Gary James
Well-Known Member
I've written this on my facebook but thought I'd share it here as well. It's about the Daily Mail.
A few days ago the Daily Mail and others made a big point of saying MCFC have not come back from losing at half-time to win a Premier League match since 1995. The story was aimed at showing how poor City are in comparison with their main rivals in the Premier League, all of whom the Mail told us had come back from losing at half time to win in recent seasons.
I was sceptical of the story but was more concerned that the context of this stat was not explained. We could all quote stats but without the context they can give the wrong message. For example, Manuel Pellegrini is at the moment the only manager of a Manchester team ever to average two major trophies per complete season – that’s a fact, but obviously he’s only been manager for 1 full season and the current season is likely to end trophyless. Using the Pellegrini fact without explaining the context would give a false impression.
For the ‘never winning from a losing at half time position’ article I’d like the context outlined. I’d like to know how many games had City actually been trailing by during recent seasons in comparison with the others. In further discussions about this ‘fact’ it was suggested that the Blues record over the last three full seasons (2011-2014) had been significantly worse, so I decided to have a look at this period and see exactly how ‘poor’ City had been. It’s worth remembering of course that those 3 seasons saw City 1st, 2nd and 1st in the Premier League – again context worth explaining.
The facts are that City were losing at half time in 10 PL games during those seasons, while Chelsea were losing in 18 games, United in 20 and Arsenal in 22. So straight away the facts suggest something different. When the points per game average is calculated City averaged 0.5 per game while Arsenal averaged 0.45, United 0.75, and Chelsea 1.11. So, Chelsea and United do have a better points per game average than City for those matches, but Arsenal do not.
Finally, I looked at the actual facts of whether City had come from behind to win a match during those three years – remember the basic premise of the article was that City had not come from behind to win for 20 years in the PL. Well, even the basic fact of the piece is wrong! City beat Spurs 2-1 on 11th November 2012 after losing 1-0 at half time. So the whole point of the piece is irrelevant.
I don’t know what this says about the Daily Mail and the others who claimed this fact during the week, but it does show that the context of trivia like this should be considered while the facts should be accurate.
This was the Mail article: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3028736/Manchester-City-not-won-Premier-League-game-having-half-time-20-YEARS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... YEARS.html</a>
A few days ago the Daily Mail and others made a big point of saying MCFC have not come back from losing at half-time to win a Premier League match since 1995. The story was aimed at showing how poor City are in comparison with their main rivals in the Premier League, all of whom the Mail told us had come back from losing at half time to win in recent seasons.
I was sceptical of the story but was more concerned that the context of this stat was not explained. We could all quote stats but without the context they can give the wrong message. For example, Manuel Pellegrini is at the moment the only manager of a Manchester team ever to average two major trophies per complete season – that’s a fact, but obviously he’s only been manager for 1 full season and the current season is likely to end trophyless. Using the Pellegrini fact without explaining the context would give a false impression.
For the ‘never winning from a losing at half time position’ article I’d like the context outlined. I’d like to know how many games had City actually been trailing by during recent seasons in comparison with the others. In further discussions about this ‘fact’ it was suggested that the Blues record over the last three full seasons (2011-2014) had been significantly worse, so I decided to have a look at this period and see exactly how ‘poor’ City had been. It’s worth remembering of course that those 3 seasons saw City 1st, 2nd and 1st in the Premier League – again context worth explaining.
The facts are that City were losing at half time in 10 PL games during those seasons, while Chelsea were losing in 18 games, United in 20 and Arsenal in 22. So straight away the facts suggest something different. When the points per game average is calculated City averaged 0.5 per game while Arsenal averaged 0.45, United 0.75, and Chelsea 1.11. So, Chelsea and United do have a better points per game average than City for those matches, but Arsenal do not.
Finally, I looked at the actual facts of whether City had come from behind to win a match during those three years – remember the basic premise of the article was that City had not come from behind to win for 20 years in the PL. Well, even the basic fact of the piece is wrong! City beat Spurs 2-1 on 11th November 2012 after losing 1-0 at half time. So the whole point of the piece is irrelevant.
I don’t know what this says about the Daily Mail and the others who claimed this fact during the week, but it does show that the context of trivia like this should be considered while the facts should be accurate.
This was the Mail article: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3028736/Manchester-City-not-won-Premier-League-game-having-half-time-20-YEARS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... YEARS.html</a>
