 0 2 9 9 – 4 +5
6 FC Schalke 04 5 3 0 2 9 11 – 8 +3
7 1.FC Nürnberg 5 3 0 2 9 5 – 5 +0
8 Hertha BSC 5 2 2 1 8 6 – 5 +1
9 Hannover 96 5 2 2 1 8 6 – 7 -1
10 VfB Stuttgart 5 2 1 2 7 7 – 3 +4
11 Borussia Dortmund 5 2 1 2 7 6 – 4 +2
12 FSV Mainz 05 5 2 1 2 7 7 – 10 -3
13 VfL Wolfsburg 5 2 0 3 6 – 9 -3
14 SC Freiburg 5 1 1 3 4 9 – 16 -7
15 1.FC Köln 5 1 1 3 4 7 – 14 -7
16 FC Augsburg 5 0 2 3 4 – 10 -6
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 5 0 2 3 2 – 8 -6
18 Hamburger SV 5 0 1 4 1 6 – 16 -10
131 131 0
Total number of games 45
Goals ø 2.91
Bayern with this fantastic goal difference and still the only one goal conceded, which you have to have if a defeat appears in the balance, from the opening game against Mönchengladbach. But also Werder with very good performances, crowned with victories, behind them already the specially chosen favourite.
At the bottom of the table, HSV (which has nevertheless strengthened) will (allegedly) free itself from the bottom if such performances continue. Well, as little as this correlation can be confirmed (any answers to enquiries about what will happen can only ever come out with the best possible estimate of probability), one can at least agree to the extent that they have shown Bundesliga level. But so do other teams, yet 2 1/3 have to be relegated, and that can include, with the chances to be read later, all of them, so also HSV.
If you like, the sensation is the performance of Hertha, who even managed to get past the champions with their really great victory in Dortmund. At least we can take credit for having somewhat anticipated Hertha’s good development here and even manually put them on top.
.
It is also confirmed that it would be nonsensical to assess the teams on the basis of last year’s performance. We’re starting from scratch and old burdens from a messed-up season and laurels earned from an excellent season don’t count for anything. Nevertheless, the order in the table seems higher than a year ago. A table picture presumably always seems “natural” when Bayern are in front?
The season is still young and what is actually always true applies: one can be curious about the development, or also lead the imperial “Schaun mer mal”.
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 (also given in the text below) and the final table is used to determine the winner.
Team Number of German champions in 5000 simulations Championships in percent Fair odds as reciprocal of probabilities
FC Bayern Munich 3518 70.36% 1.42
Borussia Dortmund 585 11.70% 8.55
Bayer Leverkusen 395 7.90% 12.66
Werder Bremen 175 3.50% 28.57
FC Schalke 04 102 2.04% 49.02
Borussia Mönchengladbach 52 1.04% 96.15
TSG Hoffenheim 45 0.90% 111.11
VfB Stuttgart 36 0.72% 138.89
Hannover 96 25 0.50% 200.00
VfL Wolfsburg 24 0.48% 208.33
Hertha BSC 20 0.40% 250.00
FSV Mainz 05 15 0.30% 333.33
1.FC Nuremberg 7 0.14% 714.29
SC Freiburg 1 0.02% 5000.00
1.FC Cologne 0 0.00%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0 0.00%
Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
5000 100.00%
Well, the commentator can’t get a word in edgewise. The Bavarians excel at everything. This looks like boredom. Since the betting exchange betfair obviously always foresees such a development, suspects it. considers it possible, there is the betting offer right from the start: “Winner without Bayern Munich.” So that must surely be taken up soon, at least the qualification for the Champions League. Here, on the title question, it really smells of boredom.
Change of chances compared to the previous week due to the results of matchday 5.
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
FC Bayern Munich 790 15.80%
Bayer Leverkusen 67 1.34%
TSG Hoffenheim 14 0.28%
Hertha BSC 13 0.26%
VfB Stuttgart 8 0.16%
Werder Bremen 8 0.16%
1.FC Nuremberg 1 0.02%
VfL Wolfsburg 1 0.02%
1.FC Cologne 0 0.00%
Hamburger SV 0 0.00%
1.FC Kaiserslautern -1 -0.02%
FC Augsburg -1 -0.02%
SC Freiburg -1 -0.02%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -4 -0.08%
FSV Mainz 05 -49 -0.98%
Hannover 96 -63 -1.26%
FC Schalke 04 -95 -1.90%
Borussia Dortmund -688 -13.76%
0 0.00%
This result is also overwhelmingly clear. Bayern with a 7:0 compared to a home defeat of the only serious rival. On the one hand it brings 15.8%, on the other hand it costs 13.76%. If you are surprised that Gladbach, for example, loses chances, then on the one hand we should point out the randomness of simulations, and on the other hand the fact that victories by the favourite can cost everyone chances at some point, no matter how high they win themselves. Just imagine the situation towards the end of the season when the leader with a 6-point lead draws before the penultimate matchday, but the runner-up wins clearly. Then all chances are gone, despite a good versus a bad result. You always have to take into account that Gladbach already had quite good chances. Whereas, for example, Nuremberg or Wolfsburg – who also had tougher games – first had to create any at all. The 1:0 for MG compared to the 7:0 of Bayern is not suitable for a gain.
c. The title chances in the development
Well, who says? That’s a vivid way of looking at it.
d. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)FC Bayern Munich 1.41 1.42 70.92%
Borussia Dortmund 8.2 8.4 12.20%
Bayer Leverkusen 18.5 19 5.41%
VfL Wolfsburg 85 95 1.18%
Hannover 96 210 400 0.48%
Werder Bremen 32 36 3.13%
FC Schalke 04 28 29 3.57%
Hamburger SV 700 1000 0.14%
VfB Stuttgart 85 90 1.18%
FSV Mainz 05 550 700 0.18%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 90 150 1.11%
TSG Hoffenheim 85 95 1.18%
1.FC Nuremberg 300 700 0.33%
1.FC Cologne 700 1000 0.14%
SC Freiburg 1000 1500 0.10%
Hertha BSC 330 700 0.30%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 700 1000 0.14%
FC Augsburg 800 1000 0.13%
101.81%
At least the assessments are getting closer to each other, no, are almost the same for the two top candidates.
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 10.68
Borussia Dortmund -9.54
Bayer Leverkusen -0.30%
VfL Wolfsburg -0.25%
Hannover 96 -0.70%
Werder Bremen 1.80%
FC Schalke 04 -0.28%
Hamburger SV -0.08%
VfB Stuttgart -0.49%
FSV Mainz 05 -1.00%
Borussia Mönchengladbach -1.16%
TSG Hoffenheim -0.25%
1.FC Nuremberg 0.20%
1.FC Cologne -0.03%
SC Freiburg -0.07%
Hertha BSC 0.16%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.00%
FC Augsburg 0.02%
-1.30%
(Again, the order according to the original rankings).
Here the changes are more moderate. In a way, the betting market says: “We knew who would be champion.” There are no rough adjustments. Bayern wins “only” a good 10%, Dortmund, loses “only” as many. The rest, we may say here, is “far from it”.
e. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 5
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
Borussia Dortmund 1298 25.96%
Bayer Leverkusen 983 19.66%
FC Bayern Munich 803 16.06%
Werder Bremen 549 10.98%
FC Schalke 04 324 6.48%
TSG Hoffenheim 207 4.14%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 181 3.62%
VfB Stuttgart 162 3.24%
Hannover 96 129 2.58%
VfL Wolfsburg 122 2.44%
Hertha BSC 93 1.86%
FSV Mainz 05 87 1.74%
1.FC Nuremberg 40 0.80%
SC Freiburg 9 0.18%
1.FC Cologne 5 0.10%
1.FC Kaiserslautern 4 0.08%
Hamburger SV 4 0.08%
FC Augsburg 0 0.00%
5000 100.00%
At least the statistics are recorded for the first time. Dortmund have become favourites for 2nd place, Bayern are down in 3rd place in the rankings. Logical. After all, they will be champions, right? We can still expect some movement here, as the table is anything but boring without Bayern. Good chances also for some outsiders, only Augsburg can’t make it, according to the computer, not in 5000 years.
The changes compared to the previous week:
There’s next week…
f. 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 relegated is added by the relegation, whereby just the first division team is generally rated as 2/3 to 1/3 favourite against the second division team. This makes the total number of relegated teams equal to 233.33%. In individual cases, of course, it would be different in reality. So if, for example, Frankfurt were to finish 3rd in League 2 and Augsburg 16th in League 1, one could perhaps speak of a balanced pairing.
Team Direct relegation (17th or 18th place) Relegation by relegation Total1 FC Augsburg 56.66% 4.85% 61.51%
2 1.FC Kaiserslautern 39.84% 5.27% 45.11%
3 Hamburger SV 29.70% 4.79% 34.49%
4 1.FC Cologne 29.06% 5.29% 34.35%
5 SC Freiburg 21.80% 4.51% 26.31%
6 1.FC Nuremberg 5.92% 1.77% 7.69%
7 FSV Mainz 05 4.48% 1.59% 6.07%
8 Hertha BSC 3.18% 1.07% 4.25%
9 VfL Wolfsburg 2.46% 0.95% 3.41%
10 Hanover 96 2.02% 0.89% 2.91%
11 VfB Stuttgart 1.68% 0.69% 2.37%
12 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.20% 0.53% 1.73%
13 TSG Hoffenheim 1.06% 0.56% 1.62%
14 FC Schalke 04 0.60% 0.34% 0.94%
15 Werder Bremen 0.22% 0.13% 0.35%
16 Bayer Leverkusen 0.08% 0.07% 0.15%
17 Borussia Dortmund 0.04% 0.04% 0.08%
18 FC Bayern Munich 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
The question: does the order make sense? Augsburg top candidate, who wanted to deny that at the moment? They have shown some good games, including that one on Friday. The 1:4 was, according to uniform opinion “too high”. Nevertheless, this is exactly the rough patch of the Bundesliga. You don’t get anything for free. And: once you’re not at the back, the ball is in. At some point it’s a bit like in chess: once a victim has been chosen in a round robin tournament, everyone pounces on him. You have to win against him. The poor guy has no time to catch his breath.
Well, sure, there are 56.66% accounted for. That’s a lot and it’s clearly the top position. Still, of course, it’s quite easy to hang on to. If one may remember, the now third-placed team, Gladbach’s Borussia, came very close to 100% several times last season — and still managed to save themselves in the end. So: it’s far too early to lean further out the window than 56.66%. One good game, one more good result — even if without a good game, just the way the ball rolls sometimes — and the odds go up. Let’s see…
Lautern on 2, and thus ahead of HSV. Well, in terms of points they are only one better off and somewhere the computer insists on a somewhat higher potential, so to speak. The last time they tried to prove it was in Bremen.
