Does Fergie time exist?

semi-pro waster

semi-pro waster

semi-pro waster

Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
Saw this article on the BBC today and thought it might be of interest for a bit of debate. If the top image is right then it looks like it might exist and that Chelsea have some grounds for believing that referees hate them...

However it seems a rather crude measure and an attempt to link correlation with causation. As an average it might start to look conclusive but that doesn't necessarily consider the individual circumstances of the games. You could just as easily look at the team with the shortest or longest amount of time added on and imply that those were games with very little or lots of fouling and cheating going on but there'd be relatively little to bolster that supposition apart from a subjective view.
 
Read the article, found it frustrating to read. Though on the other hand I do generally think Fergie gritting his teeth and shouting a lot does seem to get him favourable calls from some refs...
 
I think it is a bit of a myth at least in modern times since they started holding up boards with the minimum amount of added time.

I think there a lot of variables that need to be factored into the analysis i.e. has the comparison between when a team is winning or losing had the number of subs factored in to it? It could be for example that when MU are losing, on average more subs have been made in the game.

Furthermore the fact their stats are only looking at the past 2.3 seasons (fewer than 100 matches of which when you are looking at the best teams like MU probably means at most 20 games where they were losing) means the effect of lengthy stoppages could influence matters if they happened in games where the team is behind. In other words a bad injury adding an additional 5mins would influence the average by 15s over 20 games. I think they need a bigger sample size.
 
There should be more time when utd are losing, why, because the opposition with a lead tends to waste more time, take longer over goal kicks and substitutions, its pretty natural. When Utd are winning they don't tend to do the wasting time thing, there is no need, they don't expect to lose nor want to extend a game for no reason.

What I hate about ref's, and is summed up by that ruddy pillock Poll, is this rounding up thing, the guessing at time taken to make a substitution. Football should have become transparent about this years ago. The linesman has a button that links to an electronic stadium clock, and every time a substitution is called, time stops, and he presses for the time to start when the ball re-enters play, not when the ref blows the whistle then someone takes 20 seconds over a throw in.

Why the hell are ref's guessing the amount of time to add on, its been inconsistent and frankly completely made up for years, which does make it completely unfair.

Ref should not allow subs that aren't ready, IE someone takes a goal kick, pee's around for 20 seconds then they make a substitution after wasting that extra 20 seconds. Subs need to be ready when the ball goes out of play, they happen instantly, if a player doesn't run off they get a yellow card, and they go off at the nearest point possible. Time is stopped the second a substition is indicated, a goal is scored, a red card happens, an injury stops play, and starts when the ball is back in play. No guessing, if its 4 mins 27 seconds, that is how much extra time gets added on.
 
I read the article and noticed it's all about time added on by the 4th official and not actual game time.

Often Man U games go on for longer than the "minimum time added", whereas there are plenty of other games where the ref blows up before even reaching the time added on the board. I can't recall ever seeing a Man U game where this has happened. Never mind when they're losing.

Fergies influence over referees has been exposed time and time again by retiring referees and nothing is done. Poll said it, Winter before him and Elleray all said how they reffed Man U differently and when they didn't their careers suffered.

These are the most telling stats from the article.

Eight of the longest nine Man Utd games over the past three seasons have been victories for Man Utd (Opta)

21 of the shortest 22 Man Utd games over the past three seasons have been victories for Man Utd (Opta)
 
Last edited:
Not sure how recent this is, saw it this morning funnily enough

30983_10151282518116749_863446583_n.jpg
 
That pic WAS the article basically :D

Just making an article out of nothing really.

As 25 minutes out of every EPL match (on average) is wasted with the ball out of play, Im not really sure why they are examining less than 2 minutes "extra".

Due to Utd's success in recent years, a victory against them is quite notable for the other team, so therefore there is potential for more time being wasted by that team.

I would also say that it would be interesting to see; average number of subs used in those matches / average goals scored in 2nd half /average actual injury time as well - none of which is considered /mentioned in the article.
 
Many sports stop the clock when ball goes out of play. The 4th offical could do the time keeping and leave ref to worry about the game.
 
inogen said:
I read the article and noticed it's all about time added on by the 4th official and not actual game time.

Often Man U games go on for longer than the "minimum time added", whereas there are plenty of other games where the ref blows up before even reaching the time added on the board. I can't recall ever seeing a Man U game where this has happened. Never mind when they're losing.

Fergies influence over referees has been exposed time and time again by retiring referees and nothing is done. Poll said it, Winter before him and Elleray all said how they reffed Man U differently and when they didn't their careers suffered.

These are the most telling stats from the article.

Eight of the longest nine Man Utd games over the past three seasons have been victories for Man Utd (Opta)

21 of the shortest 22 Man Utd games over the past three seasons have been victories for Man Utd (Opta)
Click to expand...

Haha
 
It's a myth basically. I do find the term "Fergie Time" amusing though, they definitely should have had his statue showing him tapping his watch ;)
 
grimm said:
It's a myth basically. I do find the term "Fergie Time" amusing though, they definitely should have had his statue showing him tapping his watch ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a myth. Just a statistically and evidentially supported myth, openly talked about by retired referees as being true. :rolleyes:;)
 
inogen said:
These are the most telling stats from the article.

Eight of the longest nine Man Utd games over the past three seasons have been victories for Man Utd (Opta)

21 of the shortest 22 Man Utd games over the past three seasons have been victories for Man Utd (Opta)
Click to expand...

Wait a second, the stats you're picking up show that in both the longest and shortest games Man Utd are likely to end up the winners? Why is that particularly important?

inogen said:
Yeah, it's a myth. Just a statistically and evidentially supported myth, openly talked about by retired referees as being true. :rolleyes:;)
Click to expand...

The referee states that there's a pressure you can feel from the fans but that it's subconscious when (they are) adding on extra time. The article also notes that it's likely to be a bias for the perceived "big" teams rather than being specific to Man Utd.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Wait a second, the stats you're picking up show that in both the longest and shortest games Man Utd are likely to end up the winners? Why is that particularly important?
Click to expand...

Because statistically, they don't win 8 out 9 nine games and certainly not 21 out of 22. So why are they winning such a percentage when their games are longest and shortest? There shouldn't be such a strong correlation.

semi-pro waster said:
The referee states that there's a pressure you can feel from the fans but that it's subconscious when (they are) adding on extra time. The article also notes that it's likely to be a bias for the perceived "big" teams rather than being specific to Man Utd.
Click to expand...

Poll is quoted as saying this in that article. He's also been quoted in the past saying far more damning things about Ferguson. The sort of thing the BBC won't say in fear of Ferguson being a **** again and not giving them any copy or interviews. Winter and Elleray both said the same thing as Poll too when they retired. That Ferguson manipulates referee selection and succeeds in disrupting referees careers if they're not favourable. **** Fergie time, that's just the thin end of the wedge.
 
Last edited:
inogen said:
Because statistically, they don't win 8 out 9 nine games and certainly not 21 out of 22. So why are they winning such a percentage when their games are longest and shortest? There shouldn't be such a strong correlation.



Poll is quoted as saying this in that article. He's also been quoted in the past saying far more damning things about Ferguson. The sort of thing the BBC won't say in fear of Ferguson being a **** again and not giving them any copy or interviews. Winter and Elleray both said the same thing as Poll too when they retired. That Ferguson manipulates referee selection and succeeds in disrupting referees careers if they're not favourable. **** Fergie time, that's just the thin end of the wedge.
Click to expand...


:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom