Survivorship Bias

[Solius]

Do we experience this in terms of how we are viewed by pundits and opposition fans? This is something I think we've 'suffered' from since the SAF days.

Little bit of history because I think it's cool. During WWII researchers studied planes that returned from missions and looked at where there were bullet holes (pic below).

They recommended putting reinforced metal panels over the areas with the most damage. Makes sense for some at first thought?

A man named Abraham Wald concluded differently. These studies were of course only conducted on planes that survived and came back from the missions. If anything this proved that the planes that were shot in these areas were still able to safely return, and in fact they should probably reinforce the areas that didn't have as many bullet holes since that's likely why the other planes were downed. This is an example of survivorship bias.

I think Utd and a lot of other clubs get viewed in this same vein.

Say we get 10 decisions for us and 10 decisions against us in a season. The ability of our squad likely means that maybe only 2 or 3 of these decisions against us will end up costing us a game because we can score enough goals to make it a non-issue. However with about 7 or 8 of the decisions for us we likely would've won the game anyway. So to the casual viewer it will pretty much always look like we are getting favourable decisions, despite the balance being 10 - 10.

 

[Amar__]

You just wanted to share that cool WWII story, admit it Sol!

 

[Amar__]

On a serious note, I'll always remember that Howard Webb Chelsea at Stamford Bridge game, where we were deined at least two clear penalties, and David Luiz should have seen couple of red cards, but instead everyone saw that game as Howard Webb helping us because he gave us one questionable penalty and one or two questionable decision in our favour. David Luiz was given MOTM by Skysports.

 

[Vidyoyo]

So you're saying Lindelof wasn't that much of a problem? I agree.

Cool story too.

 

[R77]

Nice post. If I interpret you correctly, I'd say our midfield is a good example. We could certainly do with some better ball retention there, and another body or two, but players like Bruno, Shaw, and others are able to attack relentlessly because of the way we set up. We're obviously not being moulded into a Pep style team, more similar to the scouse, who won the league and a CL with cloggers and runners in the middle enabling everyone else to attack. I personally don't think a lone DM specialist is the answer, but am very much in the minority.

 

[Solius]

Just had a look at some Villa fan comments about the game and it's the usual stuff. We apparently always shithouse a win and get decisions in our favour.

Even though the table is literally designed to show how teams do over the course of a season and therefore eliminate most 'luck' people still will flat out deny another team is good based off their own inherent bias.

 

[horsechoker]

I wish the Glazers would fix the bullet holes in old Trafford

 

[Zen86]

Nice post, I learned a thing

 

[Fully Fledged]

So you're saying Lindelof wasn't that much of a problem? I agree.

Cool story too.

He just needs some metal plates.
We probably do get more penalties than other teams because we make more runs into the opposition box than teams make against us.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

Very interesting war story.

And I completely agree with the point about refs decisions. It's something that I've said many times myself in real life (without the cool plane analogy).

If the smaller team win and benefit from a lucky decision, the media don't make much of it at all. Even if it gets mentioned, it's with a 'yeah, it could have gone the other way but that's clutching at straws if (the bigger team) use that as an excuse'. If it happens the other way round, and the decision goes the way of the big team, then it's a much bigger thing and 'Football can be a cruel game', 'that's the fine margins that can relegate a team,' etc.

And so often in the media if the team that won (usually the bigger teams who win more often) were also wrongly denied a goal or penalty, or the losing team should have had a man sent off, they don't make anything of it. If there was also a similar decision that went against the losing team (usually the smaller teams who lose more often), they highlight it and talk about how the result could have been different and how unlucky they were - while blatantly ignoring the decisions that also went in favour of the losing team in that same match.

That kind of media narrative - mostly focusing on certain decisions that went against / in favour of certain teams - has definitely reinforced the already held view of fans of smaller clubs that 'all the decisions go against them'.

And United, with our dominance of the PL in its first twenty years, have definitely been the ones most pushed as being helped by refs and 'getting all the decisions'. And that's largely because more of the decisions that go in favour of us are highlighted and shouted about, and more of the decisions that go against us are quietly ignored.

