HeFi 06-07

[Zinga]

Kannatan maalieroa eikä keskinäisiä pelejä. Tämä on mielestäni luonnollisempi tapa sarjamuotoisissa järjestelmissä. UCL ei ole sarjamuotoinen järjestelmä vaan lohkomuotoinen.

Esimerkiksi FA Premier pelataan maalieron mukaan.

I give my vote to goal difference as it is more natural for league type competitions. This gives some edge to our goal machine Kennedy, but no worries  

[Epis]

Zinga___ 9 6 2 0__24-6_23

Zingalla 7 voittoa.

Tämä osui silmään, kun päivitin sarjataulua. Ainakin itse sain listatuista tuloksista laskettua Zingalle nuo 7 voittoa.

[Eliot Kennedy]

I give my vote to goal difference as it is more natural for league type competitions. This gives some edge to our goal machine Kennedy, but no worries  :wink: But I actually do agree - goal difference is normal for a league and, if the goal difference is the same, then the team with more total goals scored would normally be ranked ahead. In other words, if two players had a +25 goal difference but one had scored 50 and the other 60, then the one with 60 would be ranked ahead.

This is maybe better for at the moment, but who knows?? There's a long way to go still

[Rossonero]

I'll write this in english as most of this has already been said in finnish.

I think that if you want to know which one of the teams on level points deserves to be the first, goal difference is artificial. Goal difference is made in matches against the weaker teams. I fail to see the point in crowning Zinga champion on level points with Eliot (or vice versa) just because he scored ten against for example Masse and the other just nine! What sort of a decider is that?

It only leads to ruthless hammering of the weakest players, whivh I personally don't even want to do. Even when I could. It also goes against defending players. What if in the example Eliot clearly won both matches against Zinga, but had problems with some other players. Is it then right that he finishes second because he hasn't hammered everyone, although it is clear that of the two teams he was better when it mattered.

The dutch league just ended with Ajax (+49) losing the title on the last day to PSV (+50), because they only one 2-0 when PSV one 5-1. And we all know how little real competition there is in the dutch league. So from day one it's hammering all the way.

In Italy they used to have a replay for deciding the title, relegation or European cup spot. Nowadays it's the games played against the teams on level points that count. So ridiculous results like Roma-Catania 7-0 make a difference only when they are level on points. I think it's brilliant and by far better than the goal difference. I don't know about the spanish, german or french leagues.

Esimerkiksi FA Premier pelataan maalieron mukaan.

Yes, but the english have never been known as the great revolutionaries or thinkers in the beautiful game. Just look how the FA has been run in the last two decades. So I wouldn't count too much on that...

I give my vote to goal difference as it is more natural for league type competitions. This gives some edge to our goal machine Kennedy, but no worries  

Yeah, right.

Zinga___ 16 13 3 0 68-8 42
Eliot____ 16 11 3 2 56-12 36

This really makes little difference to me in the league, but I would like to know why people think goal difference is so good in deciding which team is better?

[Puppe]

ulkopuolisena kommentti...tai mielipide. Minusta keskinäisten pelien pitäis mennä maalieron edelle. mestaruudet on haastavinta ratkaista kokeneempien keskinäisissä otteluissa kuin heikoimpia vastaan takomalla. toki maalintekokin on taito mutta...vasta keskinäisten jälkeen. Subuun se taitaisi sopia muutenkin paremmin...onhan se käytössä turnauksissakin.

[Zinga]

It only leads to ruthless hammering of the weakest players, which I personally don't even want to do. Even when I could. It also goes against defending players. What if in the example Eliot clearly won both matches against Zinga, but had problems with some other players. Is it then right that he finishes second because he hasn't hammered everyone, although it is clear that of the two teams he was better when it mattered.

Well... I usually play all my league games as well as possible. One reason for this is that I know that the goal difference will count not just for me but also for others. I dont understand how you play if you do not try to score goals??

It does not matter what the system is, if everyone knows it. It is just my opinnion that every game should count when you are playing the league. If you want to give something to players who can not score, the we should use goal average that was used earlier in football and hockey. (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_difference)

[Rossonero]

It only leads to ruthless hammering of the weakest players, which I personally don't even want to do. Even when I could. It also goes against defending players. What if in the example Eliot clearly won both matches against Zinga, but had problems with some other players. Is it then right that he finishes second because he hasn't hammered everyone, although it is clear that of the two teams he was better when it mattered.

Well... I usually play all my league games as well as possible. One reason for this is that I know that the goal difference will count not just for me but also for others. I dont understand how you play if you do not try to score goals??

I have never enjoyed kicking someone while he's down. Of course I try to score, but after lets say 6-0 it's pointless hammering. I didn't like it when I played waterpolo in the finnish championship, and I don't like it in subu. Maybe I'm just weak.

And when the game starts you go for points, like every coach in football knows. The goal difference is of no importance until maybe in the end. I like it better that in Italy teams don't usually try to humiliate the weaker teams.

It does not matter what the system is, if everyone knows it. It is just my opinnion that every game should count when you are playing the league. If you want to give something to players who can not score, the we should use goal average that was used earlier in football and hockey. (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_difference)

I can play with any system, but I always like to know why something is done the way it is. That's why I asked. Puppe put it in a nutshell. It's harder/better to win a league beating someone your own size than beating the shit out of a newby.

[Rossonero]

Yksi peli pelattiin:

Saku-Masse 0-0

Saku scored a nice goal, but unfortunately forgot one man in offside position. Both had good chances, but finishing left room for improvement.

[Hönkki]

It's harder/better to win a league beating someone your own size than beating the shit out of a newby.

Maybe so, but when you have to decide who is best of the newbies, then the goaldifference should count, because goaldifference tells who has given up and who hasn't. I think it is not the same thing to lose 0-4 than 0-10.


