Defensive efficiency

[rurikbird]

As far as I remember, we didn’t give away a single penalty last season. No red cards, barely any goalkeeping errors, no own goals. There were problems in other areas - being outplayed in midfield, not finishing chances, things of that nature - but I think it’s hardly possible to achieve greater defensive efficiency than we did. The outstanding work of our defensive line and coaching should be appreciated - let’s hope for more of the same next season.

 

[Red Astaire]

No red cards or own goals? Huh! Do they still do that fair play award? I remember the reds winning that a few times. Sorry to digress but apart from the slight niggling sense of being a team of 'melts' I wonder now if that is badge of shame. Is there such a thing as a good red card?

 

[peterhague]

No red cards or own goals? Huh! Do they still do that fair play award? I remember the reds winning that a few times. Sorry to digress but apart from the slight niggling sense of being a team of 'melts' I wonder now if that is badge of shame. Is there such a thing as a good red card?

I suppose if you get one at the end of a game to save a goal that's probably the best. Otherwise they're generally a disaster.

Actually I hate red cards, full stop. They're stupid and unnecessary. Usually much too harsh a punishment and often completely ruin good matches.

I think they should just award a penalty instead.

 

[SummerOnions]

I suppose if you get one at the end of a game to save a goal that's probably the best. Otherwise they're generally a disaster.

Actually I hate red cards, full stop. They're stupid and unnecessary. Usually much too harsh a punishment and often completely ruin good matches.

I think they should just award a penalty instead.

It depends. Sometimes a cunt needs to be sent off

 

[SummerOnions]

It depends. Sometimes a cunt needs to be sent off

I'm really thinking of Atletico here

 

[Red Astaire]

I suppose if you get one at the end of a game to save a goal that's probably the best. Otherwise they're generally a disaster.

Actually I hate red cards, full stop. They're stupid and unnecessary. Usually much too harsh a punishment and often completely ruin good matches.

I think they should just award a penalty instead.

I really am digressing now - Apologies @rurikbird

Ok so remember when Keane got red carded for knacking the fuck out of Haaland. Straight red right? I bet you a shiny thrupence that action resonated with opposing team players. As in - don't fuck with Keane. It would with me. Souness, Case, Smith all saw a certain value (in the long game) for a good solid red card.

 

[Red Astaire]

BTW - I'm not saying I wish we had a team of reckless, violent cunts. I have to confess though to secretly liking a player like Robbo that is willing to fight and mix it up. If he gets a red every now and then - Does that perception of him and the subsequent opponents reaction to him make it worth it?

Probably not actually... But still, it's something to consider.... For a few minutes at least... 😉

 

[RedStar]

Weirdly I recall Allison making lots of mistakes on the ball but somehow never conceding any goals from it.

 

[Frogfish]

I suppose if you get one at the end of a game to save a goal that's probably the best. Otherwise they're generally a disaster.

Actually I hate red cards, full stop. They're stupid and unnecessary. Usually much too harsh a punishment and often completely ruin good matches.

I think they should just award a penalty instead.

Nah Red Cards are required for cunts like Ramos - we can't have players thinking they can get away with GBH and just get a nice rest for 15 mins (see next sentence). However for the average game (and say two innocuous yellows) a Sin Bin makes far more sense (10-15 mins depending on the incident).

 

[peterhague]

Nah Red Cards are required for cunts like Ramos - we can't have players thinking they can get away with GBH and just get a nice rest for 15 mins (see next sentence). However for the average game (and say two innocuous yellows) a Sin Bin makes far more sense (10-15 mins depending on the incident).

I can't think of a single situation where a penalty and (if necessary) a long ban wouldn't be a better solution than a red card.

Sin bin is just a fudge. It's less bad than a red card because it ruins less of the game, but it still ruins some of a game that needn't be ruined at all.

 

[Frogfish]

I can't think of a single situation where a penalty and (if necessary) a long ban wouldn't be a better solution than a red card.

Sin bin is just a fudge. It's less bad than a red card because it ruins less of the game, but it still ruins some of a game that needn't be ruined at all.

