Is it time to consider Frank Lowy's successor?

There are 4 Asians on the FIFA committee & guess what 3 of them had a country bidding for the World cup, get your facts right.

Fussball???, like I said we are not Asia, not one Asian country voted for us in the World Cup 2022 (we are Oceania)

I'm not a statician. I actually used that source simply because it mentioned the most common winning margin. The fact that it has been the most common winning margin, though, does not mean it happened the majority of times.

Fussball etc and the point is?? IN AFL 2010, avg win score 108, avg lose score 72. Ave margin 35. Avg lose score just over 2 times the average margin. That's just over 200% relative to the average margin. HAL V6. Avg winning margin 1.8. Avg lose score 0.5. Avg lose score therefore is 27% of the avg margin. btw for 2010, 3 pts was the most common margin (8 times), then, 6 each for 9, 29 and 36. btw - 24% (32) of V6 HAL games drawn. Those with a result, the loser failed to score 63 times, and the loser managed more than 2 goals only 11 of the 103 times. There were 2 3:3's and 1 2:2. So, seriously, concede 2 goals in a game of soccer, and you really are cactus!!!

That "frequency of winning margin since 1897" simply tells us that in 113 years of VFL/AFL (approximately 16k matches), a 1-pt margin has occurred around 290 times - i.e. 1.5% of all winning margins in the past 113 years have been 1 point. Whilst I haven't counted all the dots on your graph, a cursory glance at that graph indicates the 2010 season is pretty similar to the historical 113 year records: approx. 1/3 matches are 0-20; 1/3 are 21-50 and 1/*3 are >50 pt margins.

You're only looking at one season, over the course of 114 seasons, it may well be that the most common margin is one point. Either way, so what.

We're talking all-time, and we are correct. The most common winning margin in the VFL/AFL since 1897 is indeed one point. http://www.cumsar.com.au/News.php?By=Item&Item=005http://www.cumsar.com.au/News.php?By=Item&Item=005

2010 AFL home & away season (176 matches) Average winning margin: 35 points 0-20 pts: 61 (35%) 21-50 pts: 67 (38%) >50 pts: 48 (27%) Only 4 matches had a 1 pt margin and 2 were draws. A total of 20 matches (11%) had a margin of 1 goal or less. There is absolutely ZERO possibility that "the most common winning margin" in AFL is 1 point! Source: http://stats.rleague.com/afl/seas/2010.html

Ben, I believe that you are right. It could simply be the law of averages, but for whatever reason, I do believe that you're right about the most common winning margin. I also agree with you regarding your last sentence. :D

correct me if I'm wrong however I believe over the entire history of Aussie Rules the most common winning margin is 1 point (I assume this was a VFL/AFL stat when I heard it). Both games are great to watch and play.

he means we are part of the Asian Football Confederation. Do try to keep up.

Where did you get that idea? I live in Asia, your assertion is incorrect.

You're probably right.

Quite frankly, he may not have cerebral capacity to take in anything that you have said, he will say exactly the same thing verbatim tomorrow, and the day after.