FC Köln is in 4th place. Yes, where else would they be? After the not exactly exhilarating performance against Nuremberg, the numerous supporters are surely worried again – especially in Cologne a constant up and down. But they still have the higher points total and both from potential seen and performances shown they can hardly be ahead of one of the top three.
SC Freiburg, too, have been 0:7 and have gained a top position. Even if it happened at the overpowering Bayern….
At 6 then Nuremberg. Well, who else? As soon as you look behind it, you notice that there is no one who deserves this position. Except Hertha, if at all. However, a win in Dortmund is still worth more than one in Cologne, isn’t it?
The fact that Hertha even left Mainz behind is due to their blatant result of 0:4, even if this had far less to do with dissolution symptoms than it sounds.
Bayern got themselves to 0%, which kind of makes sense….
The rest shall remain uncommented.
The change in chances due to the results of matchday 5 in terms of relegation
Team Change in chances1 SC Freiburg -7.02%
2 FC Augsburg -5.53
3 1.FC Cologne -4.42%
4 FSV Mainz 05 -2.73%
5 Hamburger SV -2.07%
6 1.FC Kaiserslautern -1.87%
7 Hannover 96 -1.10%
8 FC Schalke 04 -0.34%
9 Borussia Dortmund -0.07%
10 FC Bayern Munich 0.01%
11 Bayer Leverkusen 0.23%
12 Werder Bremen 0.82%
13 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.38%
14 VfL Wolfsburg 3.17%
15 TSG Hoffenheim 3.23%
16 VfB Stuttgart 4.25%
17 1.FC Nuremberg 4.74%
18 Hertha BSC 7.33%
0.00%
The loser is the one who loses 0:7. That is the (comprehensible) computer logic. Augsburg lose at home, 1:4. Even if against a top team, that costs. Cologne also loses at home, which is also a cut. And Mainz loses 0:4 and gets involved in the relegation battle. HSV continues to lose, which is also not helpful. Lautern lose at Gladbach. Costs, but not so much any more. Hannover with a 0:3, also they can, according to computer view, “join in” again.
Winner, who else? Berlin’s Hertha, “la vecchia signora”, as the old lady (Juve) calls herself in a favourite destination of the Germans, really caused a furore. How long had Dortmund not lost at home? Well, in the capital you couldn’t mention it often enough….
Nuremberg also a big winner, with a victory BEYOND a rival. VfB Stuttgart win 3:0 and make up plenty of ground (remember last season with them too, where it smelled of utmost danger for a long time).
g. The relegation question in development
“Ladies and gentlemen, as you see, you see nothing.”
Do you?
h. The point expectations and the deviations.
Explanation: for each match the computer has calculated the odds 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 absolute1 Werder Bremen 8.13 12 3.87 3.87
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 6.19 10 3.81 3.81
3 TSG Hoffenheim 5.92 9 3.08 3.08
4 1.FC Nürnberg 6.20 9 2.80 2.80
5 Hertha BSC 5.25 8 2.75 2.75
6 Bayer Leverkusen 7.73 10 2.27 2.27
7 FC Schalke 04 7.39 9 1.61 1.61
8 FC Bayern Munich 11.01 12 0.99 0.99
9 VfB Stuttgart 6.95 7 0.05 0.05
10 Hannover 96 7.96 8 0.04 0.04
11 FSV Mainz 05 7.06 7 -0.06 0.06
12 VfL Wolfsburg 6.94 6 -0.94 0.94
13 SC Freiburg 5.05 4 -1.05 1.05
14 1.FC Köln 6.23 4 -2.23 2.23
15 Borussia Dortmund 9.99 7 -2.99 2.99
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 5.29 2 -3.29 3.29
17 FC Augsburg 5.70 2 -3.70 3.70
18 Hamburger SV 5.59 1 -4.59 4.59
2.42 40.09
ø Deviation 2.23SV Werder are right at the front. “What’s green and smells like fish?” No, now that’s really mean. Always a pleasant club, despite the brief squabbles at the start of the season (an exception there on the Weser). They may have given up Mertesacker, but Naldo was back. The quality is in the squad. Nothing is reminiscent of last season, where things sputtered at every turn. The victory against HSV was expectedly (here pronounced) difficult, but in a way very unerringly forced. Play your opponents tired, keep working, and eventually you’ll succeed, despite the fiercest opposition. Four wins in five games means maximum surpassing of expectations (taking second place overall).
Behind them, the highly praised Gladbach Borussia. Of course. This victory against Lautern was also very comparable to Bremen’s against HSV. Continuously worked and at some point made the goal, forced it if you like. This was also a great game of football, because Lautern stepped up the pace after the 0:1, where it could have rattled either side at any time.
Hoffenheim are also playing a cracking season and would be another example of: “What do we care about the nonsense we played in pre-season?” I wonder if it really has anything to do with Holger Stanislawski. Somehow he makes a cool impression. However, the kicker’s opinion that he had something to complain about in the 4-0 win is not shared here, and he was only trying to remain serious. One thing is the guidelines and the play of one’s own team, the other is the result. To establish an inevitable connection between the two is superficial and far too easily done on the reporter’s side. On the other hand, one can readily find confirmation here that it becomes easier to point out mistakes in moments of (clear) victory. The players are more receptive than in a defeat, when they are already at odds with themselves and the world. Otherwise: “You won clearly, sure. But don’t think I’m satisfied. You can do much better. Then maybe we’ll win ALWAYS in the future.”
