- Uefa Mafia: supporters win the fight to chant what they like
- Arsenal v Real Madrid. A TV problem, a possibly faltering Real Mad… maybe this is the moment.
- At last at last. Uefa defeated, St Tots Day is here
By Tony Attwood
As we have seen so clearly in recent times it is the referee who determines the result of recent games.
Of course the media laugh at what the Guardian today calls the “conspiracy theories of some Arsenal fans who are convinced English officials have an agenda against their club.” It would be polite of them and would show that they are actually doing some research, if they were to add, “and of course of late Arsenal fans have had the benefit of statistical analyses which, in relation to penalities at least, show that Arsenal are hard done by both in having penalties awarded against them while not getting penalties in their favour.”
For what the media don’t realise is that sneering at “conspiracy theories” is itself a conspiracy theory – the suggestion everything is all right, without bothering to look at the statistics.
The links to the relevant articles are on the home page for any passing journalist who wuld like some facts rather than opinion but in case they can’t be arsed to go and look here are the links
The great penalty scandal
- 1:Why are Arsenal’s penalty numbers so different?
- 2: Refs give far more penalties against Arsenal than other clubs: but why?
- 3: Fouls and cards: are Arsenal being hard done by?
- 4: Penalties for and against Arsenal. The Mike Riley factor
- 5: Penalties for and against. Are Arsenal being hard done by?
Now the big question is, is this just a PGMO thing, or does the bias spread into Europe? One game probably isn’t anything like enough to tell us, but a bit of careful watching might give us a clue.
But the fact that the detailed club and player statistics and the official Uefa Champions League page does not include anything on penalties does not give us much hope. So just in case you didn’t get to read all the articles above, Arsenal, uniquely among the big six clubs, get fewer penalties awarded in their favour, than they suffer against them. And this has been going on for years. Indeed last season it continued when Arsenal conceded just half as many goals as Manchester United who had the fifth best defence in the league. Here’s the table in goals conceded order from last year….
| Team | Pld | W | D | L | F | A | GD | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Arsenal | 38 | 28 | 5 | 5 | 91 | 29 | 62 | 89 |
| 1 | Manchester City | 38 | 28 | 7 | 3 | 96 | 34 | 62 | 91 |
| 3 | Liverpool | 38 | 24 | 10 | 4 | 86 | 41 | 45 | 82 |
| 15 | Everton | 38 | 13 | 9 | 16 | 40 | 51 | -11 | 40 |
| 8 | Manchester United | 38 | 18 | 6 | 14 | 57 | 58 | -1 | 60 |
The main thing we can note in front of tonight’s game is that Thomas Partey, Martin Ødegaard, Gabriel Martinelli and Bukayo Sako should all start, having not done so in the last match. And indeed I think most of us would agree that if there is to be silverware this season it is going to be in the Champions League.
And although the language is always sneering at least the Guardian acknowledges that “Everton were awarded the kind of weird penalty that will have done little to deter the conspiracy theories of some Arsenal fans who are convinced English officials have an agenda against their club.” And there are some suggestions that European referees in common with English referees have clubs that they tend not to be completely happy about – although we don’t have the resources to do the full analyses.
But what about the past matches between these two clubs? Why does no one seem to speak about those? Well, the answer does most certainly come in the statistics…
| Date | Match | Res | Score | Competition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 Feb 2006 | Real Madrid v Arsenal | W | 0-1 | UEFA Champions League |
| 07 Mar 2006 | Arsenal v Real Madrid | D | 0-0 | UEFA Champions League |
Yes it is utterly true. Real Madrid have never beaten Arsenal in a competitive match. But please don’t tell the media. I am not sure they could handle it.
Of course, there is the extra pazzazz of having Odegaard playing – he was after all the “Norwegian Messi” who was going to lead Real Mad to ever greater glories.
What went wrong at Real Mad for Odegaard is summarised in one paragraph in the Telegraph:
‘On his first day as a Real Madrid player, for example, he was picked up from Norway and taken directly to a press conference for the world’s media. He was not told beforehand. He had not even showered. Odegaard has spoken of his embarrassment at wearing an “old stripey jumper” on “the biggest day of my life”.’
