1) The 1st Bundesliga
a. Review of the Matches
Results of the 18th Matchday
Borussia Mönchengladbach – FC Bayern Munich 3:1 (1:0)
TSG Hoffenheim – Hannover 96 0:0
- FC Nuremberg – Hertha BSC 2:0 (1:0)
FC Schalke 04 – VfB Stuttgart 3:1 (1:0)
VfL Wolfsburg – 1. FC Cologne 1:0 (0:0)
SC Freiburg – FC Augsburg 1:0 (0:0)
- FC Kaiserslautern – Werder Bremen 0:0
Hamburger SV – Borussia Dortmund 1:5 (0:2)
Bayer Leverkusen – FSV Mainz 05 3:2 (2:0)
A few observations:
1) Gladbach – Bayern
The Bundesliga is back! And, who would deny it, despite all the critical objections made at this point: the joy prevails. The breaks may be enjoyable, not only for the kickers to recover and for the (from the local point of view absolutely nonsensical) opening of the transfer window for the purpose of all-round “squad improvement”, but also for the awakening of anticipation and for the recognition and admission of the fact that without the Bundesliga one is missing something after all.
The nonsense? Well, a further digression would be necessary here, but only this much is hinted at: the fan seems to accept the complete absence of identification and, like the media, focuses exclusively on success. No matter where a player comes from or what character he has, which clubs he has played for before and will soon, after the end of his (possible) loan, lace up his boots and cheer his goals, as long as he wears the kit of his own club, he will be adored, as long as he only contributes to the temporary success of his beloved team. So if the fan goes along with it, one may well accept it, especially since the same right applies to all clubs. Success as the only yardstick, the media not only carrying this but actually proclaiming it, is the criterion actually in doubt. Are there no other values any more?
In any case, the nonsensical comments as well as the inconceivable refereeing decisions that go against the spirit of the game have also returned from Game 1 onwards. Gladbach Borussia put in another outstanding performance, no doubt about it. Everyone agreed on that, including the players and even Bayern themselves. Only: this is exactly the point where one could hook in for once. This is the little story:
Ecki Häuser, the raving reporter from Sky, wanted to capture a few Bavarian voices after the final whistle, only all the players ran past the microphone, as he had to realise. When he finally managed to win Phillip Lahm for an interview – who turned himself in, hats off to him for that — he opened it in an extremely friendly and accommodating manner, in contrast to the direct and brusque attacks he usually observes. He was well aware that the only one who turned himself in would rather be handled with kid gloves before he too took flight. Why then did Bayern suffer another defeat right from the start?
Phillip Lahm now has two options: either he tells the truth and is laughed at for it or he talks the man’s ear off, which would be a completely unproductive conversation. “We were just as bad as you made us out to be all along.” about then the tenor. However, he decided to tell the truth, which will forever remain unheard – especially from a reporter’s point of view: “I didn’t think we were the worse team. We lost the game, against a very strong Gladbach team, yes. But we were not worse. We had created enough chances to score and still fell behind because of one mistake. Gladbach made it 2-0 with their next chance,” he said.
The problem is that he doesn’t like to be interviewed, and the others don’t want to be interviewed at all, because this truth is never acknowledged. Goals are counted and that is considered the ultimate competence. If a player of the losing team does it, he can at best count on halfway mitigating circumstances, since he is inclined to judge his team positively (this applies especially to coaches, who then supposedly place themselves protectively in front of their players). There is no chance that this realisation will prevail, that any of the demigods – self-selected by knowledge of the score – will join it. Marcel Reif and Stefan Effenberg, the two of them behind the microphone during the game, played a double pass: “Gladbach leads 2:0.” (the clever reporter counted exactly), Effenberg afterwards: “Deservedly 2:0.” “Yes, deservedly.” And on and on.
First of all: Lahm’s praise was of course absolutely justified, because Gladbach played outstandingly, made the most of their abilities and home advantage, coupled with the individual class of Marco Reus in particular, who used his excellent technique on Manuel Neuer’s failed opening pass, which he managed to pick up 32 metres from goal, to flick the ball almost straight into the orphaned goal. Goals are very important for the course of a game, one of the seldom used and if only for joking, but nevertheless absolutely true insights (of Christoph Daum by the way). The Glabdachers were in the lead. They now believed in it more than ever, and when they were in the lead, the crowd was in full swing, things happened that would never have happened if the score had been 0-0 or 0-1, the opponents got a little nervous, even if they were the Bavarians, and as the leader you knew that a goal, if you scored it, was far from the end, everything was favourable, and the goal couldn’t possibly be taken for granted? It was scored, it was great and it was an unfortunate moment for Bayern, that’s it.
Bayern pressed and tried, only the man with the nervous arm on the touchline actually objected a few times, apart from this or that possible whistle in the penalty area. Marcel Reif in the second very critical offside situation, in which the Bavarian attackers were (typically) whistled back, recognised the correctness of the decision in the replay, which one is not obliged to share, but at the same time he praised the good eye of the assistant.
Well, this is precisely what is once again as ridiculous as it can get. A good eye could only be proven if one let run – and received absolution for it. But then it would have nothing to do with a good eye, but only with courage in the dimensions of a lion’s heart. Because: one would risk that a goal would be scored and one would be guilty of it, if one’s leg or upper body or even one toe had actually been proven to be closer to the goal line than the part of the opponent’s body leaning furthest towards it, in the seventeenth slow motion with the freeze-frame function used, in which the moment of play is supposed to be captured (which, not only philosophically, is not possible). He might even accept this, but not the fact that his career would henceforth be severely curtailed and that he would not be considered for the next two or three months until he finally vowed to do better in the privacy of his own home and promised to bring in the attention that such a high occasion as a Bundesliga match would demand and that goals that were not goals could actually distort the competition, and not just since Robert Hoyzer.
So he does what he always does: “Oh, he’s free. I’d better raise the flag.” It has nothing to do with a good eye, but rather with “going with the flow”. After all, everyone waves when someone is free.
In the third scene, Marcel Reif finally had to admit that it was a “hair’s breadth”, but this time it was “probably more of the same height”. Yes, but what does it matter whether it was the same height or demonstrably not offside? It’s not just because of dwindling availability that no roosters are crowing about it anymore, neither today nor tomorrow let alone in a few weeks.
2) The tininess of a foul
Of course, there is a lot more worth reporting, observing, capturing, exciting from this weekend, but as an author, you have given yourself the freedom of association – ignoring readers’ wishes – and you freely tell what you have noticed, without attaching any importance to the completeness or value of the selected stories.
One scene from the Leverkusen-Mainz match caught my eye, just as a tiny example of a phenomenon that is often ignored and quoted. Eren Derdyok once charged irresistibly with the ball towards the edge of the opponent’s penalty area, wildly determined to finish, which he intended to seek with a deft little sweep to the outside, when an opponent from the side, just at the moment when he was building up the resilience for the well-aimed shot, jostled him just a tiny touch. The defender’s timing is perfect. He recognises the situation correctly, that it has to be done right now. The striker can’t change his mind, he’s going to fire, it’s just that little brief moment of irritation that naturally causes the shot to fail. It goes past the goal, even if not far. There’s a nice expression for it in England: “He did just enough to put him off balance.” He did just enough to put him off balance. It makes a well-aimed shot virtually impossible. In England, however – just to finish this off – there is a very clear differentiation between unsporting behaviour and regular boarding, even in such a situation. In Germany, everything is omitted, even any commentary on the scene, because the announcer is busy drawing a conclusion or talking about the transfer rumours surrounding a player, if he is not talking about the coach’s last coaching stations, so you don’t get any clarification here either way (there is no more match action in German reports).
