Wolves underperform at Molineux against teams at the lower end -discuss

[Deleted Cyber]

Wolves don't take points off the teams around them.... apparently.
Was having a think about another Wolves Myth this season and the one about us not taking points off the teams around us. This is how it looks from 11th down.....

Norwich (h) 1 point - could have easily won it at the very end (marginal off side)
Villa (a) 1 point - good point away from home.
Fulham (h) - 3 points
Swansea (h) - 1 point - stirring comback after shocking 80 minutes
Sunderland (h) - 3 points
QPR (h) - 0 points
Wigan (h) 3 points
Bolton - not yet played
Blackburn (a) - 3 points

So we've played 6 out of the bottom half at home and picked up 11 points and w 3 d 2 and only lost 1; played 2 away and picked up 4 points.

Of the top half we've played 7 away....and lost 6 and d 1; we've played stoke and newcastle at home and lost both (newcastle in particular were in a very rich vein of form when we played them and we could have got a point at the end.

In essence, what i'm trying to say is that maybe Mick is putting more emphasis on the games against teams around us and looking at the stats that would back this theory up. Admitedly, we've got all the big boys to come to Molineux but that is when we as fans really come allive and i for one can't wait for the second half of the season. I fully expect us to pick up more points up second half of the season than the first half and certainly improve our away form.

Just a thought.

Found this from 2011 and thought this could be a thread to finish off here. Guess what happened with the reurn fixtures against Villa,Bolton x 2 Blackburn, Wigan, Sunderland, QPR and Swansea? p9 w1 d2 l 6 points 5

fallacy aint it mate

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I'll spell it out simply as you don't quite get my point:

Compare the teams position at the time of playing: For example Barnsley v Wolves (feb)
Compare the teams around them at the time of playing For example Barnsley v Paterborough (Dec)

What position did either of these teams hold at the time of playing them.
What was their particular form at that time (not that this is a true indicator, but for the sake of argument you have used form)
If both of the above are exactly the same then you have a comparison to be made, if not then the data is skewed. Provide that and lets have a more informed debate.

Simply saying 'they were relegated we should have beat them' is a daft argument as Frank proved when Man Utd were beaten by Wolves but still won the league.

:facepalm: which part of keep it simple did you not get lol?

 

[Johnny75]

Found this from 2011 and thought this could be a thread to finish off here. Guess what happened with the reurn fixtures against Villa,Bolton x 2 Blackburn, Wigan, Sunderland, QPR and Swansea? p9 w1 d2 l 6 points 5

fallacy aint it mate

So the quoted part dismisses your theory?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

So the quoted part dismisses your theory?

Really? How? My arguement was the cahmpionship and this analogy
tell you what. If we lose to a side in the bottom 4 or 5 this season at any time I can tell you told you so if we win all 5 you can tell me my theory is shot. I agree that ideally we would be looking at current form and position and I do think it is reasonable for any team in the top 8 of any league to have beaten the teams who finish in the bottom four at Home. With regard to Man Utd we didnt win at Old Trafford did we. We won at Anfield and were stuffed at home beat Man City at Home but the only side we doubled were spurs home and away.

Glad it stimulated debate......... with due respect I will still be nervous when we are playing at Home against any side who currently appear in the bottom 5. Its ingrained and based on the evidence that I have presented but others have rejected

 

[Quirkafleeg]

.....

 

[Ironfistedmonk]

This thread is funny, better teams come at us, shit teams park the bus, that's my theory

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Glad it stimulated debate......... with due respect I will still be nervous when we are playing at Home against any side who currently appear in the bottom 5. Its ingrained and based on the evidence that I have presented but others have rejected

Indeed, it's ingrained.

That doesn't make it factually true. I admire your ability to argue black is white but it holds no value I'm afraid.

 

[Kenny]

I love stats but I love the little things that make football interesting more. Ask the majority of fans from any team and they will say the following

- We always do shite against the shit teams
- Ex players will always score against us
- Manager of the Month is a curse
- Teams on long bad runs will end them against us

The things above are generally bollocks but start breaking down every aspect of football and it becomes boring.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I love stats but I love the little things that make football interesting more. Ask the majority of fans from any team and they will say the following

- We always do shite against the shit teams
- Ex players will always score against us
- Manager of the Month is a curse
- Teams on long bad runs will end them against us

The things above are generally bollocks but start breaking down every aspect of football and it becomes boring.

