28 May 2020 15:51:56
Premier league returns 17th June (BBC)


1.) 28 May 2020
28 May 2020 17:38:33
Must have been quite a productive meeting.


2.) 28 May 2020
28 May 2020 18:10:43
Have to be honest, I don't really care, ill watch the games united are involved in but with no fans its not something ill be rushing to watch anyone else for.


3.) 28 May 2020
28 May 2020 18:21:39
Can't help but think that this is going to be a mistake.


4.) 28 May 2020
28 May 2020 18:34:25
It must have been. I assume the teams who were against a resumption have had their issues and fears allayed and are now happy to continue. It will be strange for many reasons. Ed002 Are the games being played at neutral venues? Or has that not been sorted yet?

{Ed002's Note - The deal on the table is that not all games will be played at home and it will be a mix of home venues and neutral venues to address police and reduce concerns raised by three cities. You can assume that derbies, crucial matches and home matches for clubs whose fans cannot be trusted will likely be played at neutral venues.}


5.) 28 May 2020
28 May 2020 19:15:08
Thanks ed002. Obviously a restart will depend on us continuing to improve the r rate etc. If things slip then we will be back to square 1 again. Let's hope not for everyone's sake. Positive note on a return, all Premier league games on normal TV (la liga planning the same via app and sky) .

{Ed002's Note - It depends on several factors - and there remains a broadcast issue.}


6.) 28 May 2020
28 May 2020 19:28:18
Thanks ed002. I can imagine sky not being too pleased with free to air games 😂.


7.) 29 May 2020
29 May 2020 12:35:27
If it's a mix of home venues and neutral venues it all becomes a bit of a farce really doesn't it.


8.) 29 May 2020
29 May 2020 13:05:35
Exactly, some have home advantage, others don't, the integrity of the competition to complete the season is made a mockery of really, its not the same competition we are going back to, a season to forget from existence tbh.


9.) 29 May 2020
29 May 2020 14:29:38
I'm not sure the issue of "neutral" venues is that big a deal. With no fans every stadium will be empty. So you lose any advantage from having the majority of the crowd cheering you on, booing your opponent and putting pressure on the officials.

The only advantage left from playing at "home" is a lack of travel before the game. However, that probably only comes into play when you've had to travel from one end of the country to the other and to be honest is a marginal disadvantage to the "away" team at best.

Without fans all stadiums will effectively be neutral grounds.


10.) 29 May 2020
29 May 2020 21:12:27
Well, you also become accustomed to your own pitch and have an advantage over away teams in that respect. So it's quite a big disadvantage really.


11.) 29 May 2020
29 May 2020 22:02:05
I really don't think it is. The pitches have certain specifications which they have to meet, and boundaries which they have to fall between in terms of length and width. While EPL pitches have hundreds of thousands spent on them each season to maintain them.

Maybe you might feel a little more comfortable in your own dressing room, but these are international players who have all either played for multiple club's, represented their countries in stadia around the world or participated in European competitions with their club's.

All of them have been played in over a hundred different stadiums from youth football right through to their senior careers.

Having 90% or 10% of the fans in the stadium cheering you or booing you is by far the biggest difference between playing at home or away.

That is something that has been removed since fans can no longer be in the stadiums.

We have seen the change in atmosphere in the German games, while a few players plying their trade in the Bundesliga have said that games don't feel like normal home or away games.

Playing Liverpool at Anfield means being met with 50 thousand fans singing "you'll never walk alone" before kick off, those fans drawing the ball into the net at the kop end. Take those fans away and going to Anfield is no longer such a daunting task. Less nerves for the players.

Now some players need those nerves to play, while for others those nerves inhibit them being able to play their best.

We are in uncharted territory, will it be more off putting to play in a larger empty stadium than a smaller one? Will players at club's who normally play in front of massive crowds find playing in empty stadiums more off putting than those who normally play in front of much smaller crowds? Will a lack of fan pressure on match officials lead to less mistakes? Or at least fewer favourable decisions going the home teams way?

There are many aspects linked to the lack of fans that could alter the out comes of games, who owns the pitch is less important in my opinion.

{Ed001's Note - sorry but you are wrong. The main difference is the landmarks in the stadium. Players judge passes by them. The West Ham players came out publicly talking about how difficult they found it adjusting to their new stadium because of the lack of them with the stands being so far back from the pitch. Once they adjusted it gave them an edge over opponents who couldn't judge passes so easily.}


12.) 30 May 2020
30 May 2020 08:10:04
Was it though, or was that an excuse for why they suffered poor form when they first played in their new stadium.