The only thing was that in this scene, the author was just telling the chosen co-observer live about this scene, as it is so often seen but so rarely (namely never) punished, when Eren Derdiyok was seen swearing while running back. He showed that he was obstructed, right at that moment. He knows full well that it was unsportsmanlike conduct, an offence punishable in itself, only he also knows at the same time that he would never get the proper reward for it. Why is it that everyone agrees that it is best to stop all goal actions, regular or not? Is it truly that this is the way to get maximum justice and ultimate fan support?
It was a foul, it was an obstruction, it was minimal but exactly enough to prevent the successful finish. It was perfect in execution, so it would be ignored over and over again. Get a free kick for such a tiny thing? No, there would be no justification for that.
Just think, if you did recognise it, put the focus on it, as a referee, from the side of the media, fans and spectators? How beautiful could football be, how many wonderful attacking actions, how many brilliant goals could be seen, if the priority was not to prevent football but to play it? What if the offensive actions were encouraged in this way, the defender was seen as the bad guy who denied the attacker – and not only in the scene but all the time – the good action, in an illegal way, thus depriving the spectator of it? What if all these outstanding players were allowed to show off their ball-handling skills on the pitch, rather than those defensive artists practising their dexterity in dealing with opponents’ legs? An unimagined spectacle would be in store for us, and who, pray, do you fear, could run away from it?
3) “he didn’t see”
Well, on Saturday evening the “top match” was on and yet it is only called that because it is a single match. Kaiserslautern against Werder Bremen is simply a Bundesliga match, but therefore of course also “top”. There is, after all, no higher division. You have the pleasure of seeing and hearing a few experts chatting in a relaxed atmosphere an hour before the game. Certainly not a bad idea on the part of the broadcaster Sky. Among these experts is the former top referee Markus Merk.
When the brutal and horrible foul on Sebastian Prödl happened, where you could see immediately after the player’s impact that he was holding his hand up in horror, signalling a serious injury, you already knew what to expect (as an experienced and practised viewer). Not only that the clear foul play was not punished, no, not even that the game was not interrupted and Kaiserslautern in the following counter attack – without the central and important defender of Werder – almost scored a goal themselves, no, not only that Sebastian Prödl was seriously injured with a kick to the head and made unable to fight, the goal was prevented and the man could finally be carried off the pitch after minutes of treatment with a badly bleeding facial injury, no, not enough that the slow motion brought the undisguised verdict of “clear penalty” and the only then horrified cry of the reporter, all this, as regrettable as it sounds, would almost have to be called “routine”. Much worse was the foreseen and feared verdict of the assembled experts regarding this scene.
Markus Merk, who for years had been one of the top experts in preventing football, simply by being allowed to have the whistle in his mouth (and was not a bit better in the sense of allowing football than his successors are) finally said what had to make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end: “He didn’t see that.” It was the only possible judgement a man in that position could pronounce. For: if he were to concede that it was impossible to miss something like that and that the muting of the whistle was due solely to the fact that you simply don’t give a penalty, no matter what you saw and what you didn’t see, penalties simply don’t exist, then he would be calling into question everything he had done all his life. He could just say that, only he would have to know that it is not the truth. The referee sees it very well and it wouldn’t even be necessary to see it very clearly. Here a defender, in a final goal-prevention panic, jerked his leg up to the level of the opponent’s head in an acrobatic defensive action, while the opponent merely intended to head the ball over the line from close range. This was grievous bodily harm and at the same time a brutal action that should inevitably have resulted in a red card, including a penalty kick, and hopefully, for the sake of justice, a goal and a long ban. By the way, there was not the slightest disagreement among the experts about the assessment of the scene.
When a while later a Werder defender intercepted a cross ball with his hand in an absolutely typical action, located in his own penalty area, and also here there was no doubt about the justification of a penalty, because you can see, at the latest in slow motion, that the defender stretches his arms out even slightly to get to the ball (and since even the hare-brained paragraph does not apply, that it could have been a non-intentional handball), Jan-Age Fjörtoft, who is also in the round, explains that he did not blow the whistle here because he had previously denied Werder this crystal-clear penalty and he was aware of this fault (what does he mean, and why actually “meanwhile”? !), insofar he could not decide on a penalty kick here either. He added, since he was in the presence of Markus Merk and hoping for his approval (not really), that no one should say it like that, especially not from the referees’ guild, but that it was nevertheless true. Due to his extremely friendly and conciliatory interjection, Mr. Merk could not refuse to agree. He confirmed this, albeit behind very slightly held hands (by murmuring a “yes”).
Jan-Age Fjörtoft is much more than just right, only he probably doesn’t quite know it himself. He didn’t give this penalty because he didn’t give the one before and he didn’t give the one before because he didn’t give the one before and he didn’t give the one before because he didn’t give the one before … ad infinitum. The overall verdict is: you never give a penalty at all, neither this referee nor that one. Because: the penalty is always, for practically every action, too harsh a punishment, which has to be so well thought out and every doubt has to be finally and completely cleared up, that there is… ALWAYS a reason to deny it. You then make up for it by giving a (dubious) one at 3:0. Because: at that moment, completely different laws apply.
4) No goal by Lewandowski
Perhaps what has been described will become a little clearer if we look at the disallowed goal by Lewandowski, which probably didn’t even deserve a mention in the post-match reporting. Of course, there are excellent reasons for suppression here. Because: Dortmund won the game 5:1, so there were many beautiful scenes and goals to see and such an injustice simply falls under the carpet, without any grumbling, from any side. It was at the score of 1:0, and HSV was properly pressing for a good while, with a few good scoring chances of their own. So it could well have mattered. Well, anyway, the ball flew into the penalty area, Lewandowski gets it exactly on his head and sinks it, standing up, yet getting enough power and precision into it, exactly into the corner. The 2:0. Of course, but the 2:0? That can’t be….? No, with a weighty gesture and a grimace, referee Wolfgang Stark strode to a random spot in the penalty area – and pointed in the opposite direction to the goal. Allegedly a striker’s foul At which place and in which duel is completely indifferent to him. There was certainly physical contact somewhere in the penalty area, indeed, how could there be without it? The penalty area was relatively full of players of this or that colour, so it was inevitable. The only thing is that he attributed the offence to a Dortmund player – if there was one at all. It could, however, have been committed by either the defender or the attacker, usually by both, but in reality in this sequence: the defender holds because he always holds, the attacker tries to break away, now and then the defender sees the moment given to drop – certainly mostly at the moment when he runs out of other means of defence – and often enough gets the encouragement of the whistle man. So probably also here, although nothing could be discovered in any replay, with all sincere effort.
At this point, however, only the real question: Why did he see this invisible offence, as you can see from his face and gesture, one hundred percent reliably and exactly, and there remains not the slightest shadow of a doubt that could be elicited from him, but the referee in the other game, Lautern – Werder (the referees would of course be interchangeable), a foot of a defender at the head height of the opponent, who hits him almost life-threatening, breaks his nose and who collapses covered in blood, did NOT see THIS action? Yes, are you still there? Surely this absurdity should be recognised at some point?