Essentially, most football fans are fatalistic dicks.

And of course, if you predict the worst will happen (eg this week, "Oh Sheff Utd are on their worst ever run outside the top flight, we're bound to lose) you look like a genius if it turns out that we do break their run (and looking at their team, they have no business being in the bottom four of League One) and if we don't, well, who gives a fuck, we won.

I just take issue with statistical inaccuracy, is all.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I'll spell it out simply as you don't quite get my point:

Compare the teams position at the time of playing: For example Barnsley v Wolves (feb)
Compare the teams around them at the time of playing For example Barnsley v Paterborough (Dec)

What position did either of these teams hold at the time of playing them.
What was their particular form at that time (not that this is a true indicator, but for the sake of argument you have used form)
If both of the above are exactly the same then you have a comparison to be made, if not then the data is skewed. Provide that and lets have a more informed debate.

Simply saying 'they were relegated we should have beat them' is a daft argument as Frank proved when Man Utd were beaten by Wolves but still won the league. I'd also add to that in the 11-12 season Man Utd also lost to Blackburn at home and Wigan away.

Not at all, have you looked at their form at the time, how they were playing or who they were playing against. Unless you compare positions at the time of playing and form then the data is useless. You also need to compare who the opposition has played and what position they were in at the time. To then compare them to sides around our position then you would also need to do that same comparison. It essentially renders your statistics useless because no team will play another in the same circumstances as other teams. You are always comparing apples and pears. It is why predictions are so hard and why DW says your theory is a fallacy.

your wish is my command.
Season 2001/2
We lost at home to the following teams. Their position at the time of winning at Molineux and ours at the time of losing is in brackets
16th Oct Crewe (13th) lost 1-0 Wolves (1st) Crewe’s first away win of the season
20/10 Crystal Palace(1ST) lost 1-0 Wolves(2nd)
2nd December WBA(4TH) Lost 1-0 Wolves(2nd)
26/12 Preston (8th) lost 3-2 Wolves (4th)
16/3 Grimsby(21st) lost 1-0 Wolves(2nd)
1st/4 Man City (1st)lost 2-0 Wolves(2nd)
So that season not only did we lose to sides well below us we also lost to nearest rivals. Losing play off semis to Norwich
2002/3

21/9 Reading(11th) lost 1-0 Wolves(14th)
5/10 Sheff Utd (5th)1-3 lost Wolves (14th)
14/12 Coventry (12) 1-2 lost Wolves (7th)
28/12 Bradford City(20th) lost 1-2 Wolves (10th)
Play off winners and still lost to sides below us and significantly below us.
2004/5
25/9 Cardiff (21st) lost 3-2 Wolves (18th)
20/11 Coventry(16th) lost 1-0 Wolves (18)
7/12 Millwall (8th) lost 1-2 (Wolves (17th)
Final position 9th. Losing to Cardiff and Coventry , close rivals or below us.

2005/6

13/9 Millwall(24th Lost 2-1 Wolves (8th) Millwalls first win of the season.
20/9 Burnley(13th) lost 1-0 Wolves(4th)
26/12 Reading top lost 2-0 Wolves 8th
25/3 Sheff Wed (21st)lost 3-1 Wolves(7th)
Final position 7th place but defeats to teams in 24th and 21st Place and another below us.
2006/07
11/8 Preston (10th) Lost 3-1 Wolves (11th) Their first away win
12/9 Derby (15th) Lost 1-0 Wolves (3rd)
9/12 Leicester(18th)Lost 2-1 Wolves (14th)
20/1/07 Cardiff (6th) 1-2 Wolves (10th)
31/3 Southampton(7th) lost 6-0 Wolves (6th)
22/4 Birmingham(1st) lost 3-2 Wolves (6)
So we lost to teams in 15th and 18th place and lost to promotion rivals.
2007/8
11/8 Watford lost 1-2 First game
18/9 Hull(12) lost 1-0 Wolves (15)
8/12 Burnley(7) lost 3-2 Wolves (6th)
12/1/08 Palace(6th) lost 3-0 Wolves(12th)
15/4 WBA Top lost 1-0 Wolves(8th)
2008/9
30/9 Reading(3) lost 3-0 Wolves top
10/1/9 Preston (6th) lost 3-1 Wolves top
28/2 Plymouth (19th) lost 1-0 Wolves top