 

[Pexbo]

I’m a sucker for a good analogy and that’s a great analogy

 

[Lentwood]

I don’t think “survivor bias” quite fits the phenomenon you’re trying to explain tbh. Survivor bias is where you come to flawed conclusions by only focusing on the “survivors”/“winners”.

The reason Utd are perceived as getting more decisions is because our games are more scrutinised and reported on. I watched maybe 15 minutes of coverage on Sky and MoTD relating to two decisions which wouldn’t have gotten a second mention had they happened in a West Ham vs Everton game.

 

[Solius]

I don’t think “survivor bias” quite fits the phenomenon you’re trying to explain tbh. Survivor bias is where you come to flawed conclusions by only focusing on the “survivors”/“winners”.

The reason Utd are perceived as getting more decisions is because our games are more scrutinised and reported on. I watched maybe 15 minutes of coverage on Sky and MoTD relating to two decisions which wouldn’t have gotten a second mention had they happened in a West Ham vs Everton game.

But that's what I mean by the fact that most decisions against us don't end up costing us. We survive those decisions because we are a good team. So people will only notice the decisions we get in our favour.

If the opposition score a blatant offside goal against us in the first half but we go on to win 3 - 1 in the second half, nobody really talks about it.

If we score a blatantly offside goal, we are likely going to win the game regardless against 18 of the 20 Prem teams right now, but that will be highlighted as us only winning because of it.

 

[Solius]

Good example of this last night. Denied a stonewall pen for the foul on Pellistri but because we scored right after and won the game it will be forgotten.

 

[Remember the geese]

Good example of this last night. Denied a stonewall pen for the foul on Pellistri but because we scored right after and won the game it will be forgotten.

Is there any footage of this anywhere? I've seen it mentioned a couple of times, but don't recall it at all.

 

[Solius]

https://twitter.com/TenHagBall_/status/1706991205051945388?s=20

 

[Remember the geese]

Oh yeah that's a clear pen.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Good example of this last night. Denied a stonewall pen for the foul on Pellistri but because we scored right after and won the game it will be forgotten.

No one even appealed, including Pellistri.

 

[arthurka]

No one even appealed, including Pellistri.

They know they ain't getting it

 

[El Zoido]

Sky commentary kept banging on about how it was a great tackle.

 

[DickDastardly]

Shoot Pellistri

Or put metal plates on the kid?


@Solius what would Abraham Wald do?

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

They know they ain't getting it

If they can't even forcefully appeal for a penalty at Old Trafford, they need help tying their own bootlaces before games. Bruno, for example would have been right in the ref's ear if he was on the field.

 

[massi83]

Good example of this last night. Denied a stonewall pen for the foul on Pellistri but because we scored right after and won the game it will be forgotten.

Sure. But this is true for all the bigger (better) teams, which you note in the OP. But it doesn't explain why there is such an outrage when United get a decision, while there is none when any of the other top teams gets one.

 

[padzilla]

I remember the Spurs defeat eariler in the season when Roy Keane and Jamie Redknapp both agreed the Romero handball was never a penalty and the ref got it spot on.

Cue weeks of penalties been given to other teams for much less obvious handballs. It was like they were confirming their own viewpoint on the result and dismissing what was right in front of them deliberately, in order to do so.

 

[Grande]

Don’t think that is stonewall to be honest. Yes, he interferes first with the left foot before blooking the shot, but as he gets the shot away, I don’t expect that to be a penalty most times. If it happened in the middle of the pitch, I’d give it a 50/50 chance of being given as a free kick.

 

[Solius]

Or put metal plates on the kid?


@Solius what would Abraham Wald do?

Bang in 30 goals a season for FC Midtjylland.

 

[Solius]

Sure. But this is true for all the bigger (better) teams, which you note in the OP. But it doesn't explain why there is such an outrage when United get a decision, while there is none when any of the other top teams gets one.

Absolutely dicked on all of their teams for like two decades of most of these people’s formative years.