5) Coaches’ judgements
There was a match between Hoffenheim and Hannover. The game ended 0:0. Since it was a mid-table game and there were no goals, the verdict is: “A very weak game.” Quasi this a reflex, regardless of the match scenes. Both coaches’ voices were captured and broadcast afterwards. Both agreed – independently – that Hoffenheim had played well, that Hannover were (and can be) happy with the point, and that they were essentially satisfied with the team’s performance. Back in the studio, this was commented on again: it would probably always be the case that coaches make an effort to emphasise the positive. So the truth remains untouchable, that’s what they want you to hear. The game was quite weak, no revision necessary. The coaches were only so positive because they struggled to identify anything good.
Here, too, the question may be allowed: why do people keep doubting coaches’ opinions? From this point of view, it can be guaranteed that they are the only reliable voices, at least far superior to reporters’ assessments. Wasn’t it at some point that these (coaches) were also the true experts, recognised as such? They have the licence, they work every day on and with football, with the team, fine-tune the line-up and tactics, observe this or that (still foreign) player, take a close look at the upcoming opponent, carry out the video analysis that has become so common lately. But they are denied the ability to judge? Apart from that, it’s not true at all that coaches always try to emphasise the positive. Stanislawski in particular had not left a single good mark on his team in other games before. Surely that should qualify him at some point to give a skilful assessment? He saw a very good 45 minutes from his team. Good flow of play, lots of wit and the odd goal-scoring chance. Full stop. According to that, it must have been?!
6) A few more scenes…
Klaas Jan “the hunter” Huntelaar was in the sports studio. He parried skilfully and in almost perfect German, very likeable. Certainly, he had to get used to the German media landscape, which is anything but squeamish about footballers (and is usually woefully wrong in its assessments based on results alone). When he was asked when he would score again or whether we should now expect a lull in goals since it didn’t work out on Saturday, he only replied that he had scored a goal, which was regular from his point of view. Of course, they agreed with him anyway, because they had seen the scene live and, as has been customary lately, the whistle was blown just like that, for the purpose of stopping it, analogous to Lewandowski’s goal, but they already had more than a hunch that there was absolutely no infringement of the rules.
Quite funny now the verdict: first the man at the Mirko agreed with the assessment, which was clear in itself. It was not offside, at least not by Huntelaar, and the (undoubtedly) offside player did not interfere in the game. So: wrong decision, correct goal. Now the scene was played repeatedly at all possible stoppages of play. Gradually, the reporter buckled. He could understand the assistant’s view more and more. After all, the offside player would have tied up an opponent and thus sprayed a certain amount of activity. Of course, it gradually becomes ridiculous, because passive offside was included specifically so that someone who doesn’t get to the ball is simply not judged – and thus, perhaps this idealised intention, every now and then one more goal scene is created. If one calls this player active, then everyone would be active, since one could construct that a defender would always have to keep an eye on him – and thus he is robbed of parts of the necessary concentration for the actual action. Thus, if you look long enough, you will always find a justification for denying a goal.
On the one hand, the man at the flag has absolutely no assessment of the situation, I can assure you. It may be that he actually registers that an attacker is offside when the ball is played (it is also possible that he simply raises his flag, as has often been seen recently, where people wonder afterwards what he would have indicated – sometimes without any result). At that moment, he raises the flag, regardless of the player’s assessment and possibilities for intervention. The referee does what he always does anyway: he blows the whistle. In this case, for the quite good reason that the man on the line raised the flag. There is no live assessment of the scene from either side. One raises the flag because he knows for sure that he will not be prosecuted, another whistles because he can pass on the responsibility. So everything is in perfect order. The fact that the man at the mike gradually thought the decision was sound and could follow it was ridiculous.
But it was curious that for the half-time analysis, as usual, they switched to the studio, and here Jan Henkel again took up the opposite argument. The Schalke team had a goal disallowed. So there is no collusion. But again and again absolute judgements. Right/wrong. One this way, one that way. Why is that? One should at least realise that there is more than one opinion (even if one is held here and evidence is collected for it that every reason is right to disallow a goal).
We also learned at half-time that there were no goals in Wolfsburg’s match against Cologne, but there should have been. The scenes played proved: a clear penalty here, not given, a clear penalty there, not given. Ask Jan-Age: not that one, not that one before it and not that one, not that one anyway. Not that one, not that one, none at all… All for the same reason: penalties don’t exist or, as the Norwegian vividly put it, they would only exist if you chopped off someone’s leg….
b. The standings
Sp S U N Pkt T GT Diff
1 FC Bayern Munich 18 12 1 5 37 44 – 13 +31
2 Borussia Dortmund 18 11 4 3 37 40 – 13 +27
3 FC Schalke 04 18 12 1 5 37 41 – 23 +18
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 18 11 3 4 36 28 – 12 +16
5 Werder Bremen 18 9 3 6 30 30 – 31 -1
6 Bayer Leverkusen 18 8 5 5 29 25 – 24 +1
7 Hannover 96 18 5 9 4 24 20 – 24 -4
8 TSG Hoffenheim 18 6 5 7 23 19 – 19 +0
9 VfL Wolfsburg 18 7 2 9 23 24 – 34 -10
10 VfB Stuttgart 18 6 4 8 22 24 – 23 +1
11 1.FC Köln 18 6 3 9 21 27 – 36 -9
12 1.FC Nürnberg 18 6 3 9 21 19 – 28 -9
13 Hertha BSC 18 4 8 6 20 24 – 28 -4
14 Hamburger SV 18 4 7 19 22 – 32 -10
15 FSV Mainz 05 18 4 6 8 18 24 – 32 -8
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 18 3 8 7 17 13 – 21 -8
17 SC Freiburg 18 4 4 10 16 22 – 39 -17
18 FC Augsburg 18 3 6 9 15 15 – 29 -14
461 461 0
Total number of games 162
Goals ø 2.85
This tension is quite vivid, isn’t it? Four teams in “touching distance”, with only one point difference. Behind them, by the way, only two teams with a positive goal difference, at (only) +1 each: Leverkusen and Stuttgart. The top 4 outshine everything.
At the back, the changing of the guard between Freiburg and Augsburg due to the goal in the 86th minute. Surely it will remain exciting there, too.
c. The title question
Explanation: these figures are the result of a computer simulation, which is based on the current playing strengths of the teams given below. The games are simulated individually on the basis of goal expectations (also given in the text below) and the final table is used to determine the winner.
Team Number of German champions in 5000 simulations Championships in percent Fair odds as reciprocal of probabilities
1 FC Bayern Munich 2373 47.46% 2.11
2 Borussia Dortmund 2086 41.72% 2.40
3 FC Schalke 04 394 7.88% 12.69
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 137 2.74% 36.50
5 Bayer Leverkusen 5 0.10% 1000.00
6 Werder Bremen 5 0.10% 1000.00
Probably the first time Bayern is below 50%? Well, a relatively clear defeat at a rival against clear victories of the pursuers makes this seem justified. Gladbach still with only small chances despite the great win. Does that sound realistic? Well, consider that there are three rivals for them, all of whom have more points and are usually quite clearly ahead in the rankings to boot.
Change in chances compared to the previous week due to matchday 18 results.
Team Win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
1 Borussia Dortmund 866 17.32%
2 FC Schalke 04 199 3.98%
3 Borussia Mönchengladbach 78 1.56%
4 Bayer Leverkusen 4 0.08%
5 Werder Bremen 1 0.02%
18 FC Bayern Munich -1148 -22.96%
Of course, there is always a maximum slump when you lose the famous (one says so, the other says so) six-point games. It is also logical that victorious pursuers split the chances left by Bayern, with a gigantic jump in the winner of the matchday, Dortmund Borussia.
d. The title chances as they develop
The second time that it almost comes to a touch of the curves. Whether there will be a cut of the same at some point? Let’s see…
A (different) freestyle has left the ground recognizably after all. Is there still a chance of intervention? The same answer…
e. Comparison of title chances with the betting exchange betfair
Back Lay Probability (Back)
FC Bayern Munich 1.61 1.65 62.11%
Borussia Dortmund 3.65 3.8 27.40%
Bayer Leverkusen 100 300 1.00%
Werder Bremen 180 330 0.56%
FC Schalke 04 13.5 15 7.41%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 21 27 4.76%
Well, what does the market say? Does it react in the same way? No, as usual it does not. Of course, yes, a slump. But not as big as the computer predicts. Who is right? To this the answer is not sufficient: “let’s see”, because it remains unprovable. In any case, the recommendation is still: play Dortmund and/or Bayern.
The changes in betfair’s odds estimates
FC Bayern Munich -10.35
Borussia Dortmund 8.88%
Bayer Leverkusen 0.44
Werder Bremen -0.11%
FC Schalke 04 2.14%
Borussia Mönchengladbach 0.76%
(The order according to the original rankings)
The drop here is only 10%, while it is 20% for the computer. So the difference is quite enormous.
The development at betfair in the graph
The curves are comparable, whereby all the cuts are much flatter in the market assessment. Schalke, however, looks very similar….
f. Direct Champions League qualification via 2nd place
The probability distribution for 2nd place after matchday 18.
Team Number of 2nd places in 5000 simulations 2nd places in per cent
1 Borussia Dortmund 1804 36.08%
2 FC Bayern Munich 1674 33.48%
3 FC Schalke 04 964 19.28%
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 490 9.80%
5 Bayer Leverkusen 36 0.72%
6 Werder Bremen 28 0.56%
7 TSG Hoffenheim 2 0.04%
8 VfB Stuttgart 1 0.02%
9 Hannover 96 1 0.02%
For the time being, it should remain at these values for this season, even if an attentive reader noted that from next season onwards there will be three direct starting places for the Champions League, so that 3rd place belongs to it. Well, let’s see, today it’s still the usual statistics.
Dortmund first with serious competition for their allotted place. But most of it is pleasing from their point of view.
The changes compared to the previous week:
Team win/loss absolute compared to previous matchday Win/loss percentage
1 FC Bayern Munich 522 10.44%
2 Borussia Mönchengladbach 168 3.36%
3 FC Schalke 04 144 2.88%
4 TSG Hoffenheim 1 0.02%
15 Hannover 96 -2 -0.04%
16 VfB Stuttgart -3 -0.06%
17 Werder Bremen -39 -0.78%
18 Borussia Dortmund -791 -15.82%
Sure, here the opposite picture. Bayern gains, for the most part, what Dortmund loses, the other two winners share the rest.
g. The relegation question
The distribution of the percentages for relegation
Note: There would also be a detailed breakdown across the individual places. Here, places 17 and 18 count as fully relegated (i.e. in total as 1, for relegated in each case, otherwise the term is “direct relegation”), and a further third of relegated teams are added through the relegation, whereby the first division team is generally rated as 2/3 to 1/3 favourites over the second division team. This makes the total number of relegated teams equal to 233.33%. In individual cases, of course, it would be different in reality. So if, for example, Frankfurt were to finish 3rd in League 2 and Augsburg 16th in League 1, one could perhaps speak of a balanced pairing.
Team Direct relegation (17th or 18th place) Relegation by relegation Total
1 FC Augsburg 62.64% 4.83% 67.47%
2 SC Freiburg 54.90% 4.93% 59.83%
3 1.FC Kaiserslautern 29.72% 5.91% 35.63%
4 Hamburger SV 10.20% 2.86% 13.06%
5 FSV Mainz 05 9.74% 3.13% 12.87%
6 1.FC Nürnberg 9.58% 3.01% 12.59%
7 1.FC Köln 9.34% 2.96% 12.30%
8 Hertha BSC 7.46% 2.23% 9.69%
9 VfL Wolfsburg 2.48% 1.21% 3.69%
10 VfB Stuttgart 1.86% 0.77% 2.63%
11 TSG Hoffenheim 1.30% 0.84% 2.14%
12 Hannover 96 0.78% 0.61% 1.39%
13 Werder Bremen 0.00% 0.04% 0.04%
14 Bayer Leverkusen 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
200.00% 33.33% 233.33%
Augsburg with the red lantern again after all, in every respect, even if the numbers are given out in positive form. Sure, there was a six-point game in the relegation zone too. This one went to Freiburg. And even if it happened just before the end, perhaps the timing was lucky, but not the victory overall.
The change in chances due to the results of matchday 18 in relation to relegation
Team Change in chances
1 1.FC Nürnberg 11.46%
2 SC Freiburg 9.25%
3 VfL Wolfsburg 3.48%
4 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.26%
5 TSG Hoffenheim 0.23%
6 Hannover 96 0.15%
7 Bayer Leverkusen 0.07%
13 VfB Stuttgart -0.91%
14 Hamburger SV -1.99%
15 FSV Mainz 05 -2.37%
16 1.FC Cologne -3.14%
17 Hertha BSC -4.62%
18 FC Augsburg -11.86%
Another Nuremberg as the big winner (they previously won 3-0 at Leverkusen). A win against a thereby competitor. Augsburg with the opposite loss.
h. The relegation question in development
Plastic remains that it moves tremendously. Nuremberg with the glaring regression over the two match days, Augsburg cuts Freiburg.
i. The point expectations and the deviations
Explanation: for each match, the computer has calculated the chances for 1, X and 2. On the basis of these, a point expectation is mathematically calculated for each team per match according to the formula probability of victory * 3 points + probability of draw * 1 point. The deviations given below compare the points actually achieved with those expected by the computer.
In total, the deviation does not have to be 0 for all teams, as the number of expected draws does not have to be congruent with those that have occurred (nor can it even be), but an imbalance is forced by the three-point rule. Too many points scored means that there were too few draws.