Of course we won it that year. To summarise we have lost 31 games at home in this list of those 31 games 18 of those defeats were against teams who were below us at the time of playing. We already know that 8 of those defeats were to teams who ended up in the bottom four that season. I am sorry but what else can I do to show you that Wolves have a tendency to underperform at home to sides below them in the league?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Indeed, it's ingrained.

That doesn't make it factually true. I admire your ability to argue black is white but it holds no value I'm afraid.

please see above lol x

 

[darlowolf64]

But your argument was that we ( as a top challenging team ) consistantly lose to "bottom of the table" sides.
Losing to a team who is in the top half does not meet this criteria, nor does losing to a team placed 18th when we are 14th.
Those stats do very little to back up your argument for me, Cyber

 

[darlowolf64]

In season one; you list one team placed 13th and one placed 21st
Season two; 12th vs us 7th and 20th v us 10th.
Season three; 21st v us 18th, 16th vs us 18th and Millwall 8th vs us 17th so not a loss to a team seriously below us there at all.
Shall I go on?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

In season one; you list one team placed 13th and one placed 21st
Season two; 12th vs us 7th and 20th v us 10th.
Season three; 21st v us 18th, 16th vs us 18th and Millwall 8th vs us 17th so not a loss to a team seriously below us there at all.
Shall I go on?

We lost 8 games out of 31 to sides who finished in the bottom 4 when we finished in the top 7 in all years but 1 were promoted twice and champions once and play off losers twice. I can find NO other team with such a high finishing position with a WORSE record against the bottom sides.
Johnny75 asked for the comparisons on a week by week basis rather than end of season positions to take account of some form. I provide that and you still dont think its an issue.
Having lost 31 games at home 18 of those games came to teams who started the day below us in the table . I thought that as a general rule the home side with the higher league position start as favourites? Wish my book maker applied some of the logic you are sending back to me- I would get longer odds on dead certs !

Do me a favour pick any championship side that has finished in the top 7 in 5 or more seasons and examine their records against ours with regard to beating the lower teams at Home. No-one I have found is worse. . Ho-Hum enjoyed the trip back down memory lane with this thread though

 

[Doctor Doog]

If analysing football was an exact science we would all win the pools every week. Even though it is a game of skill rather than chance there are numerous other factors that effect results but I want to keep it simple .On the balance of probabilities and based on the evidence , analyse if my beloved Wolves do underperform at Home against the bottom sides I need to look at how other teams who are as good perform against the same sides in the same season. This I will do. In addition to that I need to make certain footballing assumptions in the collection of the data namely
1. The home side is likely to win 50% of the time
2. The draw is a possibility 25% of the time
3. An away win is a possibility 25% of the time

Whilst this is very rudimentary it does mean that teams in the top eight should all win at least 11.5 home games a season. As you cant win half a game 11 is close enough

I then randomly selected 4 championship years between 2001 and 2008 and included our highest and lowest position season to give Wolves as much chance to over perform as possible. The years were 04/5 5/6 7/8/ 8/9.

So how many sides did not win 11 home games in each of those seasons?
05 =2 Derby 10 and Sheff Utd 9
06 = 1 Wolves 9
07 = 2 Palace 9 Watford 8
08=0

So in the control data out of 32 occurrences only 5 times has a team in the top 8 won less than 11 home games. This means my estimate of top 8 teams should win at home 50% of the time is a fair one.

Now in those four seasons let us compare apples with apples. Are there any teams that appear in all 4 years? No. What about three of the years? Yes Reading and Preston.

So I will look at Reading and Preston in the years that I have chosen and see how they performed against the bottom four clubs in each year and how we did.