Hesu-league, season 90-91: Liesivaara and Gråsten had the same points and they both had one game left againts Janne Kivelä. Gråsten played first and won 11-0, then Liesivaara played and he won 9-0. Gråsten's final goaldifference was 88-35 and Liesivaara's 81-30. Gråsten won the championship. I think it was very exciting ending to the season, not very nice to Kivelä though   .He wasn't newby anymore.

[Eliot Kennedy]

Very interesting debate. I will go with any system - I really don't mind. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I think I still favour the goal difference method as I think it is a better test of a player's/team's consistency over the course of the whole season.

One can of course put arguments in favour of any system, inlcuding Ves's preferred one (which would be fine with me). But, for example, what if a player plays badly for just one match or has very bad luck against a player he is equal with on points, but is otherwise vastly superior on goal difference? You could argue he has therefore failed the most important test, but you could also argue he is being punished for one bad game or one game with lots of bad luck.....

But, I repeat, I will play with whatever system is agreed.  

[Epis]

I can play with either one system, but in my mind the one which supports the whole period/all games of the teams would be better. The one that compares two indivitual teams strenght would be best for cups, tournaments etc.

But like i said i can play with either one of these rules, but only if it doesn't give the crown of champ to Zinga  

[Zinga]

But like i said i can play with either one of these rules, but only if it doesn't give the crown of champ to Zinga  :roll:

[Rossonero]

Of course every game counts, because there are points to take from every game. But if two players are on level points - wherever on the table - I think they should be compared to their equals to decide who's better.

I also question the goal difference with the following:

Why is it that for the best players it's good to play attacking game and in the bottom of the table it's good to defend with ten? I think - for example - it's wrong to punish Masse for trying to attack, and reward Zaccy for defending and trying to eliminate the other teams game. When at the same time it's the other way around for the better players.

As for the reasoning "one poor game can make a difference", it really is absolutely the same thing with goal difference. My logic suggests that if the poor game is against your main opponent(s), your equals, then it should be decisive, as those are the balanced games that are toughest to get results from.

I understand that people are so used to goal difference that it is hard to even think about other solutions. But if they use other system it in the CL, Euro Champs and the World Cup, the biggest tournaments the governing bodies organize (they haven't got any leagues to use it for), I don't see why it would be worse.

I also think that if the best players want to have more use from the games against the bottom of the table teams, then trying new and more difficult things would be good. But having to hammer in as much as you can with basic play, doesn't allow anyone to do that, because you could lose your position for one missed chance where you tried something more difficult.

[Zinga]

Why is it that for the best players it's good to play attacking game and in the bottom of the table it's good to defend with ten? I think - for example - it's wrong to punish Masse for trying to attack, and reward Zaccy for defending and trying to eliminate the other teams game. When at the same time it's the other way around for the better players.

I just dont agree with you in this. You just mentioned that the points are the most important thing. The first thing you need to learn is to defend, if you want to get points. I would count myself as a defending player. I also defend normally with 7 to 9 players. I also try to eliminate the other teams game. Does it make Zaccy a bad player if he is trying to do the same? Is it better to go for a goal and be hammerd than trying to get decent results and point(s)?

Well, again said it is same to me. We can discuss and vote about the issue on Thursday.

[Rossonero]

Why is it that for the best players it's good to play attacking game and in the bottom of the table it's good to defend with ten? I think - for example - it's wrong to punish Masse for trying to attack, and reward Zaccy for defending and trying to eliminate the other teams game. When at the same time it's the other way around for the better players.

I just dont agree with you in this. You just mentioned that the points are the most important thing. The first thing you need to learn is to defend, if you want to get points. I would count myself as a defending player. I also defend normally with 7 to 9 players. I also try to eliminate the other teams game. Does it make Zaccy a bad player if he is trying to do the same? Is it better to go for a goal and be hammerd than trying to get decent results and point(s)?

Of course it doesn't. But is it also wrong for Masse to try to score even against better opposition? Or is it wrong that I want to keep the score decent even against the weakest players? I don't think it's right that the rules make weaker players defend all the time. For me the better player in the league (of these two) if they finished on level points, is the one who plays better when they meet. If they are level after that, then the goal difference is the key. I don't think it's right to punish or reward anyone for a style of play.

For example Seppo is probably going to lose some points against weaker opposition for draws, but he hasn't lost to any of the middle of the table teams, and won most of them. But if the middle of the table is tight he loses places for players he beat.

I also find it strange that some players are supposed to attack (better ones) while others are supposed to defend (weaker ones). Shouldn't it be so that everyone could play his own style and not gain or lose places because of it - providing of course that they get points. Goal difference doesn't encourage weaker players to try to attack. For example I always try to beat you, and thus have scored a lot against you, but then got -3 against you last time. Keeping the damages to a minimum is in the best case (very unprobable) going to get me a 0-0 or probably 0-1.

And as the important thing is the points. Why should a player going behind just play the rest of the game keeping it decent, and not trying to gat a point out of it, even risking a few setbacks more? I don't understand that a player like Zaccy, when losing 1-0 in the latter stages doesn't try to get something out of a game. Saku for example goes for points, and was close against Seppo, but has lost heavy sometimes.

I agree that defending is important. But then why should we punish the better players for playing defensively? As for the weaker players, I don't think it's very satisfying if you are only supposed to defend. Scoring brings the best feeling (ask Zaccy as he scored two last time), and I think most players lose rather when scoring one or two themselves than losing even 1-0 without scoring.

I just wanted to discuss this, as people often don't consider all angles in anything. There is no one truth in this and decisions have to be based on discussion. But we'll decide on Thursday.

By the way, I make the schedule for the second round tomorrow.