And that is the great thing about some of these clubs. They believe in their own hype so much that they have long ago stopped thinking about their most important asset: the players. Their name is everything. Money is everything.
More anon…
Tony
“The links to the relevant articles are on the home page for any passing journalist who wuld like some facts rather than opinion but in case they can’t be arsed to go and look here are the links”
And although not quite to the extent of some seasons that are frankly ridiculous, or indeed the average, these dodgy penalty statistics continue unabated this season. I put this up in an earlier article, but in case anyone missed it:
TOP 6 teams and their penalties for and against with the +/- ratio.
LIVERPOOL 9 for 1 against +8 Wow, just wow.
ARSENAL 2 for 3 against -1
N FOREST 3 for 2 against +1
CHELSEA 4 for 6 against – 2
MAN CITY 3 for 3 against —
ASTON VIL 3 for 2 against + 1
So, as usual Arsenal have their obligatory negative ratio. Chelsea are even worse with -2, meaning that out of the top 6 the only 2 clubs with a negative for/against ration are the 2 London Clubs. As Vincent Hanna once famously said, ‘well, there’s a shock’.
So, not only is the anti Arsenal bias still clear to see, so is the Northern bias. As you suggest Tony, if only the Guardian had the decency to do some research, or even just look at someone else’s!!!
The sad thing is they simply do not want to know. It is they that have an agenda, and nothing, least of all a few facts, is going to alter that.
Nitram,
Despite the name change, maybe it is still the Manchester Guardian.
And again, as has been hinted at before it is the London clubs that are hardest done by.
These or the ratios for all 7 London Clubs in the order they currently sit in the Premier League:
2: ARSENAL -1
4: CHELSEA -2
8: FULHAM +2
11: C. PALCE —
13: BRENTFD +4
14: TOTTENH —
16: WEST HA —
Total differential = PLUS 3
These are the ratios for the top 7 *Northern clubs. *For the purpose of this comparison ‘North’ is classed as North of Watford.
1: LIVERPOOL +8
3: NOTTS FOR +1
5: NEWCASTL +3
6: MAN CITY —
7: ASTON VIL +1
13: MAN UTD – 1
15: EVERTON —
Total differential = PLUS 12
Now I concede that the average PL position of the Northern clubs is slightly higher at 7.1 than the London Clubs at 9.7, but having said that the total goals scored is very close with the North on 348 and London on 340. And that is reduced further if you take in to account those penalties with the North scoring 24 compared to the London Clubs 19.
So all in all as far as the offensive nature of the two sets of teams is concerned there is very little difference. So:
How can you explain such a massive difference? Some may try to suggest that the enormous difference is solely down to Liverpool, but that would not explain all of it. Okay, the sheer magnitude of the gap maybe, but the nature and distribution isn’t.
In the top 6 there are 4 Northern clubs and 2 London Clubs:
The 4 Northern clubs differentials are: +8 +1 +3 and 0 = PLUS 12
The 2 London clubs differentials are: -1 -2 = MINUS 3
A difference of 15. That is enormous.
So where it really matters at the top of the table. Where those big penalty decisions that can really swing a game are concerned, it is as clear as day that the clubs from the North are significantly favoured by the men in black. Two extremely soft penalties, MLS just this weekend, and Saliba’s clash of heads, have cost us 4 points.
Across all 14 clubs the ratios don’t improve a whole lot.
Out of 7 only 2 London clubs have a POSITIVE ratio compared to 4 from the North?
That’s TWICE as many for those that are numerically challenged.
Out of 7 only 1 Northern club has a NEGATIVE ratio compared to 2 London clubs.
That’s HALF as many for those that are numerically challenged.
The numbers tell it how it is, and the Guardian, or any other rag can deny it and call us conspiracy theorists as much as they like, but the numbers don’t lie. And lets not forget, we have done these numbers back over 16 years and they have been this bad across that entire time.
It is always telling when those that deny the numbers, deny the facts, don’t have any of their own.
Worse was from the Daily Mail yesterday pointing out the bad pen decision from the ref but gaslight the fans that it still Arsenal’s fault where we are.