Team 08 05/6 0/4/05 Total Home points total record
Preston 2-1-1 , 2-2-0, 3-1-0, 7-4-1 25 points
Reading 2-1-1 , 4-0-0 , 4-0-0 , 10-1-1 31 points
Wolves 2-1-1 , 2-1-1 , 2-2-0 , 6-4-2 22 points


The conclusion I draw from these rudimentary results is that we only win against the bottom four sides in a league 50% of the time while other teams of similar status at the time in the similar position win up to 80% of the time. The only year of parity with any of the other 2 clubs was our title winning year. So I do conclude that we are weaker than other teams in a similar position when it comes to putting teams who we should be beating , to the sword.

Sorry Cyber, that's a load of old baloney. I don't profess to be a stats expert, but I do use statistics of some sort pretty much every day of my working life. Your proof is only as good as your initial hypothesis, which in this case is flawed. You don't show why a team has a 50% chance of winning a home game. It's fairly easy to determine, for as big a sample size as you want, all teams home performance to determine what the individual probabilities of winning, losing and drawing are. There would then perhaps be some merit in carrying on using the correct probabilities.

It would be better to determine Wolves' home performance against bottom of the table teams over a number of seasons and compare that to either other teams' performances or to Wolves' performance against higher placed teams, using the appropriate comparative test. Obviously the bigger sample size you take, the more chance there is of the result being statistically significant.

On the other hand you might just not bother, because it's not that important any more

 

[Doctor Doog]

Alternatively, perhaps it should be compulsory for anyone offering statistical analyses on this forum to have successfully answered the two problems posed here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24045598

 

[The Bear]

I knew the answer to that because I read it in a Derren Brown book.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Sorry Cyber, that's a load of old baloney. I don't profess to be a stats expert, but I do use statistics of some sort pretty much every day of my working life. Your proof is only as good as your initial hypothesis, which in this case is flawed. You don't show why a team has a 50% chance of winning a home game. It's fairly easy to determine, for as big a sample size as you want, all teams home performance to determine what the individual probabilities of winning, losing and drawing are. There would then perhaps be some merit in carrying on using the correct probabilities.

It would be better to determine Wolves' home performance against bottom of the table teams over a number of seasons and compare that to either other teams' performances or to Wolves' performance against higher placed teams, using the appropriate comparative test. Obviously the bigger sample size you take, the more chance there is of the result being statistically significant.

On the other hand you might just not bother, because it's not that important any more

I did. 84% of teams finishing in the top 8 won at least 11 home games in a season. 17 times out of 20. Football results are not an exact science as I explained. You can go with probability and in my sample 84% of teams won around 50% of their home games. ( as I say you cant have 11.5 wins) Please feel free to show me another side with a worse record and break down the stats in the same way. Its all right all those who are saying fallacy , baloney Bullshit or bollocks but know one has shown me a worse home record from any top 8 championship side from 2001 to date against teams who were below them before the match or in the bottom four at the end of the season. Yet you remain unconvinced.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

And in our disaster season last year we lost to palace who were 10th, we were 3rd ,Peterborough who were 24th and we were 13th ,Ipswich who were 20th when we were 14th Huddersfield 21st when we were 19th. We dont have any issue do we lol

 

[Doctor Doog]

I did. 84% of teams finishing in the top 8 won at least 11 home games in a season. 17 times out of 20. Football results are not an exact science as I explained. You can go with probability and in my sample 84% of teams won around 50% of their home games. ( as I say you cant have 11.5 wins) Please feel free to show me another side with a worse record and break down the stats in the same way. Its all right all those who are saying fallacy , baloney Bullshit or bollocks but know one has shown me a worse home record from any top 8 championship side from 2001 to date against teams who were below them before the match or in the bottom four at the end of the season. Yet you remain unconvinced.

I'm not convinced, because you haven't properly stated your hypothesis, haven't used the appropriate statistical methodology, haven't shown the statistical significance of your comparisons and have been fairly liberal with some of your inferences - for instance 84% of teams finishing in the top 8 winning 11 home games in as season is not the same as 84% of teams winning around (whatever that means) 50% of your homes games. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying your stats don't prove that you are right. How did you get on with the two puzzles by the way?

Football may not be an exact science, but statistics is, and it would be fairly easy to use it to prove or disprove your theory. However, as I say, there's not much point, because there's one thing glaringly obvious when applying statistics to sport and that is that past performance is no guide to future performance. If it was, I would have picked all 7 winners at Newmarket this afternoon.