Time added on

[bluenova]

The numbers don't lie. Your interpretation of them, and the weight you personally place upon them are matters for you.

The numbers don't lie, but the ones you've used aren't accurate enough, there are too many variables affecting the outcome, and the dataset of losing/drawing is far too small to draw any accurate conclusions.

30% discrepancies, or 40% of the season may look significant, but if the sample is so small, that the whole effect disappears with just one event, it shows that they aren't.

The figures just don't support any kind of argument, never mind one which involves every referee being biased against us.

EDIT:

I had a quick look at the four results which changed after 90 minutes and they're not quite as described.

So, Chelsea was actually 8 minutes rather than 11. They ended up playing 10, but the extra 2 were due to VAR/penalty, and benefitted City.

Palace was 4 minutes, but we ended up playing 7.30. However, again, Palace scored within the initial 4 minutes and that extra time was added on due to VAR/the penalty, so was actually a benefit for City.

The Spurs game was 5 minutes on the board, but 7.45 was played. However, Spurs equalised before the 90 minutes were up, and before extra time had been signalled, so it's in the wrong column.

In the Newcastle game, City scored just 18 seconds into added time, but the ref hadn't yet signalled for added time as City were attacking. He only appears to signal after City scored, so again that is probably in the wrong column.

 

[Chris in London]

The numbers don't lie, but the ones you've used aren't accurate enough, there are too many variables affecting the outcome, and the dataset of losing/drawing is far too small to draw any accurate conclusions.

30% discrepancies, or 40% of the season may look significant, but if the sample is so small, that the whole effect disappears with just one event, it shows that they aren't.

The figures just don't support any kind of argument, never mind one which involves every referee being biased against us.

EDIT:

I had a quick look at the four results which changed after 90 minutes and they're not quite as described.

So, Chelsea was actually 8 minutes rather than 11. They ended up playing 10, but the extra 2 were due to VAR/penalty, and benefitted City.

Palace was 4 minutes, but we ended up playing 7.30. However, again, Palace scored within the initial 4 minutes and that extra time was added on due to VAR/the penalty, so was actually a benefit for City.

The Spurs game was 5 minutes on the board, but 7.45 was played. However, Spurs equalised before the 90 minutes were up, and before extra time had been signalled, so it's in the wrong column.

In the Newcastle game, City scored just 18 seconds into added time, but the ref hadn't yet signalled for added time as City were attacking. He only appears to signal after City scored, so again that is probably in the wrong column.

If you think that almost half the season is not representative, like I said crack on with the rest of it.

For your review of those 4 games to be meaningful you would have to make the same sorts of adjustments in relation to actual time played across all 15 games. Across all 15 games I adopted the same measure of additional time played from the same source. You are choosing one metric where we are winning and another where we are not.

You aren’t even comparing apples and pears, this is more like comparing apples and sausages.

 

[bluenova]

If you think that almost half the season is not representative, like I said crack on with the rest of it.

For your review of those 4 games to be meaningful you would have to make the same sorts of adjustments in relation to actual time played across all 15 games. Across all 15 games I adopted the same measure of additional time played from the same source. You are choosing one metric where we are winning and another where we are not.

You aren’t even comparing apples and pears, this is more like comparing apples and sausages.

I'm not comparing anything with anything.

I'm saying that the source used appears to be entirely wrong, and in every game I looked at, doesn't match the video of the match. Not a criticism of you, but it looks like Google wasn't accurate enough for any kind of analysis.

I also don't need to look at every game - the first four I looked at were many minutes out, those extra minutes nearly all benefitted City, and in two cases the score actually changed before extra time was signalled. That's a pretty significant problem with the original calculations.

There's no point in me comparing 15 games if the original source data was wrong. There's nothing to prove/disprove.

 

[Chris in London]

I'm not comparing anything with anything.

I'm saying that the source used appears to be entirely wrong, and in every game I looked at, doesn't match the video of the match. Not a criticism of you, but it looks like Google wasn't accurate enough for any kind of analysis.

I also don't need to look at every game - the first four I looked at were many minutes out, those extra minutes nearly all benefitted City, and in two cases the score actually changed before extra time was signalled. That's a pretty significant problem with the original calculations.

There's no point in me comparing 15 games if the original source data was wrong. There's nothing to prove/disprove.

Whatever the differences between google’s methodology and your own are likely to be replicated over the entire sample. The averages of about 6 minutes when we are chasing a game and 8 minutes when we are defending a one goal lead may change but the overall trend is unlikely to.

As to the sample size, I repeat that whatever issues you have with the empirical evidence you can always clear up by doing your own research and see if the results are similar. As it is, you simply seem to be trying to prove a case.

 

[its a Barm]

Personally would of liked another 20 mins Sunday

 

[shemnel]

If you think that almost half the season is not representative, like I said crack on with the rest of it.