 

[DickDastardly]

Bang in 30 goals a season for FC Midtjylland.

You had me googling "Was Abraham Wald a midget".

 

[SouthMancRed]

Sky commentary kept banging on about how it was a great tackle.

ESPN looked at it closely a little after and it was a clear penalty.

 

[massi83]

Absolutely dicked on all of their teams for like two decades of most of these people’s formative years.

Indeed, so that is, what explains it more than the survivorship bias. Thankfully we have been so shit for so long, that it should lessen eventually.

 

[noodlehair]

Football is just an excuse sport. If you lose there's always a penalty call, offside, throw in awarded the wrong way, ball went 1mm out of play when it was 50ft high in the air, etc. moment to look back and blame it on.

Hence the whole "you never get those at Old Trafford/Anfield/Etc." logic ...the reason you never get them is because you have about 3 attacks there per game, where as the home team will have about 500, so statistically you are going to be awarded less penalties than they are and are also very likely to lose handsomely. Also if the home team don't get given one, most likely they're just going to win 4-0 instead of 5-0, so no one is going to care.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/19528266 - Here is Roberto Martinez somehow blaming a 4-0 defeat for Wigan at Old Trafford entirely on the ref awarding Man Utd a penalty in the 5th minute, which Man Utd didn't score from. The score was then 0-0 at half time. This isn't even survivorship bias, its just behaving like a whining, stupid child. I remember being particularly baffled by this at the time as I was at the game and Wigan just got thrashed for the entire 90 minutes. Fecking Alexander Buttner was weaving in and out of their defence like prime Messi.

This is just the culture of football unfortunately. Cheat a lot then if it doesn't work claim cheating is the reason you didn't win. Then send a dossier to the FA or something when you're about to get relegated.

 

[noodlehair]

Do we experience this in terms of how we are viewed by pundits and opposition fans? This is something I think we've 'suffered' from since the SAF days.

Little bit of history because I think it's cool. During WWII researchers studied planes that returned from missions and looked at where there were bullet holes (pic below).

They recommended putting reinforced metal panels over the areas with the most damage. Makes sense for some at first thought?

A man named Abraham Wald concluded differently. These studies were of course only conducted on planes that survived and came back from the missions. If anything this proved that the planes that were shot in these areas were still able to safely return, and in fact they should probably reinforce the areas that didn't have as many bullet holes since that's likely why the other planes were downed. This is an example of survivorship bias.

I think Utd and a lot of other clubs get viewed in this same vein.

Say we get 10 decisions for us and 10 decisions against us in a season. The ability of our squad likely means that maybe only 2 or 3 of these decisions against us will end up costing us a game because we can score enough goals to make it a non-issue. However with about 7 or 8 of the decisions for us we likely would've won the game anyway. So to the casual viewer it will pretty much always look like we are getting favourable decisions, despite the balance being 10 - 10.

Also what I've taken from this diagram/theory is that a) we should sign more left sided forwards to reinforce the left wing as this is the area of our team that doesn't have loads of holes in it, so therefore is the most important bit to make stronger, and b) the diagram is also Amrabat's heat map if he was positioned as the tail gunner on a Lancaster bomber.

 

[arthurka]

If they can't even forcefully appeal for a penalty at Old Trafford, they need help tying their own bootlaces before games. Bruno, for example would have been right in the ref's ear if he was on the field.

But they ain't getting it, and they know it.

 

[didz]

Also what I've taken from this diagram/theory is that a) we should sign more left sided forwards to reinforce the left wing as this is the area of our team that doesn't have loads of holes in it, so therefore is the most important bit to make stronger, and b) the diagram is also Amrabat's heat map if he was positioned as the tail gunner on a Lancaster bomber.

For what it's worth, Amrabat showed his footballing intelligence yesterday by avoiding the area of the pitch where a United player is statistically most likely to get injured this season.

 

[Bastionen]

Sure. But this is true for all the bigger (better) teams, which you note in the OP. But it doesn't explain why there is such an outrage when United get a decision, while there is none when any of the other top teams gets one.

