Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
Your claims are actually proven by statistical analysis. IIRC this is mentioned in the book The Numbers Game. Soccer is the most unpredictable sport where underdogs have the best chance at an upset, compared to other sports.
But I'd also make the claim that while futebol may be the most popular sport in Brazil, it's not by any means the only one they're good at. Brazil is also excellent in basketball and volleyball (and I think also handball). Idk, it's not like Brazil doesn't have other sports programs. Soccer is obviously the most popular, but not the only one worth mentioning.
É que não existe ser "bom em mata-mata", as regras não mudam.
A diferença é que em 38 rodadas, a influência da sorte vai ser diluída e o melhor time vai tender a vencer com mais frequência, já em mata-matas de 1-2 jogos é mais provável sorte ser um fator decisivo.
Aproximadamente 50% do futebol é sorte, o livro The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know about Soccer Is Wrong vai mais a fundo nisso.
I love this stuff. For anyone interested in surprising statistical analysis of a sport check out The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know About Soccer Is Wrong by Chris Anderson. https://www.amazon.com/Numbers-Game-Everything-About-Soccer/dp/0143124560
I read the book The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know About Soccer Is Wrong by Chris Anderson. Its not specifically about betting but it covers alot of great analysis about football that can totally apply to betting. It was a great read, definitely changed the way I understand the game and what kind of bets I was making.
Amazon Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Numbers-Game-Everything-About-Soccer/dp/0143124560/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465081904&sr=8-1&keywords=the+numbers+game
My biggest detractor for him is poor distribution. But even then that's more of "he's not a vital asset in upstarting our offense" than it is "he's a complete and utter liability." We're not the type of team to thrive off of rhythm and dominating possession.
And that study was part of this book, which I highly enjoyed:
For those stuck behind the paywall, here are a few key sections
>There is a theory, most notably explored in the book “The Numbers Game” by Chris Anderson and David Sally, that some sports are strong-link games and others are weak-link games. The point of the book, and a subsequent podcast on the subject by Malcolm Gladwell, was to demonstrate how soccer is a weak-link game in that a team would be better served making sure its worst players are better than the other team’s worst players in order to win more games. Basketball is on the opposite end of that spectrum, quite clearly a strong-link game in which the team that has the best player on the court is most likely to win that game.
>Where hockey sits on that spectrum is not quite clear. Arguments have been made it is clearly a strong-link game, but it’s not quite as obvious as it is in the cases of soccer and basketball. But on that weak-link/strong-link spectrum, the Canadiens are undoubtedly closer to the weak link end of it and the Maple Leafs are at the strong link end of it. It is not possible to see it any other way.
>They are a study in contrasts. Contrasts that are born out of necessity. Contrasts that manifested themselves Saturday at Scotiabank Arena.
>The question of strong-link versus weak-link sports was posed to Maple Leafs coach Mike Babcock on Saturday morning. He coaches the three highest-paid players in the NHL this season; Tavares, Marner and Matthews, Babcock’s three shooters in the shootout, will make $47.8 million among them this season. All the Canadiens forwards combined will make $35 million.
>Having a team’s best player in goal is a debatable strategy, but it is one the Canadiens have embraced and it is their reality, debatable or not.
>When the Maple Leafs wind up with breakaways from Marner and Tavares in overtime and Price turns them aside, when Tavares makes an incredible move with five seconds left in overtime and Price gets across to stop it, when Price stops Matthews, Marner and Tavares in the shootout, the Canadiens’ strong link essentially wins it for them.
>But what gave Price that opportunity to shine is the Canadiens’ weak-link offence, the one that allows them to roll four lines and stay fresh and forecheck and force mistakes. They find themselves in a division with three of the strongest-link teams in the NHL in the Maple Leafs, the Tampa Bay Lightning and the Boston Bruins. For the Canadiens to survive, they will need to make the argument hockey is a weak-link game.
>For one night at least, they made that argument quite convincingly.
Malcolm Gladwell has an excellent two-part podcast on this phenomenon on his podcast, Revisionist History. It's incredibly interesting and introduces the two opposing ideologies to educational funding and donations by incorporating Chris Anderson and David Sally's often cited sports book, "The Numbers Game."