Nah not true at all. It brings excitement to the game without ruining it (see Rugby, Ice Hockey etc). And you can't be giving penalties from all over the pitch - players would be frightened of making a tackle (with VAR) and it would be just another way to destroy the game.

 

[StevieM]

I can't think of a single situation where a penalty and (if necessary) a long ban wouldn't be a better solution than a red card.

Sin bin is just a fudge. It's less bad than a red card because it ruins less of the game, but it still ruins some of a game that needn't be ruined at all.

I don’t think I can agree with you on this one - would you get a penalty for a second yellow, which opens up the chance for getting a penalty in a really trivial offence.

If a second yellow didn’t lead to a red - would refs hand yellows out more - and what would a third yellow mean - would the player need to commit a fourth foul for another penalty?

I reckon getting a penalty would ruin the game further - leading to people play acting all over the field to get a penalty.

What would be better, would be more consistent application of the rules and a better use of technology to review marginal calls.

 

[Squiggles]

If we're doing a deep dive into the defence, these are the PL games in which we conceded two or more:

https://youtu.be/8Y4IXH-thHU

 

[beejay]

Robbo had a straight red card v Spurs away

 

[Squiggles]

Robbo had a straight red card v Spurs away

True, however Spurs had scored both goals with him on the pitch, so it's still a valid game to look at, IMO. He didn't go off until the final quarter.

 

[beejay]

True, however Spurs had scored both goals with him on the pitch, so it's still a valid game to look at, IMO. He didn't go off until the final quarter.

Yeah, just pointing out the fact that our record was not unblemished. And although they were not officially own goals, Matip deflected De Bruyne goals in both the Man City games that would have been easily saved costing us crucial points.

Overall, we were defensively excellent for the most part but it's fair to say that we gave up far too many points from winning positions in the first half of the season and that cost us in the end

 

[Tinto]

Yeah, just pointing out the fact that our record was not unblemished. And although they were not officially own goals, Matip deflected De Bruyne goals in both the Man City games that would have been easily saved costing us crucial points.

Overall, we were defensively excellent for the most part but it's fair to say that we gave up far too many points from winning positions in the first half of the season and that cost us in the end

I would say it was likely the midfield that cost us those points from winning positions as we lost control of those games.

And to be fair to the midfielders, in the first third to first half of the season, the team was a little unbalanced, probably too attack minded

 

[FreshRed]

I suppose if you get one at the end of a game to save a goal that's probably the best. Otherwise they're generally a disaster.

Actually I hate red cards, full stop. They're stupid and unnecessary. Usually much too harsh a punishment and often completely ruin good matches.

I think they should just award a penalty instead.

I would like a sin-bin for the non-leg breaking red cards. 10-15 minutes.

The team with the extra man would really have to push to make their advantage count quickly, rather than just wait for the other team to eventually get tired.

 

[peterhague]

I don’t think I can agree with you on this one - would you get a penalty for a second yellow, which opens up the chance for getting a penalty in a really trivial offence.

If a second yellow didn’t lead to a red - would refs hand yellows out more - and what would a third yellow mean - would the player need to commit a fourth foul for another penalty?

I reckon getting a penalty would ruin the game further - leading to people play acting all over the field to get a penalty.

What would be better, would be more consistent application of the rules and a better use of technology to review marginal calls.

None of what you said makes any sense given the obvious truth that a red card is a bigger disadvantage than a penalty for the other team.

I'm.not sure about the "third yellow" problem as it hadn't occurred to me and I haven't had time to consider it. But it could certainly be solved by a mandatory substitution at the same time a penalty is awarded.

 

[rurikbird]

Robbo had a straight red card v Spurs away

Completely forgot about that!

 

[StevieM]

None of what you said makes any sense given the obvious truth that a red card is a bigger disadvantage than a penalty for the other team.

I'm.not sure about the "third yellow" problem as it hadn't occurred to me and I haven't had time to consider it. But it could certainly be solved by a mandatory substitution at the same time a penalty is awarded.

What???? A red card isn’t a bigger disadvantage than the opposition being given a penalty for an event that happened anywhere on the pitch - from which there’s a high chance they’ll score.

it’s a crackpot suggestion that has no merit.