For your review of those 4 games to be meaningful you would have to make the same sorts of adjustments in relation to actual time played across all 15 games. Across all 15 games I adopted the same measure of additional time played from the same source. You are choosing one metric where we are winning and another where we are not.

You aren’t even comparing apples and pears, this is more like comparing apples and sausages.

Given that the refs are different in every game (not only different people but the same person in a different context), as are the opposition, the VAR staff, the circumstances, the flow of the game and so on, plus the fact added on time rules seem to change season to season, you're working with highly heterogeneous circumstances. Furthermore, i think you're splitting out the matches into when City are winning and when they are not, but i'd argue as a minimum you need to further split into home vs away matches. All of a sudden you've only got about 5 data points per group, which is very low. Also, City make far fewer subs than a lot of teams, and if the time keeping is right (haha) they should have less added on time, plus the ball is out of play much less in a City game (however time wasting against City is clearly an issue, but it's not exclusive against us).

You may, or may not, be onto something with regards time added on against us but i would argue the absolute minimum sample is two seasons or maybe even 3.

 

[Chris in London]

Given that the refs are different in every game (not only different people but the same person in a different context), as are the opposition, the VAR staff, the circumstances, the flow of the game and so on, plus the fact added on time rules seem to change season to season, you're working with highly heterogeneous circumstances. Furthermore, i think you're splitting out the matches into when City are winning and when they are not, but i'd argue as a minimum you need to further split into home vs away matches. All of a sudden you've only got about 5 data points per group, which is very low. Also, City make far fewer subs than a lot of teams, and if the time keeping is right (haha) they should have less added on time, plus the ball is out of play much less in a City game (however time wasting against City is clearly an issue, but it's not exclusive against us).

You may, or may not, be onto something with regards time added on against us but i would argue the absolute minimum sample is two seasons or maybe even 3.

I agree with you that, in general, if you are looking at statistical evidence the better the raw data (and in this case, that means the bigger the sample of matches you analyse) the more reliable your conclusions will be. That said, it is simply not possible to look at any data on a season-by-season basis on anything other than the basis of the matches played that season. You might as well say that any season-specific statistics - xG, possession stats, yellow/red cards, time in play etc are meaningless because they are based on precisely the same number of games. I might add that the fact that significantly longer periods of additional time are being played this season under a new initiative suggests that comparisons with previous seasons would be significantly undermined in any event.

The more important point is that before this season I haven't ever been conscious, that I can remember, of even a perception that City get less time added on when we are chasing a game than when we are defending a lead. By contrast, this season, when we are chasing an unprecedented fourth successive title, lots of posters have complained that we seem to get less than a fair crack of the whip when we are chasing a goal compared to when we are defending a lead. What I set out to do is see whether that is anything more than just a perception.

Turns out, it is.

There are of course reasons why you would be right to be cautious about how you analyse that data, such as the identity of the referees involved in City games. It would be wrong to jump to conclusions based on the numbers alone. But in essence what (to my mind) my analysis demonstrates (if I say so myself) is that whilst you can suggest whatever theories you like about why we get less additional time, the one thing you cannot do is reject the suggestion that we get less time when we are not winning as paranoia. Because the stats bear it out, and the numbers don't lie.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

As a matter of interest does anyone know how much to was added at Bramall Lane last night ?
Six goals. Ten subs. Possibly some time for injuries too.
Just wondering if consistentsy was shown with regards to recent epic extensions.

 

[shemnel]

As a matter of interest does anyone know how much to was added at Bramall Lane last night ?
Six goals. Ten subs. Possibly some time for injuries too.
Just wondering if consistentsy was shown with regards to recent epic extensions.

6 mins at the end of each half (only 1 goal in the 2nd half + 2 sub 'windows' or whatever you call them, small injury)

 

[blueste41]

Where the fuck did 8 minutes come from today?
Was there any injuries? Apart from Onana lying down when McClaren told him to to waste time.
Why should United benefit from their own time wasting later in the game when trailing?

This extensive time added on when we're leading and not much added on when we need a goal is becoming a theme.....

2nd half stoppages were as follows….

Stones injury - 30 secs
Flare on pitch and Doku sub - 1m 30 secs
Onana fake injury - 1m 15 secs
Evans sub - 45 secs
Rashford sub - 30 secs
VAR check on Ederson - 30 secs
United double sub - 30 secs

5m 30 secs (6m if you’re being generous, cos the double sub was wrapped up in the celebration for Foden’s 2nd goal). Either way, fuck knows where he got 8m from……

Irishblue you seem to have forgot about a lot of the stoppages. Also the premise of time added on is to ensure the ball is in play for roughly the same time across all games, reducing it because a team that needs a goal are the team that wasted the time would not achieve that equilibrium.
Exeterblue your forgetting about Onana's continual time wasting.
When we drawing 1-1 late on I was thinking that at least there will be considerable time added on and there was.