I believe that biases, particularly confirmation bias and in-group bias, might be influencing this perception.

While I don't regularly follow English news, I am active in multiple football communities. My observation is that supporters from almost every large club share similar sentiments: the media has it out for them, referees consistently make calls against them, rivals are always favored, luck always seems to be on the side of their competitors, and commentators appear to always side with the opposition. On average, I just don't think it's the case.

 

[Kellyiom]

Do we experience this in terms of how we are viewed by pundits and opposition fans? This is something I think we've 'suffered' from since the SAF days.

Little bit of history because I think it's cool. During WWII researchers studied planes that returned from missions and looked at where there were bullet holes (pic below).

They recommended putting reinforced metal panels over the areas with the most damage. Makes sense for some at first thought?

A man named Abraham Wald concluded differently. These studies were of course only conducted on planes that survived and came back from the missions. If anything this proved that the planes that were shot in these areas were still able to safely return, and in fact they should probably reinforce the areas that didn't have as many bullet holes since that's likely why the other planes were downed. This is an example of survivorship bias.

I think Utd and a lot of other clubs get viewed in this same vein.

Say we get 10 decisions for us and 10 decisions against us in a season. The ability of our squad likely means that maybe only 2 or 3 of these decisions against us will end up costing us a game because we can score enough goals to make it a non-issue. However with about 7 or 8 of the decisions for us we likely would've won the game anyway. So to the casual viewer it will pretty much always look like we are getting favourable decisions, despite the balance being 10 - 10.

Wow! Loved that @Solius , I'm studying data science though so I'm allowed to get excited.

 

[Brightonian]

I used to think this game after game in the glory days of our 07-09 side. Wild number of decisions would go against us, almost all ignored by the press because we were a relentless winning machine and won anyway. One slightly 50/50 penalty call in our favour would then get splashed across the back pages. Inevitably, the better and more successful the team are, the more this applies.

Of course, it's easy to say it about United on a United forum. But if your logic is sound (which I think it is), then it's also logical to assume that the team most affected by this in recent seasons would be, of course, City.

To go slightly off topic (sorry), both teams are likely to be actually suffering from the only referee bias which I consider to be real, despite all the fan complaining, which is pro-underdog bias. My impression is that this mainly affects small calls (inconsequential free kicks, yellow cards, who gets blamed for a bit of handbags) more than big ones (red cards, penalties), but over a whole match it can really add up. And it seems to be really sticky: United haven't won the league for a decade now, but our reputation and perceived importance means we seem to suffer from this almost as badly as City, who just won a treble.

It's so galling to have spent a decade in and out of the weeds and still get this undercurrent of 'yeah, stick it to the big guys!' from refs every time some cnut blatantly bodyslams Rashford off the ball or whatever.

 

[wolvored]

Football is just an excuse sport. If you lose there's always a penalty call, offside, throw in awarded the wrong way, ball went 1mm out of play when it was 50ft high in the air, etc. moment to look back and blame it on.

Hence the whole "you never get those at Old Trafford/Anfield/Etc." logic ...the reason you never get them is because you have about 3 attacks there per game, where as the home team will have about 500, so statistically you are going to be awarded less penalties than they are and are also very likely to lose handsomely. Also if the home team don't get given one, most likely they're just going to win 4-0 instead of 5-0, so no one is going to care.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/19528266 - Here is Roberto Martinez somehow blaming a 4-0 defeat for Wigan at Old Trafford entirely on the ref awarding Man Utd a penalty in the 5th minute, which Man Utd didn't score from. The score was then 0-0 at half time. This isn't even survivorship bias, its just behaving like a whining, stupid child. I remember being particularly baffled by this at the time as I was at the game and Wigan just got thrashed for the entire 90 minutes. Fecking Alexander Buttner was weaving in and out of their defence like prime Messi.

This is just the culture of football unfortunately. Cheat a lot then if it doesn't work claim cheating is the reason you didn't win. Then send a dossier to the FA or something when you're about to get relegated.

Good post. As Fergie always said about pens, fouls and other incidents, 'It all evens out over a season'