What's so random about building an attack, then getting the ball in the box so it can be knocked into the goal? What's so random about having uncompromising, organized defense? The best team wins 90% of the time? Under what circumstance is that league winner not the best?
I dont even know where you are going with the first half of your post, it seems you are just confusing yourself. About your observation regarding the 900 minute game vs the 90 minute game, yes, you are right, if one lucky occurance happens every 90 minutes then you could have 10 lucky occurances in a 900 minute game and this is precicely the reason why the luck is less likely to factor in to the result because it will be distributed among the teams. Lets say two people are playing a game where they have to flip a coin and whoever called the result wins. This is a game that takes 0 skill and 100% luck.If a match is played with only one flip, one player will win every single time. As you increase the number of flips, then luck will favor each player about 50% of the time. So in a 90 minute game example, imagine that before the game starts the team flips a coin and the winner will get that lucky occurance (whether that is a goal, a pk, a dangerous set piece, etc). In this scenario the winning team will be the only one that benefits from the lucky occurance. Now, if you are playing a 900 minute game where you have to flip the coin every 90 minutes, you could expect the luck to be distributed more evenly, if mot 5-5, then maybe 6-4 or 7-3, but at least it is not as lopsided as one team getting 100% of the luck. This is why at the end of a 38 game season, the teams with more talent will usually always be on the top, because they have flipped the coin many times throughout the season and even though it has hurt them sometimes, they have also benefited other times. On the other had, the FA cuop requieres less flips per round, and it is not unlikely for less talented teams to surpas more talented teams. So ironically, the more instances of luck that are in a sample size, the more effect that other factors have in a result.
I was showing that the notion of luck is subjective. But in this 900 minute game, if team A gets 6 lucky occurences, and team B gets 5, then what's the difference between that and the 90 minute game where there was 1 occurence? I understand that a round-robin format is more satisfying to fans, but in cases like the World Cup, the losers still can't blame their fate on luck. They know that they only have 1 game to continue or survive, so they better overcome ref calls, and mind their p's and q's to avoid costly mistakes. They have no excuse. But in the FA Cup however, the losers can blame it on anything they want, that tourney is not important.
Lol, yeah, that's exactly what I said. (sarcasm) Depending on the tournament, the way you prove you are the best is by winning that tournament. There are exceptions like the FA Cup. But in the Euro domestic leagues, the only exception is if another team went deep in the CL. If not, then you are the best if you win your domestic league title. There are no exceptions in the CL. Put up or shut up.
I'll shut up then, since if I don't agree with you I'm wrong anyways. Chelsea was the best team last year right? riiiiight..
Because of the distribution. Assume that the lucky occurance is that the ref fails to call a clear pk because a player was blocking his field of vision. If this were to happen once in a 90 minute game, then it would probably cost the fouled team 1 goal and considering a game is decided by one goal, then this will have a direct effect on the score line. In the 900 minute game, the ref would fail to call a pk 10 times, 5 for one team and 5 for the other. The net benefit that a team gets because of luck is 0 (5-5), so luck is not going to play a factor in the result of the game. But even if the distribution is not 50/50, if for instance, a ref fails to call 4 penalties for one team and 6 for the other, even if one team was affected by a factor of +2, its not going to matter as much in the result because if the goal differential of 90 minutes is 1, then the goal differential of 900 is 10, and therefore 10+2 or 10-2 is not going to determine if one team wins or loses.
Ill answer this, the fact that if that home and away series were to be played 10 times under the same conditions, Chelsea would win no more than 2 of them.
Fact? As far as facts go, Barcelona was unable to beat them twice. And by the way, you haven't answered my question at all.
I think that had they played that home/away series 10 times, Barcelona would have won 8 and Chelsea 2. They got somewhat lucky that they won the one series they played, considering they only had a 20% chance of winning. I feel like I keep repeating myself.
That's probably 'cause you are repeating yourself. So you haven't given me an actual answer. A team is not 'lucky' because you "think" they're 'lucky'. This is sort of a Playstation-way of reasoning. Team X has player ratings of 90. Team Y had player ratings of 80. So if team Y beats team X, team Y was lucky, eventhough team X was "better". So the question remains: 'What made Chelsea the lucky team and Barcelona the better one in your opinion?'
I have a feeling that you dont really know what I am talking about. I define luck as a significantly rare event taking place in your favor. A lucky event does not have to be something 100% out of your control. So, once again, had that same series taken place 10 times, I think Chelsea only wins 2. I think you are talking about something else entirely when refering to luck. Lets start with that, how do you define luck?
Exactly. Barcelona could not beat Chelsea on two occasions, 180+ minutes of soccer, and you are talking about "a significantly rare event". Forget that. According to you losing a game is to be deemed "unluckly" when said event is "significantly rare", and you're the one who decides when it's rare or not based on what you think should have been the normal course of the event. Obviously this (kind of subjectivity) is complete nonsense to me. Which is why I keep asking you: what made Chelsea "lucky" and Barcelona the "better team"?
I didn't tell you to shut up. "put up or shut up" is a phrase in English, which I directed at the CL teams. It means "get the job done, or shut your face", basically. And yes, Chelsea was the best in Europe; they put up, so they didn't have to shut up.
LOL. You're making a lot of assumptions about a game that never has and never will exist. Why do you assume a 900 minute game will have a +10 goal differential? LOL. The game could have a +2 differential of goals AND "lucky" occurences. So this marathon game didn't help at all.
LOL again! Por favor, amigo. How do you know what would happen in this imaginary world where they would do it again 10 times??? Hahaha. You have no idea what would happen in these games that do not exist. If you replay the series with the exact same conditions, then Chelsea wins EVERY SINGLE TIME. Reality has already been recorded, if we rewind, we will get the same results. There is no proof as to what would happen in imaginary games. Be it a 900 minute marathon game, or a Chelsea-Barca redo. It's possible there will be a luckfest for 1 team only, in this 900 minute match (where all players would die from exhastion anyway). It's posssible that Chelsea would do the exact same thing to Barca if they had 10 rematches, for which I guess then they'd have to play reserves in their real matches, which would be asinine because then they'd probably lose. Plus Drogba would have to come back, and DiMatteo, etc. Plus, they'd be a year older. And what motivation would they have to play these pointless redos? The real matches already happened, and Chelsea THUMPED Barca. There's a cardinal rule when it comes to debating: You cannot speculate a hypothetical. You will never be right.
Seriously? You are either playing with me or these concepts are so far over your head that you need a telescope to see them. I think its best for us to not continue this conversation, it would probably be a waste of both of our time.
Within the possible outcomes of an event, there were several where Chelsea ties a game and wins the other, this does not necessarily mean that this is the most likely outcome to happen. You have to look at the probabilites of this game as the intersection of two normal distribution curves. Hell, within the range of possibilities there were instances of Chelsea winning both games, but these were probabily less likely than Barca winning both games. Just because a certain event X takes place, does not mean that X is the most likely outcome. Forget Chelsea and Barcelona, lets look at another example, Switzerland vs Spain in the World Cup. I think Spain had a much bigger chance of winning this game. And even though Switzerland won, this does not mean that this was the most probable outcome of that matchup. And yes, this is subjective because I am judging the true level of both teams based on my opinion. But guess what, your are judging the teams based on your subjective opinion. You subjectively think that 180 minutes is enough to claim that Chelsea had a better chance of beating Barcelona, I do not think that is enough of a sample size given that research has shown that all things being equal 1) the team with the more talent (measured by salary) will usually win a game between two teams. But even if you look at the series that you are trying to use as the ultimate indicator of possible outcomes, Barcelona led for longer, during the 180 minutes, than Chelsea. This is hardly an indicator of anything but a possible outcome where both teams get very similar result. Any diferentiation that you make between the Switzerland/Spain game and Chelsea/Barcelona is just as subjective as my analisis of the teams.
Problem is when people play the results they can never be wrong. So they hide behind hindsight and refuse to discuss something unless they have results. I don't get why they would apply such logic to a thread based on luck or any thread in this forum. Because most of it here, is discussion about things we don't know yet. From the place of Messi in history to who's going to win the next world cup. Following their line of thinking, we're not supposed to have an opinion on the subject until it has played out. Then we can make judgement.