Time added on

[bluenova]

Whatever the differences between google’s methodology and your own

Sorry if there's been some confusion, but we're not talking about a difference in methodology.

I checked the figures you got from Google's timeline with the actual video of the matches on City+.

It's not a difference in methodology. Google simply isn't correct.

As it is, you simply seem to be trying to prove a case.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply telling you that your source data wasn't correct.

The most obvious errors were the Spurs match, where the goal was scored in normal time, and the Newcastle match, where our goal was scored a few seconds after the ninety, but before the ref signalled how much extra time he wanted.

If your data was wrong, there is nothing to prove/disprove at all.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

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)

Thanks. Does appear to be consistent.

 

[blueste41]

So 8 minutes yesterday when it was still 2-1, what if it had been 3-1 you bent bastards. Probably been 3 or 4. Total stitch up this added on time bs

You have concluded it's a stitch up, bent and bs from a fact you made up?

 

[supercity88]

Don't really care about the added time in all honesty. We should be getting games won in normal time, no excuses. There might be something in it. I knew the dippers would get a goal on Saturday, although when I was watching soccer saturday and they went to the game and it was after the 98th minute I did start to get my hopes up sadly. If we're winning by a goal on Sunday going into added time there will be 10 minutes added on. If we're a goal behind there will be 1 minute added on. So let's just prepare for that and win the game whatever it takes.

 

[Chris in London]

Sorry if there's been some confusion, but we're not talking about a difference in methodology.

I checked the figures you got from Google's timeline with the actual video of the matches on City+.

It's not a difference in methodology. Google simply isn't correct.


I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply telling you that your source data wasn't correct.

The most obvious errors were the Spurs match, where the goal was scored in normal time, and the Newcastle match, where our goal was scored a few seconds after the ninety, but before the ref signalled how much extra time he wanted.

If your data was wrong, there is nothing to prove/disprove at all.

You might want to give the latest Bluemoon Podcast a listen. There's a section there about timewasting, and the guy who (IIRC) does the Opta Joe statistics said that on average when we are drawing or losing 4.7 minutes is added on - that is, that's the time signalled at the end of 90 minutes - whereas when we are defending a one-goal lead the average is over 6. Again, it's a 30% difference.

In other words, an entirely separate analysis of the data is entirely consistent with my own conclusion.

 

[bluenova]

You might want to give the latest Bluemoon Podcast a listen. There's a section there about timewasting, and the guy who (IIRC) does the Opta Joe statistics said that on average when we are drawing or losing 4.7 minutes is added on - that is, that's the time signalled at the end of 90 minutes - whereas when we are defending a one-goal lead the average is over 6. Again, it's a 30% difference.

In other words, an entirely separate analysis of the data is entirely consistent with my own conclusion.

I'll give it a listen - if he's found something that matches your stats then that's a coincidence.

For the matches you chose, if they were done properly (swapping Newcastle and Spurs), and swapping the time added on at the end of injury time in the Palace and Chelsea games, then as far as I can see, your 30% completely disappears.

I wonder if he's using the same kind of approximate data, rather than watching what happens in matches?

 

[Blue Til Death]

Here's a conundrum then, it's 0-0 after 90 mins against the dippers next week. Would we be happy with 9 additional minutes?
I know it wouldn't happen because at 0-0 they'd see that as a good point for Liverpool so I'd expect 3 or 4 mins regardless of subs and stoppages

No thanks, if we scored they would find a way to disallow it, if the dippers scored the ref would blow for time, shortly thereafter..!

I’m expecting nothing from the officials on Sunday, not even the steam off their shite ..!!!

 

[Chris in London]

I'll give it a listen - if he's found something that matches your stats then that's a coincidence.

For the matches you chose, if they were done properly (swapping Newcastle and Spurs), and swapping the time added on at the end of injury time in the Palace and Chelsea games, then as far as I can see, your 30% completely disappears.

I wonder if he's using the same kind of approximate data, rather than watching what happens in matches?

Well as you say, give it a listen, and see if this time you can do so without having made up your mind beforehand

 

[bluenova]

Well as you say, give it a listen, and see if this time you can do so without having made up your mind beforehand

That's nonsense.

I haven't made my mind up. I have never said that we don't get more or less injury time - I just pointed out two things:

1. Your source for the stats you use is wrong. It doesn't matter what you do with it, if it's wrong, it's wrong, and that makes the argument pointless.

2. The difference you found appears large - 30%, but given that it disappears with a change in just one match, and actually disappears if you use the correct data for the only four matches where City the result changes "after" 90 minutes, it's clearly not statistically significant.

It's not a criticism of your maths - just that the data you've used is wrong, and you don't have enough of it to draw any conclusions.

If you are so sure you want to do this properly, why don't you go back and adjust the matches where the data is clearly wrong? The four matches I checked, Spurs, Chelsea, Newcastle and Palace are all incorrect in quite significant ways.

If we correct just those four matches, which are always going to the most significant, given the result actually changes, then City get 7.25 minutes when chasing the game but only 5.7 when our opponents need a goal. So in the 15 games you chose, City are actually getting MORE injury time when they need it. Which is also statistically insignificant.

 

[Chris in London]

I haven't made my mind up.

Sure you haven't.