Did Arsenal, Man City or Spurs have the same issue when they moved into new stadiums over the past 10 years? No, just West Ham.

The difference in the main is having a disproportionate number of fans in the stadium. It's way there is a correlation between larger stadiums and the home team getting more "favourable" decisions.

Also when looking at major finals held at the home stadium of one of the finalists the results are almost split down the middle as to whether the "home" side won or lost. The difference is that in that one off game the tickets were split evenly. Further supporting the idea that it is having more fans in the stadium that provides a real advantage.


13.) 30 May 2020
30 May 2020 11:32:11
A lot of football is played in your head a change in routine does have an effect . There will still be home advantage even with out fans.
Which is why it obviously been an issue for several teams.

{Ed001's Note - it is pointless, Shappy has decided he is right and will not listen to those who actually have to play the game. He will point out all the stats that favour his point and ignore all the evidence that proves he is wrong. Talking about major finals, as if a one-off game is relevant and is a sample size that proves a thing. Shappy until you understand statistical analysis, just drop it, because everytime you post you just prove you don't understand how to analysis the numbers. You take tiny sample sizes as relevant and ignore the larger ones, which are slightly more relevant, as they disprove your point. If you think the results in major finals are in anyway relevant to this conversation about league matches, then you just prove a lack of understanding about the game of football as well as analysing stats.}


14.) 30 May 2020
30 May 2020 13:11:16
Actually, I read peer reviewed articles around football and have read several which demonstrate that the “home” crowd are the decisive factor in having a “home” advantage.
Nevill and Holder’s 1999 paper “Home advantage in sport” in Sports Medicine highlights exactly this point. While a recent paper by Inan released this year analysing “The Effect of Crowd support on Home-field Advantage: Evidence from European Football” published in Annals of Applied Sport Science, further supports my argument.

While an interesting read is Waquil, Horta and de Moraes 2020 paper “Home advantage and away goals rule: An analysis from Brazil Cup”. Published in Journal of Sports Analytics.

My argument isn’t based on hearsay from footballers, but on studies performed by academics.

{Ed001's Note - so academics that have never even played the sport and don't understand it. Ok you stick with that then. Still missing the point that not one of those papers has enough numbers to be relevant in statistical analysis. There is not enough games played a season in football to be able to rule out anomalies or the differences caused by team choices, tactics etc. Your studies you use are flawed and if you understood them you would see that too. You are typical of a blinkered student who thinks they are an expert because they have read a bit but not learnt enough to question what they have read. Instead you just regurgitate it wholesale with no real understanding of what it is you have read.}


15.) 30 May 2020
30 May 2020 13:41:51
Clearly you haven't read those articles which have been published by highly regarded peer-reviewed journals. Getting work published in these journals isn't easy and if the science doesn't stand up then it doesn't get published. So the work they have done is statistically sound, otherwise it wouldn't be published.

Obviously you can always do a wider review, collect more data and improve the quality and accuracy of the outcomes.

I don't think I'm an expert, but from what I have read which is peer-reviewed in highly rated journals and is scientifically sound, it is clear that the major and key factor in home advantage is based on the crowd.

Playing the game doesn't mean you are able to understand statistics or the key factors that can determine a result. Football employs huge numbers of people working in sport analytics, most of which have never played football at even a semi-professional level. So are the clubs wrong in hiring these people? Of course not they in many cases are top people in their field.

{Ed001's Note - lots of studies in peer-reviewed journals are wrong and use false information which is later disproved. Perhaps if you knew as much as you think you do, you would understand that. Also, as usual, you fail to understand the points. Football is not appointing sports analytics and taking their data at face value, they are using it as a start point because they know that the data is inherently flawed due to the lack of numbers involved. Teams are only playing 19 league games at home in a league season, that is not enough to plot results-based data from and draw conclusions. Especially when you consider all the other variables involved, such as team selection, tactics etc.

Just ask yourself, if the home crowd is the key to all of this, why do Dortmund not dominate the Bundesliga over Bayern every season? Their home crowd is not just larger, but significantly more vocal. Why don't Turkish teams, who have the most vocal and intimidating crowds, dominate in Europe?

Oh and I never said anything about playing the game making you understand statistics. But it certainly helps you to understand what makes you as a player perform better and what factors affect your performance negatively. The point is that statistical analysis of results and goal data is not usable or relevant as there are too many other factors and not enough games played a season to draw clear and meaningful conclusions. You have no control sample to compare it with for it to be of any use scientifically.}


16.) 30 May 2020
30 May 2020 14:39:37
Think crowd helps, but familiarity with the pitch helps more tbh. I look at my local leagues and the top sides mostly dominate at home and away not struggle but not as smooth as home, and yeh no fans there.