As you can see, Bayern have a pretty hard time getting into a top position. It’s kind of like how the 2010 and 2011 Berlin Chess Champion, René Stern, goes into the tournament: even if he comes 1st, he’s far from having exceeded his expectations. In chess, this is expressed in box scores and expectations. In football, since Dirk Paulsen, there has also been a system to make this measurable. So Bayern are only 0.99 points above expectations, despite first place and plenty of great performances.
HSV remains at the bottom, but Augsburg is also “creeping up on us.”
The international comparison for the average point difference
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 2.23 0.52
Italy 1.02 —
Spain 1.30 0.39
France 2.20 0.43
England 1.91 0.08
Germany, 2.BL 3.28 0.15
Well, long admitted: this statistic is outdated or not really informative. It clearly depends on the number of matches played. As you can see in a statistic further down, the computer always expects a certain deviation (the statistic of the expected goal deviation provides information). This is also the case with the points. It is certain that after many match days something can be read off, because the match numbers are then no longer so different in percentage terms. Or one would have to get very serious here in the search for a suitable algorithm that would reveal what one wants to see: are there more surprises in Germany than elsewhere? Is the league therefore more “exciting”?
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 deviation1 FC Bayern Munich 11.74 16 4.68 1 7.94
2 TSG Hoffenheim 6.17 9 7.60 4 6.43
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 6.93 7 8.58 3 5.65
4 Werder Bremen 8.81 11 6.89 5 4.07
5 VfB Stuttgart 7.69 7 7.65 3 3.96
6 Hertha BSC 5.80 6 8.40 5 3.61
7 FC Schalke 04 7.01 11 6.23 8 2.23
8 Bayer Leverkusen 7.59 6 6.33 3 1.74
9 1.FC Nürnberg 5.97 5 7.10 5 1.13
10 Hannover 96 7.98 6 6.38 7 -2.60
11 Borussia Dortmund 8.75 6 4.12 4 -2.63
12 VfL Wolfsburg 6.79 6 6.70 9 -3.09
13 FSV Mainz 05 6.99 7 6.75 10 -3.24
14 1.FC Kaiserslautern 5.82 2 8.41 8 -3.41
15 SC Freiburg 5.48 9 8.73 16 -3.75
16 FC Augsburg 5.07 4 6.64 10 -4.44
17 1.FC Köln 6.69 7 7.72 14 -5.96
18 Hamburger SV 6.49 6 8.88 16 -7.61
127.76 131 127.76 131 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 4.08
2.84 2.91 After all, Bayern have come out on top here, where every single goal counts. Hoffenheim moved up to second place with the 4:0. Gladbach also well above expectation, as well as Werder, Stuttgart, Hertha and Schalke. You can see all that.
HSV is still at the bottom, of course, but Cologne is also staking claims to this less desirable place. Augsburg are also clearly lacking results.
Rank Country Liga 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week
1 Germany, 1.BL 4.08 1.64
2 Italy 1 1.27 —
3 Spain 1 1.69 0.31
4 England 1 3.04 0.02
5 France 1 1.77 0.07
6 Germany, 2.BL 4.32 0.14
Equally unrevealing these statistics, at least this early in the season. However, you can see the clear rise in League 1, which is of course due to the surprisingly high results at the weekend. The 7:0, for example, but also Hertha’s win in Dortmund produces a high deviation here, the 0:4 of Mainz also, so also, in terms of the height or construction of the results, the 1st German Bundesliga is “always good for a surprise”.
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 the offensive strength, which is measured in expected goals scored, and the defensive strength, which is measured in expected goals conceded. The quotient of these two values is the measure of playing strength. The more expected goals scored, the higher the value; the fewer expected goals conceded, the higher the value.
Team For Against Quotient For/Counter Change in Quotient Shift1 FC Bayern Munich 2.18 0.91 2.40 +0.24 +0
2 Borussia Dortmund 1.62 0.86 1.88 -0.16 +0
3 Bayer Leverkusen 1.65 1.15 1.44 +0.06 +0
4 FC Schalke 04 1.44 1.22 1.18 -0.03 +0
5 Werder Bremen 1.64 1.40 1.17 +0.02 +0
6 VfB Stuttgart 1.57 1.48 1.06 -0.08 +4
7 TSG Hoffenheim 1.46 1.39 1.05 +0.02 +4
8 VfL Wolfsburg 1.41 1.35 1.04 -0.09 -1
9 Hannover 96 1.40 1.39 1.00 +0.00 -3
10 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.38 1.39 0.99 +0.09 -1
11 Hertha BSC 1.34 1.42 0.94 +0.08 +1
12 FSV Mainz 05 1.39 1.51 0.92 +0.07 -4
13 1.FC Nürnberg 1.19 1.43 0.83 +0.02 +0
14 Hamburger SV 1.27 1.73 0.73 -0.06 +1
15 SC Freiburg 1.28 1.75 0.73 -0.03 -1
16 1.FC Köln 1.33 1.90 0.70 -0.02 +0
17 1.FC Kaiserslautern 1.08 1.63 0.66 -0.01 +0
18 FC Augsburg 0.92 1.59 0.58 -0.03 +0
25.525 25.52 +0
Goals ø expected
2.836 Well, a huge gap gapes between Dortmund and Bayern. As much as it is understandable that it has come to this, we don’t know the answer to the question of whether it could have been foreseen. The betting market, at any rate, has…
Augsburg are pulling away at the bottom. Can they turn it around again? Otherwise, it is noticeable that Gladbach, for example, loses a place, despite a win. The simple reason: two rivals close to them won much higher. Stuttgart and Hoffenheim with 3:0 and 4:0 respectively. Since it is very close in the middle, something like that can happen. Wolfsburg also lose a place compared to these two, despite the really amazing win against Schalke – which of course you would have thought they had here, pointing last week to the potential and the “chance to prove themselves” that the computer gives them.