To really simplify the concept, educational funding could be looked at like basketball: A team will only thrive and win championships with a top 5 talent (strong link game). Alternatively, educational funding could be looked at like soccer: General managers may give their team a better opportunity to win a championship by upgrading their low level talent (weak link game).
Some people believe elevating an excellent education program to an elite education program will maintain the success of America. But the prosperity of America isn't a 5 vs 5 game, it's the quality of life of 330 million people. Gladwell thoroughly debunks the idea of donating money to an already well-served educational institution. It's an enthralling 70 minutes. I highly recommend it.
Revisionist History Season 1 - Episode 5 - Food Fight
Revisionist History Season 1 - Episode 6 - My Little Hundred Million
Thanks for the info! That was a good article. A couple of points which I think generally go along with what I am saying:
> Relying on goals from corners alone, however, is a risk. A team who boasts a WhoScored strength of ‘defending set pieces’ are unlikely to be perturbed by a corner into the box as they have the personnel capable of repelling the danger. Furthermore, against teams who are ruthless when counter-attacking, gaining a corner could have an adverse effect on a team.
> With 1 goal scored every 37.5 corners (2.7%), though, the benefits of a corner kick seem to have dropped in the Premier League this term (14/15).
That seems in line with what I am saying. We're not looking at a total percentage of goals, rather we're looking at what is the chance of scoring off a corner in particular.
Some other interesting stats regarding corners:
> A corner has a 20.5% of generating a shot on goal.
> 1 of every 9 shots from a corner results in a goal.
> 89% of shots generated from corners are wasted.
> Average corner is worth 0.022 goals, or the average PL team scores a goal from a corner once every ten games.
> Corners are next to worthless; given the risk of being caught on the counterattack, their value in terms of net goal difference is close to zero.
Those stats are all in line with what your article and my two sources seem to indicate. That's why many managers will simply use corners as a chance to keep possession (going short), as LvG has done numerous times this year.
Obviously there is going to be some variance, certain teams are better or worse at corners depending on personnel and style. A team with Fellaini and Crouch may be better than a team with Defoe or Mata, but generally corners are bad chances to score and relying on them for any significant chances is going to lead in disappointment.
My stats in my previous comment was sourced behind 'score' right before I sourced 3.5%. It's from the WSJ. And unless you have a copy of the 'Numbers Game' you're going to have to take my word on their info, although I highly recommend picking it up if you're interested in learning about a different perspective on soccer.
Moneyball is becoming increasingly relevant.
In the same vein, Soccer by the Numbers
To add to that: only 1 in 5 corners leads to a shot on goal.
From The Numbers Game (I don't recommend the book)
That's like saying "I hate multiplication. Remember when all we had to do was add?" New and better stats help us better understand the game around us. It's laughably absurd if you want to discount them and look only at 'fantasy stats' which are incredibly misleading and are situational based more often than not. That's on you. You may not like it, but there are interesting ways to learn about the game and think about the game that provide value.
If you're actually interested in learning I can recommend this book. It's an easy and simple read that will help you better understand the sport you're watching. This book is a little dated, but it's still pretty good and helpful.
I think that makes the game better.
I know it sounds weird, but for me, this makes the game more like an actual sport, which is the biggest draw for me. It allows for more strategies and more emphasis on learning what went wrong the prior game besides just mechanical mistakes. Furthermore, I think the team based aspect allows for more comebacks.
I understand people have different opinions, but the quality of playing and watching League feels better when it is driven by having your worst player being better than the teams worst player. League is most similar to soccer in that respect. I respect all other opinions though, just my thoughts
Here is the book that I got the fact that in soccer it is more important for the worst player to be better than the best player.
This has been debated and written about ad nauseam. Although writing primarily about soccer, Chris Anderson and David Sally make a pretty good case that basketball is a strong link game. IE: You're better off focusing on high-end talent than depth. Studies show that if you want to win basketball games, you should upgrade the top 1/2 talents on your team. With improved depth, your team obviously improves, and no one would debate that. But compared to improving your strong links, improving your weak links just marginally increases your wins.
Are the Lakers winning last season with Gordon Hayward and Pascal Siakam in their 3 and 4 spot? Hell no.