"And, therein lies the main reason why I firmly believe the majority of AFL fans will never have the cerebral capacity to uunderstand the Beautiful Game." How nice. So you're now insulting Aussie Rules supporters? That's really mature. Just so you know, that's one of the reasons why Aussie Rules supporters haven't warmed to soccer. When soccer supporters imagine themselves to be intellectually superior to Aussie Rules supporters or think that because soccer is the world's biggest game, everyone in Australia should embrace it, it's kind of hard to warm to it. Oh, and maybe the reason why so many people such as myself, prefer Aussie Rules to soccer, is not because soccer requires a a more intelligent fan, but because we think that Aussie Rules is more complex. "Even people, who don’t have English as their 1st language, would understand that “the closeness of the scores” is inherent to any contest!" Well, perhaps these people would understand what I wrote better than you. I wrote 'I don’t think that the closeness of the contest is the only determinating factor in how good a contest is', so I wasn't talking about whether there is a contest, in terms of whether both teams have a chance, but the quality of it. "If the scores are 125-78 it’s not a contest – it’s often claimed that the match is … “no contest”!" That's all very well, but I wasn't really talking about that. My point was that simply because a match is close, doesn't make it a great one, if the skill level is terrible. There have been plenty of football (and soccer) matches where the scores have been close, but only because the skill levels were disappointing. Do you want to know what IMO was the most overrated GF of all time? 2005. Apart from the last few minutes, it was extremely disappointing and not particularly attractive. If it weren't for Leo Barry's mark, and the closeness of the final score, I don't think anyone would care. There have been quite a few other close matches with disappointing skill levels or in which ugly football were played. People refer to soccer as the Beautiful Game. It often it. But not because of the closeness of the scores. Even putting aside goals, watching people like incredible passes or dribbling can be a joy. However when there are close matches, it is not always amazing to watch. The reverse, BTW, is also true. While only passionate fans of the winning side enjoys a 100 point flogging, there have been plenty of great matches which have not been particularly close (but not thrashings either). The 1970 GF, in which Carlton was down at one point by 44 points, is a classic. There have also been matches marked by incredible individual performances, such as a WCE-Essendon match this year. "I would estimate 50% of all Aussie Rules matches are “no contest” for the final 30 minutes and some are “no contest” for the final 1 hour!" Perhaps, but is that better than soccer with it's 0:0 draws? "I’ve never understood the fascination in Aussie Rules for “high scores”, “number of possessions” and “wasn’t that a great mark” … who cares?" We care. When a player takes a great mark, or kicks an incredible goal, it brings crowds to their feet. Soccer may be more of a team sport than football, but even in soccer, there is a focus on the individual aspect. Maradona's performances at the 1986 World Cup is a perfect example of this. BTW, there is a difference between “wasn’t that a great mark” and the other two things. People love great marks, but people don't really care about number of possessions, unless you're involved in fantasy football, and as for high scores, supporters of the winning team care because it ensures a good percentage. "What difference does it make if the to the score if it was a “great mark” or a “crap mark”? Who cares if Joel Bowden gets 700 possessions every match, if he does nothing constructive with the possessions and/or Richmond loses every match?" Do you realise that you're now talking about different issues? What does this have to do with the closeness of the contest? I could ask you, who cares if the score is close throughout the entire match, if your team ends up losing? This has nothing to do with the closeness of the scores. "But in football it can be 1-0 from the 10 minute mark and the game is still in the balance – and fans on the edge of their seats – right until the final seconds of stoppage time … as Bayern Munchen discovered in the 1999 UCL final"" That match may have been wonderful, but would it have been as great if the skill level was terrible or if the sides were playing ugly and defensively?

lol we are definately not part of Asia, where did you get that from, Kevin Rudd?

amazonfan opined: I don’t think that the closeness of the contest is the only determinating factor in how good a contest is. And, therein lies the main reason why I firmly believe the majority of AFL fans will never have the cerebral capacity to uunderstand the Beautiful Game. Even people, who don't have English as their 1st language, would understand that "the closeness of the scores" is inherent to any contest! If the scores are 125-78 it's not a contest - it's often claimed that the match is ... "no contest"! I would estimate 50% of all Aussie Rules matches are "no contest" for the final 30 minutes and some are "no contest" for the final 1 hour! I've never understood the fascination in Aussie Rules for "high scores", "number of possessions" and "wasn't that a great mark" ... who cares? What difference does it make if the to the score if it was a "great mark" or a "crap mark"? Who cares if Joel Bowden gets 700 possessions every match, if he does nothing constructive with the possessions and/or Richmond loses every match? But in football it can be 1-0 from the 10 minute mark and the game is still in the balance - and fans on the edge of their seats - right until the final seconds of stoppage time ... as Bayern Munchen discovered in the 1999 UCL final. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcSt08-Qy50

The reason the '89 GF was a great GF (and I'm a Melbourne fan, so I have no emotional connection to it) is because of the individual performances; Ablett's 9 goals, Brereton's heroics, Dunstall's consistency etc.... I don't think that the closeness of the contest is the only determinating factor in how good a contest is.

guy's a drop kick

are we part of Asia?, I thought we are Oceainia, no other Asian country supported us in the World Cup bid? from what I can gather Asian countries do not like us