Team Name Points scored Deviation Deviation absolute
1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 24.71 36 11.29 11.29
2 FC Schalke 04 28.46 37 8.54 8.54
3 Werder Bremen 26.76 30 3.24 3.24
4 Borussia Dortmund 34.94 37 2.06 2.06
5 1.FC Köln 19.97 21 1.03 1.03
6 1.FC Nürnberg 21.18 21 -0.18 0.18
7 Bayer Leverkusen 29.55 29 -0.55 0.55
8 Hannover 96 25.04 24 -1.04 1.04
9 TSG Hoffenheim 24.18 23 -1.18 1.18
10 FC Augsburg 16.47 15 -1.47 1.47
11 VfL Wolfsburg 25.29 23 -2.29 2.29
12 FC Bayern Munich 39.30 37 -2.30 2.30
13 Hertha BSC 22.51 20 -2.51 2.51
14 1.FC Kaiserslautern 19.60 17 -2.60 2.60
15 Hamburger SV 22.00 19 -3.00 3.00
16 VfB Stuttgart 25.77 22 -3.77 3.77
17 SC Freiburg 20.32 16 -4.32 4.32
18 FSV Mainz 05 22.81 18 -4.81 4.81
ø Deviation 3.12
Extension of Gladbach’s lead. Schalke on 2, understandable given 37 points – as many as (main) championship contenders and defending champions. Werder also had a good season, although the deviation of +3.24 is quite “normal”. At the back, the picture is not comparable to that at the front, as Mainz also only missed expectations by 4.81 points, which is quite easy to make up (in contrast to Gladbach’s 11+, which they are not likely to give up so quickly).
The foreign comparison for the average point deviation.
Note: the theory is that the German Bundesliga is the most exciting of Europe’s top leagues. This finding is rather intuitively derived, but so far “accepted” both in this country and abroad. Of course, the higher goal average is an indication of this, as well as the(perceived) lower predictability when it comes to the title, relegation, but also other issues. Balance is a criterion and possibly the main reason for this.
The measure used here for the deviation in average points expectation provides measurable information about this, but it was probably a “problem” specific to the 2010/2011 inaugural season (the fan thanked) that the Bundesliga produced a particularly large number of surprises. This was reflected in the figures. Now the phenomenon can be observed further. Is the Bundesliga also exciting in this respect? More exciting than elsewhere?(At the same time, a large deviation in this category could simply mean that computers or feeders are bad at their trade)
Rank Country League 1 ø Point deviation Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 6.26 0.00 171
2 England 1 4.07 0.02 220
3 France 1 3.67 0.31 200
4 Germany, 1.BL 3.12 0.28 162
5 Italy 1 2.83 -0.21 189
6 Spain 1 2.77 -0.33 189
The 2nd league remains clearly in front. The 1st league, on the other hand, with very little variation, which means that there are not very many sensational teams. England and France have a bit more to offer, whereas in Spain and Italy it looks more like the usual, expected table picture.
j. Goal expectations and their deviations
Explanation: Almost the same applies to goals as to points. The expected goals scored and the expected goals conceded are compared with reality. Too few goals scored count negatively just as too many goals conceded count negatively, the reverse counts positively in each case. Here, the sum of the deviations must be 0, because all expected and not scored goals were not conceded somewhere. However, the goal average may show a deviation.
Team Name Goal expectation Goals scored Goals conceded expected Goals conceded Total deviation
1 Borussia Mönchengladbach 24.31 28 24.96 12 16.66
2 FC Schalke 04 27.57 41 22.01 23 12.44
3 Borussia Dortmund 30.79 40 15.44 13 11.66
4 FC Bayern München 39.89 44 15.73 13 6.84
5 TSG Hoffenheim 24.07 19 25.08 19 1.01
6 1.FC Köln 24.27 27 33.69 36 0.42
7 1.FC Kaiserslautern 20.37 13 28.44 21 0.08
8 Hertha BSC 23.38 24 27.39 28 0.01
9 VfB Stuttgart 28.20 24 26.86 23 -0.34
10 FC Augsburg 16.27 15 28.58 29 -1.68
11 1.FC Nürnberg 21.19 19 27.21 28 -2.98
12 Werder Bremen 29.28 30 26.57 31 -3.72
13 Hannover 96 24.79 20 24.33 24 -4.46
14 FSV Mainz 05 24.28 24 27.46 32 -4.82
15 Hamburger SV 23.55 22 28.50 32 -5.05
16 Bayer Leverkusen 29.24 25 22.16 24 -6.08
17 SC Freiburg 22.00 22 29.40 39 -9.59
18 VfL Wolfsburg 25.87 24 25.49 34 -10.38
459.32 461 459.32 461 0.00
Goals ø expected: Goals ø scored: ø Deviation 5.46 2.84 2.85
The same teams ahead, but Bayern on 4 in this statistic, as they still have the best goal difference. This indicates that they have played better than expected, but in terms of goals they have distributed them unfavourably. It is curious, by the way, that all four teams are actually in front, who also occupy 1st to 4th place in the real table. As discussed before: they have the outstanding goal ratios, and apart from them only two teams at all with a positive goal ratio (of +1 each), which makes it difficult to move up into the top positions (if, then Augsburg would already have to have such a goal ratio; if it were so with them, then they would immediately have a plus in this table of over 12 goals).
Wolfsburg remain at the bottom of the table, despite their somewhat better performances of late and a 9th place in the table. The decisive factor, of course, is the rather favourable expectations of the computer (which may have been wrong), and the unfavourable goal difference of -10.
The international comparison for the average goal difference
(Note: crazy results do not necessarily have to be reflected in the tendency. So a 5:3 or even a 7:0 may provide large deviations here, in terms of goals, but not at all in terms of points, since, for example, the favourite would have won in each case. So there is an alternative method of comparing with other countries: are there the most “surprises” in the Bundesliga in this respect too)?
Rank Country League 1 ø Goal difference Change from previous week Number of games
1 Germany, 2.BL 9.09 0.00 171
2 England 1 5.87 0.90 219
3 Germany, 1.BL 5.46 0.11 162
4 Spain 1 4.42 0.37 186
5 France 1 3.63 0.09 200
6 Italy 1 3.37 0.12 187
Here, in the winter break (which does not exist in England), England pushed past the 1st division. After all, there were five match days there.
k. The playing strength ranking
Note: Playing strength is measured in goals expected against the average team (which does not exist in practice). There is offensive strength, which is measured in expected goals scored, and defensive strength, which is measured in expected goals conceded. The quotient of these two values is the measure of playing strength. The more expected goals scored, the higher the value; the fewer expected goals conceded, the higher the value.
Team For Against Quotient For/Counter Change in Quotient Shift
1 Borussia Dortmund 1.99 0.80 2.49 +0.09 +1
2 FC Bayern Munich 2.18 0.93 2.34 -0.20 -1
3 FC Schalke 04 1.75 1.18 1.49 +0.08 +0
4 Borussia Mönchengladbach 1.46 1.15 1.27 +0.07 +0
5 Bayer Leverkusen 1.57 1.34 1.17 +0.00 +0
6 Werder Bremen 1.61 1.56 1.03 -0.01 +0
7 VfB Stuttgart 1.44 1.52 0.95 -0.03 +0
8 Hannover 96 1.29 1.37 0.95 -0.01 +0
9 TSG Hoffenheim 1.18 1.31 0.91 -0.01 +0
10 FSV Mainz 05 1.37 1.56 0.88 -0.01 +1
11 VfL Wolfsburg 1.36 1.57 0.87 -0.00 +1
12 Hertha BSC 1.35 1.56 0.87 -0.04 -2
13 Hamburger SV 1.28 1.56 0.82 +0.00 +0
14 1.FC Köln 1.39 1.78 0.78 -0.02 +0
15 1.FC Nürnberg 1.15 1.52 0.75 +0.03 +0
16 1.FC Kaiserslautern 0.96 1.41 0.68 -0.01 +0
17 SC Freiburg 1.17 1.81 0.65 +0.00 +0
18 FC Augsburg 0.91 1.50 0.61 -0.01 +0
25.43 25.43 +0
Goals ø expected 2.83
Of course, one could now question the correctness of the computer’s reactions: should Dortmund really be better than Bayern? Well, the computer only has the results at its disposal. It is difficult to judge the performance behind them. An unfortunate 0:1, for example, has exactly the same effect as a completely deserved 0:1. It is difficult to judge whether Bayern’s 1:3 is representative. The performance was certainly quite ok (as discussed above), but clearly not extraordinary, in contrast to that of Dortmund, who were able to turn their abundant playfulness into both goal-scoring chances and a sufficient number of countable goals.