HSV gain a place, thanks only to Freiburg’s 0:7.
k. The frequency of tendency changes
Note: a “change of tendency” is considered to be a goal which equalises a lead or gives 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:
Leverkusen turned the game against Augsburg from 0:1 to 4:1. That makes two changes in tendency.
Wolfsburg turned the game against Schalke, 2:1 after 0:1, makes two more.
All the others were one-way streets. The nil games are not eligible for a change of tendency anyway, the other two games in which both teams scored at least one goal were Cologne – Nuremberg and Dortmund – Hertha. The two goals were identical in character: in each case it was 1:2 after 0:2, in each case for the home team. Of course, as mentioned several times before, such goals are suitable for creating suspense, but (unfairly) they do not count in this category here. Therefore, only four changes of tendency are included in the statistics. If a new system were to be devised, each goal would have to be given a value in terms of the tension generated. Accordingly, a widening lead would be responsible for boredom, i.e. it would have a very low to zero value (intuitively speaking), while every goal that reduces the gap would have an increasing value. Thus, a 1:3 goal would have to be valued higher than a 1:4 goal, while the goals scored at 1:2 would have an even higher value, but this value would be nowhere near as high as an equalising goal. However, it is questionable whether a goal that is scored to make it 2-1, for example, should be rated higher if the team that scored it was even behind beforehand (although games that have just been turned around could possibly be rated higher in terms of the perceived tension than those in which only a temporary equaliser stood in the way of victory, i.e. a sequence of goals 0:1, 1:1, 2:1 is more likely to be remembered by the fan than one of the type 1:0, 1:1, 2:1).
Also for the change of tendency every week the foreign comparison:
A look back at the last season should keep the “averages” in mind and serve for comparison purposes. League 1 was far ahead, but the English Premier League had still slipped in between League 1 and League 2.
Do the values converge with the previous values over the course of a season or is everything subject to the famous chaos principle? Sometimes this way, sometimes that and nothing that fundamentally distinguishes the leagues?
2010/2011 season
Country Matches Compensation HF AF Total per match
1st Bundesliga 306 158 60 49 267 0.873
England 380 198 66 46 310 0.816
2nd Bundesliga 306 145 56 41 242 0.791
Italy 380 169 58 48 275 0.724
France 380 175 49 40 264 0.695
Spain 380 146 48 46 240 0.632
Season 2011/2012
Country Matches Equalisation Home leads Away leads Total per match
Germany 1 45 22 9 6 37 0.822
England 39 10 3 2 15 0.385
Germany 2 63 25 11 5 41 0.651
Italy 10 7 1 3 11 1,100
France 50 25 6 7 38 0.760
Spain 20 9 4 1 14 0.700
League Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goals Away Leading Goals Total Trend Change per Match1 Italy 1 10 7 1 3 11 1,100
2 Germany 1 45 22 9 6 37 0.822
3 France 1 50 25 6 7 38 0.760
4 Spain 1 20 9 4 1 14 0.700
5 Germany 2 63 25 11 5 41 0.651
6 England 1 39 10 3 2 15 0.385
In the 2nd league there were the following exciting games (with the tendency changes): Cottbus led 2:0 and 3:1, but still conceded the 3:3 from Frankfurt in the last minute. Only one change of tendency, but a spectacular game (see above; Frankfurt comes close twice, finally manages it).
St. Pauli turned the game around against 1860. Although this was only twice (equaliser, lead), it was of course also of higher value in terms of excitement content, because: they were 0:2 behind and won 4:2.
Union also turned the game around against Ingolstadt from 0:1 to 4:1.
In addition, FSV Frankfurt equalised the 0:1 at home against Aue.
In total, 6 changes of tendency, in a way a standard value.
England remains the “problem child” in terms of excitement. Again only 4 changes of tendency in 10 games. Everton conceded the equaliser from Aston Villa, took the lead again, but still couldn’t win. 2:2 with 3 changes of tendency.
Otherwise only Fulham equalised at home to Blackburn Rovers.
In France there were 7: Ajaccio were behind at home against Valenciennes, but won 3:1. Lorient equalised at Sochaux, the score remained 1-1. Lille turned the game around at St.Etienne and Dijon equalised at home against Lyon, but lost 1:2 in the end.
In Italy, Milan were already 2-0 down against Lazio (yes, one Klose), but the game ended 2-2. Cesena equalised at home against Napoli, but lost 3-1 in the end. Chievo were already 2-0 up against promoted Novara, but the game ended 2-2. Genoa FC took a 1-0 lead against Atalanta Bergamo, were 2-1 down later and equalised again. A 2:2 with three changes of tendency.