17.) 30 May 2020
30 May 2020 15:27:34
I always like playing at home I felt better and more confident probably more comfortable, not all the time but most the time .
It was the same at some away grounds always played well there, because I belived i was going to .
Massive amount of sport is in the head, there is 100% home advantage even with out fans. No-one will convince me other wise to be honest.


18.) 30 May 2020
30 May 2020 17:19:52
Most people know what to think but very few know how to think in these times.


19.) 30 May 2020
30 May 2020 21:25:59
Imo there are many advantages to playing at home.
The crowd is a major factor but by no means the only one.
As jred says there is s mental aspect. A familiarity and a routine. Lots of reasons.
The crowd does have an impact no doubt about that. But even in an empty stadium there are other advantages to the home side. Only Some of the advantage is nullified by no crowd.


20.) 31 May 2020
31 May 2020 01:17:20
Interesting thread!

There is actually a plethora of published scientific research into the question of home advantage in sport.

From what I've read the crowd does appear to be the single most dominant factor when assessing home advantage through a variety of mechanisms. Other factors such as familiarity with the stadium, pitch or traveling time appear to have less of an influence.

Who am I to argue with the academics. Peer reviewed articles/ journals are considered to be the most reliable and respected sources of information.

Initial results in Germany although admittedly a very small sample size do seem to support this view.

Read the research and make your own mind up.


21.) 31 May 2020
31 May 2020 10:21:26
DLIB
Ask a player.

{Ed001's Note - I would just ask why home advantage doesn't increase the higher up the leagues you go? I mean crowds get bigger and so should provide a higher boost but you get almost exactly the same advantage at every level of the game, including non-league and park football. If the crowd is the single most dominating factor, then why have Newcastle won so little?}


22.) 31 May 2020
31 May 2020 11:48:19
Ed001 - With all due respect if you want to disregard peer reviewed research then that's your prerogative. This is not my opinion but published peer reviewed literature.

Shappy has in my opinion eloquently made his argument and referenced his material, which I have read

If there are studies which contradict his point then please reference them and I will read them too.

Ed I don't know where you've found that the size of the crowd isn't important but here's some more published research for your consideration.

Agnew and Carron (1994) found that the only significant predictor of game outcome was crowd density. It was indicated that as crowd density increases, home advantage increases.   Nevill, Newell and Gale (1996) observed significant home advantage with larger crowds in football.

These are not my opinions but published findings in peer reviewed journals and articles.

{Ed001's Note - I did not say disregard it, I said question it. The same peer review journals were telling us that, for example, margarine was healthier than butter because of a large number of these kinds of papers. It was false because the people writing them made their conclusions based on their own bias - they went into the tests looking to prove margarine was healthier and so set the tests up to prove so. All of these reviews are taking raw data and not a holistic view. They are not using context. They are like Shappy with his debates, which are him looking purely at what agrees with him and discarding what doesn't. That is not how studies should work. They should look at ALL the date and try and fit their understanding around it all, rather than fit the data to their beliefs.

They are negating to look into the fact that as teams do well, crowd density increases. Density is a product of good performances as well and that has not been factored in at all. There has also been no account of player form or availability. They have ignored tactical considerations and team investment etc. Instead they have focused purely on the numbers and it is lacking context.

There are so many variables that they simply cannot factor in with pure numerical values.}


23.) 31 May 2020
31 May 2020 17:32:17
Can I chime in please, as an academic who has published papers.

Not all peer reviewed papers have statistical significance, sometimes papers are accepted if it is a special edition, or shows something new, regardless of number of participants unfortunately. I regularly see papers that have small. sample sizes, less than 20, or small group sizes, only 10.

The way forward with peer reviewed papers is replicability. and it needs to be more than 1 paper, ideally you would look at 20.

The best way would be to look at meta-analysis that aggregate many papers, both significant and non significant.

Effectively you are all correct.

However not all papers are peer reviewed, and it depends on the journal, if it is class 1, or a tier 1 paper, anything other than a tier 1, possibly tier 2, should only be taken into consideration if the study has been replicated a few times.

I did a study on the crowd at Old Trafford in 2009/ 10, based on size of crowd, size of away fans crowd etc for social psychology, but it was only at Old Trafford, so it can't be considered, I would gave needed to do a longitudinal study across a few seasons at all grounds in order to get a proper sample size.

While smaller studies can he informative and lead to larger studies, same size will be an issue and it's very difficult to apply that to a larger population.