Nevertheless, one can say this much: even if Bayern was still the better team overall throughout the season, Dortmund was still absolutely convincing, comparable to last season, and every now and then a defeat, in association with a clear victory by the competition, can lead to certain irritations, be it from the environment, be it from the self-confidence of the players, or even in system questions of the coach, who perhaps makes changes, personnel-wise or tactically, that would not actually be necessary, and thus the team performance as a whole is negatively affected. What has been said since Boris Becker? “Games are decided in the mind.” And in this respect, Dortmund may really be a little bit ahead of the game thanks to this match day.
l. The frequency of tendency changes
Note: a “change of tendency” is considered to be a goal that equalises a lead or scores a lead. The 1:0 is not counted, because without this goal it would not even begin to have anything to do with tension in the goal sequence. Every now and then, a statistical comparison is made here with other countries. This shows that there are more changes of tendency in Germany than elsewhere, which on the one hand points to perceived tension in the Bundesliga – which is possibly envied abroad – and on the other hand points to possible tactical deficiencies, which, following an old tradition, make one advise to urgently go for a second goal after a 1:0 – and not to dull and insipidly, as is usual abroad, rock this goal over time. International comparisons provide more information about the effectiveness or weakness of German behaviour.
Of course, it is and will remain desirable that “something happens”, that games ripple back and forth, that teams that take an early lead nevertheless still lose later, that teams come back from two or three goals down in dramatic comebacks, equalise or even still win. The claim here: it actually happens too rarely in football. It would be desirable to allow more goals so that there is more drama in this point as well. More goals guarantee more changes of tendency, but it is possible that there is an upper limit. So: in ice hockey there are more goals and thus more changes of tendency, no question. But are there more in handball, for example, than in ice hockey? Probably not. Because: if there are a lot of goals, one team can be in the lead by five, six, seven without ever thinking of a comeback by the losing team.
For comparison, here are the statistics from last season. You can at least compare them a little bit to see if the tendency is similar this season.
Country Matches Compensation HF AF Total per match
1st Bundesliga 306 158 60 49 267 0.873
England 380 198 66 46 310 0.816
2nd Bundesliga 306 145 56 41 242 0.791
Italy 380 169 58 48 275 0.724
France 380 175 49 40 264 0.695
Spain 380 146 48 46 240 0.632
Total 2132 991 337 270 1598 0.750
Balance of the trend changes from last week:
Instead of listing the changes of tendency, from now on a small table with the changes of tendency from the past weekend will be included here.
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goal Away Leading Goal Total per match
1 1st Bundesliga 9 1 1 0 2 0.222
2 France 10 3 1 5 0.500
3 2nd Bundesliga 0 0 0 0 0,000
4 Italy 29 8 4 0 12 0.414
5 Spain 30 11 4 2 17 0.567
6 England 51 29 8 9 46 0.902
Total balance 129 52 18 12 82 0.636
Now that most of the other countries have played in the break weeks, there is no clear picture here. In Italy, that much can be said, “results management” currently reigns supreme, in the “dark days of winter”, a little of the same tendency can be seen in Spain, on the other hand, things are rumbling in England, which traditionally always get going especially over Christmas.
The 1st league had a low-scoring match day, which also resulted in a minimum of changes in tendency. Only Leverkusen – after leading 2:0 – had to concede the equaliser to Mainz, only to be victorious in the end.
Trend changes in the major leagues in the 2011/2012 season
Country Matches Equalisation Home Leading Goal Away Leading Goal Total per match
1 1st Bundesliga 162 83 29 21 133 0.821
2 France 200 103 29 26 158 0.790
3 England 220 103 29 36 168 0.764
4 2nd Bundesliga 171 79 26 22 127 0.743
5 Spain 189 76 32 17 125 0.661
6 Italy 189 74 24 18 116 0.614
Total balance 1131 518 169 140 827 0.731
1st division ahead here, even if only by a relatively narrow margin. Quite balanced overall, only Italy is currently living up to a reputation that has long been dusty in itself.
m. The mathematical review of the results of matchday 18
Note: here the deviation of the expected goals with the goals scored is calculated for each match. To determine the total deviation, the values are added up in absolute terms (not visible here, this column). So: if one team deviates positively by 0.35 goals, the other negatively by -0.62, then the absolute total deviation is 0.35 + 0.62 = 0.97 goals. To determine the average deviation, all these values are added up and divided by the number of pairings – usually 9.
Goal expectation Home Away Total Deviation
Gladbach FC Bayern 1.02 1.57 2.59 3 1 1.98 -0.57
Hoffenheim Hannover 1.38 1.05 2.43 0 0 -1.38 -1.05
Nürnberg Hertha 1.42 1.39 2.81 2 0 0.58 -1.39
Schalke 04 Stuttgart 2.03 1.06 3.09 3 1 0.97 -0.06
Wolfsburg FC Cologne 2.13 1.40 3.53 1 0 -1.13 -1.40
Freiburg Augsburg 1.41 1.03 2.44 1 0 -0.41 -1.03
Kaiserslautern Werder 1.34 1.47 2.81 0 0 -1.34 -1.47
HSV Dortmund 0.77 1.65 2.42 1 5 0.23 3.35
Leverkusen Mainz 1.73 1.13 2.86 3 2 1.27 0.87
13.23 11.73 24.96 14 9 0.77 -2.73
Expected goal total Expected goal average Scored goal average 24.96 2.77 2.56
ø expected goal difference 1.85 ø goal difference 2.27
The Sunday games with 11 goals in 2 games gave us some momentum after all. Well, enough has already been said about Saturday in the sense that above all the referees turned out to be the masters of defence, who made almost all (critical) decisions against the goals, of which at least half could be safely classified as wrong, even by the media. In the case of Lautern against Werder, by the way, it can be mentioned that several times the aluminium stood in the way of a goal.