Go and think it through some more.

 

[peterhague]

What???? A red card isn’t a bigger disadvantage than the opposition being given a penalty for an event that happened anywhere on the pitch - from which there’s a high chance they’ll score.

it’s a crackpot suggestion that has no merit.

Go and think it through some more.

An extra player is definitely worth more than a goal. Where the event occurs on the pitch is irrelevant.

 

[Holle]

I can't think of a single situation where a penalty and (if necessary) a long ban wouldn't be a better solution than a red card.

Sin bin is just a fudge. It's less bad than a red card because it ruins less of the game, but it still ruins some of a game that needn't be ruined at all.

If a player gets injured after serious foul play I'd ban the offender for as long as the victim is injured and unable to play.

 

[RedStar]

None of what you said makes any sense given the obvious truth that a red card is a bigger disadvantage than a penalty for the other team.

I'm.not sure about the "third yellow" problem as it hadn't occurred to me and I haven't had time to consider it. But it could certainly be solved by a mandatory substitution at the same time a penalty is awarded.

I'd disagree that a red is always a worse punishment. For a team that's sat deep defending its often preferable to take a red for the team than concede a goal.I think a penalty for a deliberate action which stops a goal scoring opportunity anywhere on the pitch is fair. Dragging a player down before he can get into the box is the sane thing as dragging him down once he's crossed the line, the rule is arbitrary and it's been gamed by players.

 

[peterhague]

I'd disagree that a red is always a worse punishment. For a team that's sat deep defending its often preferable to take a red for the team than concede a goal.I think a penalty for a deliberate action which stops a goal scoring opportunity anywhere on the pitch is fair. Dragging a player down before he can get into the box is the sane thing as dragging him down once he's crossed the line, the rule is arbitrary and it's been gamed by players.

That may be true, but even if it is in that exceptional case, then I'm not sure it's a bad thing. In most cases a penalty is a less harsh punishment, whereas in that case it's possibly more harsh. However, the crucial question is actually whether it's a fairer punishment. In most cases a red card is bad because it's too harsh. In the case you describe, it's probably bad because it's too *lenient*. In both cases, therefore, a penalty might still be *fairer*. So yeah, the fundamental problem with red cards isn't their harshness, but their arbitrariness. They're never the logical redress.

 

[StevieM]

An extra player is definitely worth more than a goal. Where the event occurs on the pitch is irrelevant.

It absolutely isn’t.

There is a 75% chance that a penalty results in a goal - that’s a pretty easy calculation to make and is not impacted by time of offence, quality of teams or whether it’s a home or away team than benefits from the penalty.

It’s a little harder to determine how much having an extra man results in a goal being scored - because time of offence, relative quality of teams and home/away will factor.

However the best research I could find was that a home team score an average of 0.6 more goals if their opponent has a player sent off.

So, while, as expected, an opposition red card gives you an advantage, it doesn’t appear to give you more of an advantage at scoring than a penalty.

The team that’s has their ability to win a match most negatively impacted by getting a red card - is a home team.

There are nuances about attacking intent that flow through all these stats, I feel.

 

[Frogfish]

It absolutely isn’t.

There is a 75% chance that a penalty results in a goal - that’s a pretty easy calculation to make and is not impacted by time of offence, quality of teams or whether it’s a home or away team than benefits from the penalty.

It’s a little harder to determine how much having an extra man results in a goal being scored - because time of offence, relative quality of teams and home/away will factor.

However the best research I could find was that a home team score an average of 0.6 more goals if their opponent has a player sent off.

So, while, as expected, an opposition red card gives you an advantage, it doesn’t appear to give you more of an advantage at scoring than a penalty.

The team that’s has their ability to win a match most negatively impacted by getting a red card - is a home team.

There are nuances about attacking intent that flow through all these stats, I feel.

And that average of 0.6 more goals includes the teams that score multiple goals ? If that is the case the advantage over a penalty (0.75) is actually less in terms of giving an advantage whilst majorly increases the chances of spoiling the match as a true contest and would generally become a game of defence against attack.