The most dramatic match, not only in terms of result and number of goals but also in terms of pairing and outcome was of course the Palermo – Inter match. Inter took the lead, Palermo equalised, Inter took the lead again, Palermo equalised again. The 2:2 in the 54th, in the 86th the 3:2 for Palermo, 88th 4:2, and in the 90th still the (insignificant, not counting) 4:3, the connection for Inter.
In total, 11 changes of tendency in the league and guaranteed an exciting start to the season delayed by the strike.
In Spain, it looked like this: Real Sociedad managed to level a 0:2 at home against Barcelona(!). Villarreal were behind at home against Sevilla, turned it around to 2:1 and conceded the 2:2 at the end. Real Madrid conceded the 1:1 equaliser in their home win against Gijon, but won 4:2 (the 2:3 goal by Gijon is not included in the statistics). Espanyol conceded an intermediate equaliser in their 2-1 home win over Bilbao, so that in total there were a remarkable 8 changes of tendency. The 1st matchday, which was not listed here, resulted in 6 changes of tendency.
Sensationally, Italy takes the lead in this ranking for the first time. Whereas the much praised English league brings up the rear.
l. The mathematical review of the results of matchday 5
Note: here the deviation of expected goals with goals scored is calculated for each match. To determine the total deviation, the values are added up in absolute terms (not visible here, this column). So: if one team deviates positively by 0.35 goals, the other negatively by -0.62, then the absolute total deviation is 0.35 + 0.62 = 0.97 goals. To determine the average deviation, all these values are added up and divided by the number of pairings – usually 9.
Goal expectation
Home Away Total Deviation
Augsburg Leverkusen 0.86 1.50 2.36 1 4 0.14 2.50
FC Bayern Freiburg 2.79 0.79 3.58 7 0 4.21 -0.79
Dortmund Hertha 2.02 0.66 2.67 1 2 -1.02 1.34
Gladbach Kaiserslautern 1.90 0.98 2.89 1 0 -0.90 -0.98
Stuttgart Hannover 1.63 1.39 3.02 3 0 1.37 -1.39
Mainz Hoffenheim 1.65 1.25 2.90 0 4 -1.65 2.75
Bremen HSV 2.36 1.14 3.51 2 0 -0.36 -1.14
FC Cologne Nuremberg 1.52 1.31 2.82 1 2 -0.52 0.69
Wolfsburg Schalke 04 1.31 1.21 2.52 2 1 0.69 -0.21
16.04 10.23 26.26 18 13 1.96 2.77
Expected goal total Expected goal average Scored goal average
26.26 2.92 3.44 ø expected goal difference 1.90 ø goal difference 2.52
Also confirmed here: the results were too high, there were too many goals anyway (sure, yes: desirable), but also otherwise the deviations were oversized (example Dortmund -Hertha; no high result but, because of the surprise, high deviations). The average goal deviation was 2.52 goals, which is quite considerable compared to the expected one.
As a special service (again), here are some statistics from previous years regarding this goal average. Attached for today is an example from League 2.
Goal statistics of the 1st Bundesliga, 2010/2011 season across all match days
Here first in the diagram with the totals of the goals. As you can see, there were a little too many goals on the first match days compared to the expectation. 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 influenced only very moderately by this and goes down with the expected line of about 2.9 goals to 2.84 (despite the actual in-between current average of only just over 2.6 goals per game, and this after already 15 match days, i.e. 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, 2008/2009 season over all match days
Quite changeable course, this time without recognisable tendencies. First half of the season rather too many goals (like 2010/2011).
Also in this season, the lines met almost exactly. The moderate adjustment has proven its sustainability.
Goal statistics of the 2nd Bundesliga, 2010/2011 season across all match days.
Sometimes more, sometimes fewer goals. What else? Would anyone like to claim that in the first half of the season it was more often over-achieved? The only thing that could possibly be said is that on the last match days, when most of the decisions have been made, things occasionally “get out of hand”.
The development over time with the constantly updated values is interesting(er):
It always adapts, I guess (another cheer for the computer and its feeder). Nevertheless, it’s true: in the beginning there were too many, in the end too. Nevertheless, it’s quite a good line to take here, which in principle supports the computer estimates. Nevertheless, remember: don’t trust any statistics that you haven’t falsified yourself.
Nevertheless, one can say in good conscience and with an honest, pure heart: the numbers are all elicited from the computer and are still available, supposedly safely stored on a hard drive (with backup copies now and then). On request, we would be happy to include other leagues and to present them in an unbiased manner. Interested? One would already be… if only there wasn’t always the workload…
Here’s another season back, because you just can’t leave it alone (and, to be honest, you’re already hoping for bigger deviations, said in advance).
Goal statistics of the 2nd Bundesliga, season 2009/2010 over all matchdays
There is a lot of scoring, but again without any discernible trend. Sometimes too many, sometimes too few. All normal, as the statistician likes to say, and for this the real reference point is “in the normal range”. Maximum at 37, minimum at 15 goals on a match day. Well, that can happen…
In the development it looks like this:
Finally a slightly different picture. At the beginning, it was surpassed (which was not really visible to the naked eye, even if the outlier with 37 goals happened in the first half of the season), but later it was undercut and never really reached again.
Nevertheless, the pink line is quite constant, so the computer certainly doesn’t make any frantic adjustments, but it seems to have quite good reasons for doing so.
m. The fixation
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
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%For recap only above the expected numbers given in last week’s text. A favourite match day. What did the practice bring?
