I'm not a sports fan but occasionally I will tune into a sports programme on TV (usually while waiting for Après Match). The one thing I hate about those programmes is there is always someone how says 'Well of course Team X deserved to win" despite the fact that Team Y beat them 18-Nil. The reasons then given range from better use of the ball or some such subjective factor. Completely ignoring, of course, that no matter how good your ball control or team coordination that if you can't put the ball in the net and stop the other team from scoring you don't deserve to win.
Anyway, the New Zealanders have taken this to the extreme and Hugh Morton, a statistician at Massy University there declared that New Zealand really was the best team. Australia was second best, while England, the team that actually won the tournament was third best.
And how does Mr Morton arrive at this conclusion? Well according to the December 6 edition of New Scientist, instead of giving four points for a win, he gives and takes away points based on whether the win was narror or large, the relative ranking of the opposing teams in each match and so on.
9:33:34 PM Google It!
|
|