It is curious that the average goal difference is so large despite the few goals. Well, the 0:0 games also produced a high deviation, plus there was the surprise of the (clear) Gladbach victory and the high Dortmund victory. All in all, the expected goal deviation was exceeded.
n. The determination
Note: The determination is calculated for each match as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much one can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher the favourite position, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the (favourite) event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, one can check the quality of the estimates made here in the long term by comparing expected/occurred. This is done week by week, but of course also overall.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2
Gladbach FC Bayern 24.57% 25.23% 50.20% 37.60%
Hoffenheim Hannover 44.53% 26.96% 28.51% 35.22%
Nuremberg Hertha 38.29% 25.17% 36.54% 34.35%
Schalke 04 Stuttgart 59.81% 21.03% 19.17% 43.86%
Wolfsburg FC Cologne 54.35% 20.77% 24.87% 40.05%
Freiburg Augsburg 45.85% 26.75% 27.40% 35.69%
Kaiserslautern Werder 34.52% 25.13% 40.35% 34.51%
HSV Dortmund 17.30% 24.34% 58.36% 42.98%
Leverkusen Mainz 51.52% 23.68% 24.79% 38.30%
3.71 2.19 3.10 3.43
Average expected commitment: 38.06% The determination arrived
Pairing 1 X 2 Tendency
Gladbach FC Bayern 24.57% 25.23% 50.20% 1 24.57%
Hoffenheim Hannover 44.53% 26.96% 28.51% 0 26.96%
Nuremberg Hertha 38.29% 25.17% 36.54% 1 38.29%
Schalke 04 Stuttgart 59.81% 21.03% 19.17% 1 59.81%
Wolfsburg FC Cologne 54.35% 20.77% 24.87% 1 54.35%
Freiburg Augsburg 45.85% 26.75% 27.40% 1 45.85%
Kaiserslautern Werder 34.52% 25.13% 40.35% 0 25.13%
HSV Dortmund 17.30% 24.34% 58.36% 2 58.36%
Leverkusen Mainz 51.52% 23.68% 24.79% 1 51.52%
6 2 1 3.85
average determination received: 42.76%
Further note: No comparable model has yet been discovered in mathematics. Not even by a mathematician who had set himself the task of proving to the author that there was definitely nothing new.
There were too many favourite results, as one can see despite the Bayern defeat. The two draws are still out, otherwise the favourite won in each case.
o. Overall league statistics
Note: Statistics of this kind are regularly compiled by the computer. It is generally used for quality control of the individual figures. Each figure has its own meaning and is explained in more detail. The goal average is not repeated here. The home advantage is calculated by dividing the goals scored by the home team by half of the total goals. In this way, you can see how many more goals the home teams score than they would score without home advantage. 1.116 is 11.6% more for the home team, 11.6% less for the away team.
Note: For arithmetic foxes, here is a brief explanation of the calculation method for the expected goal deviation: The computer gives each result from 0:0 to 20:20 a probability (it is actually sufficient up to 10:10, as the rest no longer has any significant probability). There would be a goal deviation for each result. So if you multiply the probability of, for example, a 3:4 by the deviation that would then occur (in the case of the match Mainz – Gladbach, with goal expectations of 1.77:1.25, this would be 3 – 1.77 = 1.23 for Mainz plus 4 – 1.25 = 2.75 for Gladbach, i.e. a total deviation of 3.98 goals) and carry out this procedure for each match result, you get the expected average goal deviation.
The statistics of the results so far Matches Hsiege Drais Asiege Htore Atore Heimvort
arrived 162 77 41 44 278 183 1,206
expected 162 74.82 37.12 50.04 259.9 199.3 1.132
abs deviation 0 2.18 3.88 -6.04 18.10 -16.30 0.07
rel. Deviation 0 2.83% 9.46% -13.73% 6.51% -8.91% 6.14%
Determination expected Determination received 40.24% 40.09% ø Goal deviation ø Goal deviation expected 1.87 1.88
Another matchday of the home teams, which nevertheless results in a quite clear deviation. Above all, the number of away victories scored is too low, as six are already “missing”. But also the goal statistics speak for a current underestimation of the home advantage. As mentioned: the computer adjusts the figures, the only question is whether it does so quickly enough (since it is unable to reflect the current tendency). But experience has taught us (and the figures also prove it) that a faster reaction is not advisable. If you look at the individual games, you notice that things could have turned out differently everywhere.
Hertha had a good first half in which they shouldn’t have been behind, Werder also had a number of good chances, even if Lautern wasn’t really worse, Bayern can of course also easily shape the game differently, just remember the Neuer tee shot that initiated the goal against, Augsburg loses shortly before the end, and it could have ended differently in Wolfsburg, too. So: there is not necessarily a miscalculation. The home teams win a little too much, lose too little, but it happens rather by chance, so the claim goes.
The expected determination was, after all, very well hit, as was the average expected goal difference, which confirms this assessment: there is no error.
p. Review of the betting recommendations
More explosive, however, is always this question: which bets should/must have been made according to the computer? Where would it have messed with the betting market? And: if he messes with it, with the great mass intelligence, does he have good reasons for it? Could one possibly win, can one even prove long-term advantages? Up to now, such “dry swim” exercises have been made for oneself, if at all. Now, at least, it is documented.
Pairing 1 X 2
Gladbach FC Bayern 5.50 3.95 1.76
Hoffenheim Hannover 2.02 3.65 4.10
Nürnberg Hertha 2.24 3.55 3.55
Schalke 04 Stuttgart 1.92 3.80 4.50
Wolfsburg FC Cologne 1.86 3.85 4.50
Freiburg Augsburg 2.22 3.45 3.80
Kaiserslautern Werder 3.00 3.60 2.50
HSV Dortmund 4.60 3.80 1.92
Leverkusen Mainz 1.86 3.75 4.90
Goals scored 2.57
Goals scored 3
Money score 2.34
Clearly, once again a surprise win has pulled this weekend out. The other outsider tips, all had their chances, as for example the equaliser forced by Mainz from 0:2 to 2:2 confirm. Of course, Leverkusen wobbles at such a moment (and not only they would). The Köln bet can’t be talked down either, there was the penalty situation and shortly before the 0:1 the monster chance when Novakovic appeared alone in front of the goalkeeper, likewise Hertha had a good first half, the 0:1 shortly before the break gives the game the wrong direction, and Hannover was also, even if Hoffenheim was better overall, but still quite close by the 0:0.
The victories of the favourites Schalke and Dortmund were so clear that doubts about the quality of the bets are unnecessary. By the way, the price on Schalke dropped significantly at the start of the match.
Recommended bets Statistics of the individual match days
Matchday No. Number of bets Number of hits expected hit deviation win/loss
1 7 5 2.84 +2.16 +7.96
2 7 3 2.77 +0.23 +1.75
3 2 0 1.00 -1.00 -2.00
4 3 1 1.14 -0.14 -0.28
5 6 2 2.54 -0.54 -2.33
6 8 3 2.29 +0.71 +8.10
7 8 4 3.55 +0.45 +0.00
8 5 1 1.28 -0.28 -2.16
9 7 3 2.36 +0.64 +5.60
10 7 1 1.92 -0.92 +2.20
11 8 2 2.79 -0.79 -3.39
12 7 1 2.07 -1.07 -2.00
13 6 4 2.77 +1.23 +5.37
14 7 2 2.63 -0.63 +4.68
15 6 1 2.18 -1.18 -4.65
16 6 2 2.13 -0.13 -0.53
17 7 3 3.13 -0.13 -0.54
18 7 3 2.57 +0.43 +2.34
It is certainly good to see a plus sign again after the previous slump.