The determination arrived Pairing 1 X 2
Augsburg Leverkusen 21.63% 25.85% 52.52% 52.52%
FC Bayern Freiburg 78.97% 13.17% 7.85% 78.97%
Dortmund Hertha 69.54% 19.38% 11.08% 11.08%
Gladbach Kaiserslautern 59.01% 21.77% 19.21% 59.01%
Stuttgart Hannover 43.70% 23.53% 32.77% 43.70%
Mainz Hoffenheim 47.01% 23.77% 29.21% 29.21%
Bremen HSV 64.53% 18.39% 17.08% 64.53%
FC Cologne Nuremberg 42.49% 24.46% 33.06% 33.06%
Wolfsburg Schalke 04 39.19% 26.27% 34.54% 39.19%
4.66 1.97 2.37 4.11
average determination received: 45.70%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 would definitely be nothing new.
It was curious that one of the two heavyweights lost at home – please remember that teams for whom the Champions League is not an everyday occurrence often do not perform as well as usual before these major events, and Dortmund had been out for seven years – yet expectations were exceeded in terms of favourite victories. So Leverkusen as well as Bayern, Gladbach and Werder won and thus even fewer surprises arrived than one would have had to assume before (thus the stupid computer).
n. Overall league statistics
Note: such statistics are 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, with goal expectations of 1.77:1.25, this would be 3 – 1.77 = 1.23 for Mainz plus 4 – 1.25 = 2.75 for Gladbach, i.e. a total of 3.98 goal deviation) and carry out this procedure for each match result, you get the expected average goal deviation.
1st Football Bundesliga 2011/2012
Statistics of the actual results Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals conceded Home advantage
45 21 8 16 76 55 1.160
Statistics of expected results Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
45 21.24 10.41 13.34 73.5 54.28 1.150
Statistics of absolute deviations Matches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 -0.24 -2.41 2.66 2.52 0.72 0.01002
Percentage deviation statisticsMatches Home wins Draws Away wins Goals Conceded Home advantage
0 -1.14% -30.13% 16.63% 3.32% 1.31% 0.86%
Determination expected Determination arrived
39.90% 40.77%
ø Goal difference ø Goal difference expected
2.08 1.88 If there are any conspicuous features, they are: too few draws, which would like to remain a trend, but would then be gradually mapped by the computer due to the permanent adjustments made (i.e.: the expected number of draws would gradually go down according to those that occurred). The 30% looks a lot, but in absolute terms it is only 2.41. So: two matchdays with a little too many, and everything would be “back on track”.
The average goal deviation is not exactly perfect either, but that was already discussed above. There were just outlier results in every respect, which make these statistics unfavourable in a certain way. By the way, what the statistician would have at his disposal, apart from your shrugging of the shoulders, for such observations is to doubt the underlying expectations. Well, if one does this, it is advisable to make one’s own forecasts in the sense of probabilities, and to make statistics comparable to those. Does one succeed in ensuring smaller deviations?
Otherwise, one asks oneself practically every day: did one estimate the chances well and correctly? And: if a deviation is very large, then you worry, go into yourself and think about whether it is a long-term tendency that can be read off something. Now and then you even think you recognise something. But so far, the advice has usually been to wait and see. The algorithm works quite well as it is.
The deviation between the expected and the actual determination shows that so far the favourites have prevailed more than expected. So should they have been given higher chances, could this have been recognised in advance? On the betting market – after all, there is now this comparison – nothing indicated this, so the masses didn’t know any better. And otherwise, of course, a deviation of one per cent has long been a habit and is completely normal after five match days. Still, it’s worth keeping an eye on it: did you hit the right ratio for the favourites?
o. Review of the betting recommendations
More explosive, however, is always this question: which bets should/must have been made according to the computer? Where would he have messed with the betting market? And: if he messes with it, with the great mass intelligence, does he have good reasons for it?
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%
Well, this balance is rather sad and it seems to be a recurring effect. On the other hand, of course, the market reactions during the week are sometimes so drastic that these bets only make sense on that day (i.e. usually Wednesday or Thursday). However, prices do not generally fall, they occasionally rise. This means, however, that if you place the bet at a more favourable rate, the balance is of course somewhat better, as you get more money. On the other hand, other matches come up that are not included in the statistics here, as they only give betting recommendations for the one day.
For example, there was a very big bet on Wolfsburg on match day. The market had probably reacted a little too strongly to Schalke’s good performance (and Wolfsburg’s bad one). They got over 3.00 on match day – and were happy to take them themselves. The course of the game was rather curious, as Schalke actually started very dominantly and even scored the 1:0. With the equaliser, however, came the turnaround, and this came rather by chance.
The Freiburg bet was a waste basket anyway. This was impressively confirmed and, with sensible money management, one would of course not bet a unit on such an event but perhaps a tenth of it (there is even a method with which one could adjust this: one decides the bet amount after the swing on the bet payout. Here, the swing on one unit would be one of 23 units in total due to the odds; one could, for example, set a swing of three units each, then it would result in a stake of 0.13 units approximately; however, the system is not to be changed now; it also does not make such a big difference).
If one looks closely at Dortmund, then even the offered 9.20 was almost shown on Hertha (fair odds 9.03) and if one had grabbed there (which was therefore not absurd), then one would have a gigantic gain from which one could feed for a while.