 

[peterhague]

It absolutely isn’t.

There is a 75% chance that a penalty results in a goal - that’s a pretty easy calculation to make and is not impacted by time of offence, quality of teams or whether it’s a home or away team than benefits from the penalty.

It’s a little harder to determine how much having an extra man results in a goal being scored - because time of offence, relative quality of teams and home/away will factor.

However the best research I could find was that a home team score an average of 0.6 more goals if their opponent has a player sent off.

So, while, as expected, an opposition red card gives you an advantage, it doesn’t appear to give you more of an advantage at scoring than a penalty.

The team that’s has their ability to win a match most negatively impacted by getting a red card - is a home team.

There are nuances about attacking intent that flow through all these stats, I feel.

Even if that's all true, which I find hard to believe but that I'll grant for the sake of the argument, it still doesn't really matter that much. It could be that making the punishment harsher could make it fairer. And going by your numbers, the difference in severity is pretty small anyway.

The REAL benefit is that it'd stop ruining matches for spectators. Of course, if you wanted to achieve that while more exactly retaining the severity, you could have a "sub-penalty" taken from say 18 yards or whatever.

p.s. I reckon those figures are hugely skewed by the time left in the match when red cards are awarded. A red card given in say the 30th minute is SURELY a harsher punishment than a penalty. Which is another reason to get rid of red cards, of course: their severity varies wildly depending on when they're given, even though the offence is always the same.

 

[StevieM]

Even if that's all true, which I find hard to believe but that I'll grant for the sake of the argument, it still doesn't really matter that much. It could be that making the punishment harsher could make it fairer. And going by your numbers, the difference in severity is pretty small anyway.

The REAL benefit is that it'd stop ruining matches for spectators. Of course, if you wanted to achieve that while more exactly retaining the severity, you could have a "sub-penalty" taken from say 18 yards or whatever.

p.s. I reckon those figures are hugely skewed by the time left in the match when red cards are awarded. A red card given in say the 30th minute is SURELY a harsher punishment than a penalty. Which is another reason to get rid of red cards, of course: their severity varies wildly depending on when they're given, even though the offence is always the same.

Im not presenting these as absolute.

Study into the impact of red cards :
https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00842.x

Study into how a red card impacts a match :
http://intelligentfc.com/how-does-a-red-card-affect-the-outcome-of-a-football-match/

Study that looked at 100,000 penalties globally since 2009 :
https://instatsport.com/football/article/penalty_research

This is before we even touch on - what if 2 players get a red card for a scuffle at the same time - do both teams get a penalty.

I appreciate that’s not necessarily something for you to answer, etc.

Of course, I’d agree that an early red card can “ruin” a game because one side might revert to being more defensive for a longer period of time - but first half red cards are quite rare - with most coming late on.

 

[peterhague]

Im not presenting these as absolute.

Study into the impact of red cards :
https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00842.x

Study into how a red card impacts a match :
http://intelligentfc.com/how-does-a-red-card-affect-the-outcome-of-a-football-match/

Study that looked at 100,000 penalties globally since 2009 :
https://instatsport.com/football/article/penalty_research

This is before we even touch on - what if 2 players get a red card for a scuffle at the same time - do both teams get a penalty.

I appreciate that’s not necessarily something for you to answer, etc.

Of course, I’d agree that an early red card can “ruin” a game because one side might revert to being more defensive for a longer period of time - but first half red cards are quite rare - with most coming late on.

Well tbh I'm not sure if a penalty is an absolutely good punishment for violent red card incidents - they probably aren't actually - but what I'm certain of is that they'd be much better than red cards, which are a bad response in basically all cases.

The question of what to do with violent conduct really comes down to whether you think the team should be collectively punished for the bad conduct of the individual player. I tend to think it'd be best to just have a mandatory substitution and then an appropriate ban. The club could be fined etc too if they were seen to have encouraged that behaviour etc.

But if for some reason I can't currently think of it was decided that there absolutely must be some effect on the game in which the incident actually took place, then yes a penalty is clearly preferable.