Total number of bets Total number of hits Total balance G/V in% Total expected hits Total hit deviation
7 5 +7.96 113.71% 2.84 +2.16
14 8 +9.71 69.36% 5.61 +2.39
16 8 +7.71 48.19% 6.61 +1.39
19 9 +7.43 39.11% 7.74 +1.26
25 11 +5.10 20.40% 10.28 +0.72
33 14 +13.20 40.00% 12.57 +1.43
41 18 +13.20 32.20% 16.12 +1.88
46 19 +11.04 24.00% 17.40 +1.60
53 22 +16.64 31.40% 19.76 +2.24
60 23 +18.84 31.40% 21.68 +1.32
68 25 +15.45 22.72% 24.47 +0.53
75 26 +13.45 17.93% 26.54 -0.54
81 30 +18.82 23.23% 29.31 +0.69
88 32 +23.50 26.70% 31.38 +0.62
94 33 +18.85 20.05% 34.12 -1.12
100 35 +18.32 18.32% 36.25 -1.25
107 38 +17.78 16.62% 39.38 -1.38
114 41 +20.12 17.65% 41.95 -0.95
The findings remain: the season is good, too good in fact, and the hits are too much camped on underdogs (which of course should have happened by chance, but at the same time definitely not a bad sign).
q. The preview of the 19th matchday
Note: According to a specially developed – of course explainable and highly logical – algorithm, the computer calculates the goal expectations (and the individually maintained home advantage not shown here) to these goal expectations. These in turn are offset against the probabilities of occurrence, in the past by simulation, today long since by a function derived from the simulation results). These goal expectancy values have also long since proved to be competitive in goal number betting on the betting market.
Goal expectation Home Away Total
Hanover Nuremberg 1.56 0.98 2.55
Augsburg Kaiserslautern 0.99 0.92 1.91
Werder Leverkusen 1.73 1.49 3.22
Hertha HSV 1.61 1.23 2.84
Dortmund Hoffenheim 2.18 0.61 2.78
FC Bayern Wolfsburg 3.01 0.72 3.73
FC Cologne Schalke 04 1.30 1.70 3.00
Mainz Freiburg 1.99 1.26 3.24
Stuttgart Gladbach 1.32 1.30 2.62
15.69 10.20 25.89
Expected goal total Expected goal average 25.89 2.88
Despite last week’s goal drought, slightly more goals are expected. Why? Well, it’s the special constellations. A Bayern home game with 3.73 goals, for example, but also Werder against Leverkusen and Mainz against Freiburg are expected to be high-scoring. On the other hand, a very low-scoring game in Augsburg is to be expected, in which case an under bet is almost inevitable.
Note: The determination is calculated as the sum of the squares of the individual probabilities. This measures how much you can commit to a favourite in a certain pairing. The higher a favourite position, the higher the sum of the squares, but also the more “certain” the occurrence of the event. The mathematical question in itself is even more how far one can commit, since one cannot really determine this value. Events are predicted whose probabilities are unknown. Nevertheless, the quality can be checked in the long term by comparing expected/occurred events.
The determination expected
Pairing 1 X 2
Hanover Nuremberg 50.84% 25.33% 23.83% 37.94%
Augsburg Kaiserslautern 36.16% 31.62% 32.22% 33.46%
Werder Leverkusen 43.47% 23.13% 33.40% 35.40%
Hertha HSV 46.39% 24.46% 29.14% 36.00%
Dortmund Hoffenheim 73.63% 17.45% 8.92% 58.06%
FC Bayern Wolfsburg 83.00% 11.14% 5.87% 70.47%
FC Cologne Schalke 04 29.47% 23.74% 46.80% 36.22%
Mainz Freiburg 54.31% 21.67% 24.02% 39.96%
Stuttgart Gladbach 37.37% 26.19% 36.43% 34.10%
4.55 2.05 2.41 3.82
Average expected determination: 42.40%
The favourites predominate, so a high commitment is expected. Sure, Bayern and Dortmund are playing at home.
The fair odds
Note: the fair odds are just the inverse of the probabilities. However, this is how the games are offered on the betting market or traded on the betting exchanges (“betfair”). You can gladly compare what the computer guesses. The deviations will not be enormous, but theoretically every bet is a good bet (from the computer’s point of view) if the odds paid on the market are above the fair odds. “Good” is the bet insofar as it promises long-term profit. If you consistently make bets in this way, you should make a profit in the long run. Of course, there are no guarantees for this either.
Pairing 1 X 2
Hanover Nuremberg 1.97 3.95 4.20
Augsburg Kaiserslautern 2.77 3.16 3.10
Werder Leverkusen 2.30 4.32 2.99
Hertha HSV 2.16 4.09 3.43
Dortmund Hoffenheim 1.36 5.73 11.21
FC Bayern Wolfsburg 1.20 8.98 17.04
FC Cologne Schalke 04 3.39 4.21 2.14
Mainz Freiburg 1.84 4.61 4.16
Stuttgart Gladbach 2.68 3.82 2.74
Comparison with the betting exchange betfair
(The betting recommendations)
Pairing 1 X 2 % Average
Hannover Nuremberg 2.30 3.50 3.50 100.62%
Augsburg Kaiserslautern 2.64 3.45 3.00 100.20%
Werder Leverkusen 2.34 3.60 3.25 101.28%
Hertha HSV 2.48 3.50 3.05 101.68%
Dortmund Hoffenheim 1.37 5.30 11.50 100.56%
FC Bayern Wolfsburg 1.22 7.80 17.50 100.50%
FC Cologne Schalke 04 4.10 3.85 1.99 100.62%
Mainz Freiburg 1.75 3.75 5.40 102.33%
Stuttgart Gladbach 2.68 3.50 2.82 101.41%
Goal expectation 1.51
A short comment on the betting recommendations:
Hannover can of course be recommended, even if Nürnberg is the “team of the hour”. Two wins to nil in a row are on the books and Hannover are winless for a long time. Nevertheless, the performances have been good overall and still their record is positive at 5 wins against 4 defeats. They also always looked good in home games, even if the successes (in the form of wins) were lacking. Recommendation: 6 out of 10 units.
Hertha is of course a very shaky bet. Not only has HSV only lost the one game under Fink, there is also the geographical proximity, which always attracts some fans (more). Still, a 2.48 is a bit exaggerated. Skibbe’s opener was unsuccessful but, as mentioned, the first half was quite alright. A 3/10.
Cologne also lack unconditional support and conviction at the moment. Even if the big chance was there, overall the performances have been rather mediocre lately. By contrast, Schalke actually always play very well, plus there’s the geographical proximity here too, which at least ensures the ticket quota is exhausted. If it is a pure odds bet. 4.1 in a home match? That just sounds like “too much”. 1/10 only if you bet weighted.
On the other hand, the bet on Freiburg in Mainz seems good again. Sure, the departure of Cissé hurts, but the first performance was convincing and even if Mainz is also with its back to the wall and urgently needs wins, as well as can build on fan support: these odds are too high. It is precisely the “must win” that could suit Freiburg somewhat. In view of the high odds, 4/10 might sound like a lot.
All in all, a meagre yield, but the remaining deviations are simply too small. However, as you can see, bets on Bayern and on Dortmund are more advisable (and none against them). So who enjoys it?
2) The 2nd Bundesliga
a. The table situation
b. The chances of promotion
Note: the simulation of League 2 runs exactly like that of League 1. 5000 runs were also made. Third place logically gives a 1/3 chance of promotion, although it might still depend on the pairing. Since the top favourites are ahead here, it could well be 50% that the second division third place team has against the first division third last.
c. Point expectations and discrepancies
d. Evaluation of the 5th second division matchday
e. Preview of the 7th Second League Matchday