Didsbury Dave said:
So what is your conclusion, then, Chris?
In relation to Mason, I don't have one. I don't think you can necessarily rule out a connection between the fact that in all of our games with Mason this year we have been shite and the fact that he is in charge. That is a long way from saying that the statistical evidence is a reflection of the man's inner hatred of all things sky blue. He has given soft penalties against us (and for the rags) but none in our favour. He gives us a lot more cards than our opponents. These things might be because there genuinely haven't been any alid penalty claims in our mason games, or that none of our opponents have committed any genuine yellow card offences. They may also be because he is either biased or incompetent or both.
So I think the statistics raise questions about Mason's impartiality and ability. But they do no more than raise questions. They prove nothing.
The question having been raised, however, I am apprehensive about Sunday. If I didn't want to end up as Gregos Traitorelli I might even have a fiver on us losing 1-0 to a dodgy penalty.
Walton is perhaps more interesting. I think it is substantially more likely than not that he had something against us whether he was conscious of it himself or otheriwse.
The stats in his case are of themselves pretty revealing, but they only tell part of the story. I think with Walton you had to see the games in the flesh to see the unfair way he handled things: all the times he gave soft fouls against us which he didn't give against Everton or Stoke; the yellow cards he showed us he never showed them. The advantage he played when it was the other side in possession and the times he refused to play advantage in our favour.
Bias isn't always about disallowing goals and giving soft penalties. Sometimes it is more subtle than that. I'm very glad he has gone over to the States, in short.
As for Mason? We will know more on Sunday evening.