By Bulldog Drummond
Is there anything new that can be learned about Manchester City? We know they are being charged with 115 offences by the Premier League, we know they are suing the Premier League, we know they are top of the Premier League and have the same run of results as they had at the start of last season…. What more can be said?
Well, here is a comparison we haven’t tried before… using details from WhoScored The Rating figure at the end of the chart below isn’t explained by WhoScored – at least I haven’t been able to find it, but I presume it is a statistical analysis taking in all the factors here plus the accuracy of the passing which they also examine.
But the really interesting number is that Arsenal come out on top in terms of ratings when they compare Manchester City at home and Arsenal away this season.
| Team | Goals | Shots pg | Yellows | Possession | Aerials Won | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ManC home | 6 | 16 | 5 | 64.4% | 5.5 | |
| Arsenal away | 3 | 8 | 6 | 48.8% | 11 |
That rather took me by surprise so I went back to last season to see what the final figures were for these two categories- Arsenal away and ManC at home.
We can see that the difference between the two clubs in terms of shots per game has been much greater this season that last….
| Team | Goals | Shots pg | Yellows | Possession% | AerialsWon | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Manchester City | 51 | 19.3 | 22 | 67.2 | 9.5 | |
| 2. Arsenal | 43 | 15.6 | 28 | 58.1 | 13.5 |
This season Manchester City have put in twice the number of shots per game and got fewer yellow cards, as ever. Arsenal’s possession has dropped by around 10% while Manchester C is down by under 2%.
But when it comes to aerials won, Arsenal’s dominance was there last season but is now much greater. However overall the figures from Whoscored suggest that Manchester City at home have improved while Arsenal have declined.
The referee is Mr Oliver, a referee who we saw six times last year, and for both Manchester City and Arsenal this is already the second time each club is having him. If that level of activity continued each club would see him 12 or 13 times in a season. That obviously won’t happen, but the dangers inherent in one referee overseeing the same club regularly in a campaign, are the same as one referee seeing a club twice in five games.
This really is ludicrous, and remember that our campaign has for years been that for safety we ought to have a rule that says no referee should oversee the same club more than once at home and once away each season. (We might also remember at the same moment that PGMO Ltd is currently insolvent, and seeking extra finance from the League – and being insolvent when you are a monopoly supplier is pretty feeble and reflects on the administrative ability of the company. In this case a company whose prime function is men who show…. administrative ability.)
Of course we won’t get the same referee 12 or 13 times this season, but Arsenal did have this self-same referee six times last season. And he’s not the only one – we have also had Attwell twice – and we have only reached the fifth game in the season. So it could be that PGMO are solving their insolvency by using fewer referees more and more. It is in the extreme, a dangerous path. But one that the media of course (presumably under instruction from PGMO since they all do it) ignore.
If we look at last season for referees who oversaw 20+ games in the Premier League taking figures from WhoScored
| Referee | Games | Fouls pg | Fouls/Tackles | Pen pg | Yel pg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Oliver | 24 | 21.17 | 0.58 | 0.25 | 3.96 |
| Robert Jones | 22 | 23.18 | 0.69 | 0.27 | 4.32 |
| Tim Robinson | 21 | 23.05 | 0.70 | 0.29 | 4.24 |
| Anthony Taylor | 27 | 21.26 | 0.60 | 0.52 | 4.81 |
| Andy Madley | 23 | 22.78 | 0.63 | 0.04 | 3.78 |
| Paul Tierney | 25 | 21.80 | 0.64 | 0.20 | 3.52 |
| Variation | 9% | 21% | 1300% | 37% |
As we can see here the variation in the number of fouls called per game between one of these referees and the rest is over 9% – a fairly reasonable level of difference. But when we look at the relationship between tackles and fouls, the variation is 21%. And as for the propensity for referees to see offences in the area as being worthy of a penalty that is utterly off the charts. Last season it took Madley 23 games and awarded one penalty Taylor took 27 games and gave 14 penalties. This really is totally bonkers.
But then this is insolvent PGMO, so it’s sort of normal for them.
Another poor weekend for PGMOL. Sam Barrott failed to award West Ham a penalty after Wesley Fofana pulled Crysencio Summerville inside the Chelsea penalty area. VAR said that Fofana’s grab had been “fleeting”. Summerville ran almost 3 yards whilst being fleetingly pulled.
I expect a dodgy Man. City goal to be given after Haaland will be ruled to be “only fleetingly” offside.
In the Tottenham/Brentford match, Vicario handled the ball outside the 18-yard box at least once. No free-kick was given, but Brentford’s Ajer and Frank were both yellow-carded.
Howard Webb has remained silent.
seismic
Haven’t seen any but I will obviously take it on good faith that all incidents occurred as you described.
That being said, my main point is, and has been these last few weeks, not the incidents themselves, as bad as they are, but how the referees action/inaction and the subsequent action/inaction of VAR, gets defended, no matter what. And MORE even than that, how all the media in general, but SKY Sports in particular, fail to correctly examine and question these calls, and worse still are complicit in the defence of these incidents.
Lets look at what we actually get.
SKY Sports roll out ex referees, in other words ex colleagues and friends, as supposedly neutral judges of these decisions.
Whatever their assessment may be, it is presented to us as an impeccable, incontrovertible, forensic judgement by people we are expected to believe have no bias, and are not following the overarching agenda of their employer, SKY Sports. An agenda which is effectively:
Don’t rock the boat.
Do not criticise referees.
Maintain the status quo.
Then beyond that, SKY give air time to PGMOL chief Howard Webb to support every defence of the referees and VAR that has been put forward.
But again even worse, it is presented as if Webb is somehow a ‘voice of reason’.
“Oh look, even Howard Webb agrees the Referees and VAR got all the decisions correct”. He’s their boss for f*** sake!!!
What do you expect him to say every week. “Yep, my boys f***ed up AGAIN!!”
Then we have the final, incontrovertible judgement of the KMI Panel, who again we are expected to believe, are neutral and above suspicion?
This, despite the fact the panel is made up of former players and coaches, plus representatives from the EFL and PGMOL.
You couldn’t make this shit up.
It is laughable how SKY Sports somehow expect us to believe that what they do is present a balanced, forensic, in depth examination of these incidents. That they put all these incidents under the microscope and ask all the pertinent, sometimes difficult questions.
Some people actually fall for it. It beggars belief .
All SKY Sports do is give air time for all these incompetents to defend each other. Nothing to see here.
As an example of just how ‘forensic’ they are, in regards to the Rice incident, (because out of all the cock ups it’s the one I know most about), they didn’t even mention how the ball was in the wrong place. That, as shown by referee Turpin in the week, is massive. After the initial foul, it is the first offence. The kick HAS TO BE RE TAKEN. Everything from there on is irrelevant. Nobody ever even asked the question.
Yes, they mentioned the ball was moving, but they simply and shamefully allowed everyone to dismiss that out of hand. It was irrelevant apparently. How is it irrelevant? It makes it an illegal free kick!! Like being in the wrong place.
I wonder, will they revisit that incident when they see how that similar incident was dealt with CORRECTLY by Turpin in the week. Will they hell.
With reference to your observations seismic.
They may, they may not highlight the odd error. But that’s the thing. They will present them as ‘odd’ errors. Outliers. The overarching conclusion will be, yes they make the occasional error, but it’s a difficult job and by and large they do it very well, blah blah blah.
As demonstrated last week, the KMI Panel wants us to believe there has been just ONE serious error since the beggining of the season. ONE!!!
What hope is there if a) they actually believe that, and b) our major sports TV broadcasters swallow that assertion, hook, line, and sinker.