Gladbach was chosen as the “game of the week” and Gladbach confirmed this assessment. A really great game with a deserved winner. Here, however, there is “only” the profit of 1.04 units.
Hanover was really quite without a chance in Stuttgart (although the kicker here comes to a ratio of “only” 6:4 per Stuttgart) and there should be no further discussion about that. However, coach Stanislawski of Hoffenheim had seen the worst game of his team and they had done pretty much everything wrong that they had trained for before. Only the scoring succeeded, so that one would actually like to argue here a little that the bet was justified despite a 0:4.
Werder won quite confidently in terms of match shares and chances and there is no major doubt, but only 0.63 units (on match day the rate was 1.72 or 1.73). Cologne was really a bad bet, which you would never have expected. Nuremberg was even with 10 men still the better team.
In total, that makes two games won with 1.04 + 0.63 units, so +1.67, minus the four units for the lost bets, leaving a minus of 2.33 units. Evil.
Betting recommendation Statistics of the individual match days
Matchday Nr Number of bets Number of hits Expected hits 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
Yes, in the red for the third year in a row.
Statistics 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 9 +5.10 20.40% 10.28 +0.72
All in all, the balance sheet is still better than expected. That shows you how modestly you have to approach things. One has won, overall. You have lost three times in a row. Normal. After that, you still have to say: things have been going well so far. But not only that: it went better than expected. Amazing, this mathematics. Because, as mentioned, it would be enough to win if you only fulfilled the hit expectation. But it is still overfulfilled by 0.72 hits, so that the profit of 20.40% is too high.
Intuitively speaking, one would still like to have a good weekend…
p. The preview of the 6th matchday
Note: The computer uses a specially developed – of course explainable and highly logical – algorithm to calculate the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) to these goal expectations. These in turn are offset against the probabilities of occurrence, in the past by simulation, today long since by a function derived from the simulation results). These goal expectancy values have also long since proved to be competitive in goal number betting on the betting market.
Goal expectation
Home Away TotalFreiburg Stuttgart 1.53 1.55 3.08
Leverkusen FC Cologne 2.42 1.01 3.43
HSV Gladbach 1.46 1.41 2.87
Hertha Augsburg 1.65 0.77 2.42
Nürnberg Werder 1.32 1.40 2.73
Hoffenheim Wolfsburg 1.55 1.22 2.78
Kaiserslautern Mainz 1.32 1.38 2.70
Hanover Dortmund 0.94 1.33 2.27
Schalke 04 FC Bayern 1.06 1.54 2.60
13.26 11.60 24.87
Expected goal total Expected goal average
24.87 2.76 Rather few goals overall this time (mention here that you can also bet the total number of goals for the matchday on over/under at betfair), which is of course due to the away games of Bayern and Dortmund. However, it is these pairings in particular that are responsible for the (expected) lack of goals. Dortmund in Hannover with only 2.27 expected goals.
Only the match between Leverkusen and Cologne, the (second) Rhineland derby, stands out. However, what the computer doesn’t “know” is that derbies are often a bit tighter as far as the game is concerned, and the referees also have more inhibitions about making the so-called “courageous decisions” – logically those in favour of goals. It showed a bit last weekend at Werder against HSV, as announced in advance.
Note: The determination is calculated as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher a favourite position, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, one can check the quality in the long term by comparing expected/occurred events.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2
Freiburg Stuttgart 38.11% 23.09% 38.80% 34.91%
Leverkusen FC Cologne 68.72% 17.27% 14.01% 52.17%
HSV Gladbach 39.04% 23.96% 36.99% 34.67%
Hertha Augsburg 58.74% 23.92% 17.34% 43.23%
Nürnberg Werder 35.85% 24.69% 39.46% 34.52%
Hoffenheim Wolfsburg 45.47% 24.21% 30.32% 35.73%
Kaiserslautern Mainz 36.30% 24.82% 38.88% 34.45%
Hannover Dortmund 26.82% 27.25% 45.93% 35.71%
Schalke 04 FC Bayern 26.39% 24.84% 48.77% 36.92%
3.75 2.14 3.11 3.42
Average expected commitment: 38.04%Top teams away both less goals, but at the same time less expected average fixing. Both heavyweights are under 50% favourites, so there are “tough assignments” if you like.
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
Freiburg Stuttgart 2.62 4.33 2.58
Leverkusen FC Cologne 1.46 5.79 7.14
HSV Gladbach 2.56 4.17 2.70
Hertha Augsburg 1.70 4.18 5.77
Nürnberg Werder 2.79 4.05 2.53
Hoffenheim Wolfsburg 2.20 4.13 3.30
Kaiserslautern Mainz 2.75 4.03 2.57
Hannover Dortmund 3.73 3.67 2.18
Schalke 04 FC Bayern 3.79 4.02 2.05
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2
Freiburg Stuttgart 3.50 3.65 2.20
Leverkusen FC Cologne 1.45 5.00 8.60
HSV Gladbach 2.44 3.65 3.00
Hertha Augsburg 1.61 4.20 6.80
Nürnberg Werder 2.84 3.55 2.70
Hoffenheim Wolfsburg 2.10 3.70 3.75
Kaiserslautern Mainz 2.58 3.50 2.94
Hannover Dortmund 4.50 3.70 1.91
Schalke 04 FC Bayern 5.10 3.90 1.70
2) The 2nd Bundesliga
a. The standings
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
