Talk:Goal difference

Why goal difference was adopted

Perhaps a discussion of why goal difference was adopted in many competitions in lieu of goal average is in order for this entry?

Leviramsey 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief discussion as suggested above added

Leviramsey 02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to goal average if zero goals are conceded?

As we all know, arithmetic does not allow division by zero. So what gives? How would goal average rank

a team that scored 0 goals and conceded 0 goals
a team that scored 1 goal and conceded 0 goals
a team that scored 100 goals and conceded 1 goal? 22:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tried in vain to find references for goal average and division by zero. And it's not a completely academic topic. It happened to Brazil in the first round of the 1958 World Cup, and also to England in the first round of the 1966 World Cup. In both cases, the places were settled by points and there was no need to consider goal average, and the tables show the goal averages as "infinity" -- although this is not mathematically correct. The obvious solution, at least to me, would be to add one to both goals scored and goals conceded before performing the division. In other words, instead of GF / GA, the equation is (GF + 1) / (GA + 1). This would remove the division by zero problem, but I can't find any sources that this, or any other solution, was ever considered. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second tiebreaker is used: Goals For. In your example, the team which scored 100 goals would be the winner. Osvaldo190.19.40.144 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose team A scores 0 goals and concedes 0 goals. Team B scores 10 goals and concedes 1 goal. Team A wins, right? Grover cleveland (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember: 1st step, If GA not = 0 and GF not = 0, then GF / GA; if GA not = 0 and GF = 0, then 1 / GA; if GA = 0 and GF not = 0, then GF; if GA = 0 and GF = 0, then 1. 2nd step, more GF. 3rd step, less GA. (Other people remember: 2nd. step: GF - GA).

In your example: Team A: GA = GF = 0, then 1. Team B: 10 / 1 = 10. As 10 > 1, team B would be the winner. Osvaldo190.19.40.144 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Osvaldo -- do you have a source for this? Grover cleveland (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Grover. I would like to find the complete regulations of World Cup 1962 and/or 1966. Please, note that in a league of 30 or most rounds is almost impossible to avoid no goals. Then, I remember that the rules had to be adapted for 3 rounds. Please, if you find them, don't forget me. Osvaldo190.19.40.144 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A mathemastical division with nil in the denominator is forbidden. But assume that You have a 1 foot long plank. How many pieces do You get if You attempt to split it up in parts without any length ? Infinitely many ! Hence goals scored and conceded 1:0 is better than 500:1. This was how the rule worked. However 2:0 was better than 1:0. Boeing720 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not forbidden ('forbidden' means it's possible but against some rules), it's impossible - it's impossible to split something amongst up no people, and impossible to split a plank into parts with no length. You don't get infinitely many. Mmitchell10 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At http://www.aik.se/fotboll/aikindex.html?/fotboll/ar/1925/19240803.html there is a league table after Day one in the first ever played Swedish Allsvenskan 1924/25. Landskrona BoIS are in lead with 2 points and 1:0 score, dispite of there are teams with 2 points and 5:1 and 3:1 scores. The rule was taken from England as every other rule at that time. By the way a team with 10:1 must be ahead of a 0:0 team, dispite of the rule. The "0:0 team" must have as many points as games played, while the "10:1 team" must have atleast one point more. (Whith 2p for a win there is the rather slim chance of a 0:1 defeat ombined with a 10:0 wictory though. But thats the only possible exception, and with 3p for a win this small possibility vanishes) Boeing720 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titles Decided on Goal Average

It doesn't seem right that this is an article about Goal Difference, the section is headed "Titles Decided on Goal Difference", then details have been given about a load of years when goal average was used, and not even comprehensively either. I have corrected this, mostly. Gusssss (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can this page be protected from the vandal so it actually remains accurate and relevant?

Gusssss (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please no more irrelevant passages about goal average events in Yugoslavia, or even Scotland. Thank you.

Gusssss (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if Dr Vicodine would add some example of a championship in Yugoslavia which was decided on goal DIFFERENCE instead of goal AVERAGE, it might be relevant. Isn't there an article about goal average? He could start one if not.

Gusssss (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I am once again removing references to goal average decisions from this article about goal difference, especially the detailed accounts of individual matches.

Gusssss (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to know what you are against, but quite another to know what you are for. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the line above which starts "Perhaps if Dr Vicodine would add..." you would know. Plus all the other comments are self explanatory really.

To summarise, in an article entitled "GOAL DIFFERENCE", I am for examples of championships decided on GOAL DIFFERENCE, and against lengthy passages about championships decided on GOAL AVERAGE. How could I be clearer? Does it even need to be spelled out?

Gusssss (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goal average redirects to here, so it is appropriate to include examples of championships decided on goal average. I have created a dedicated section, and started it off with Rangers in Division A in 1952–53. Other examples from England, Scotland and Yugoslavia can be found here (although I would recommend leaving out some of the purple prose). Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added those myself. Scolaire (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the scope of the article is too narrow, and needs to include all tie-breakers used to separate teams or individuals level on points in round robin competitions. Gusssss (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are points calculated?

The last column in each table in the article lists "Points", but I don't see anything that indicates how this value is calculated. Could someone please clarify its derivation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whorvath (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Points are calculated from the number of wins, draws and losses. Typically a team gets 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and none for a loss, although most countries / competitions previously used 2 points for a win. Goal difference only applies if a team is level on points, as a tiebreaker. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goal difference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]