Because I prefer to base my opinions on more than the 2 examples (Cardiff and Forest games) people frequently reel out to "prove" the positive effect of the fans is so great. There have been loads of other good performances where the atmosphere has been average at best over the last 2 seasons.
I'm not talking about 2 examples, I'm talking about the countless media quotes, comments on Twitter, and verbal comments I have heard directly from the mouth of a Charlton player about how much difference the crowd makes. If the players really didn't care, why would they say such things - if it genuinely made no difference there would be no incentive.
The fact that there have been other performances in front of a flat atmosphere is irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that the team with the loudest support wins the game. But it can give that extra 10% or even 1% motivation which can lead to an extra chance being created, and can change the momentum of a match. I'm not saying it happens every time, but if the crowd can have an effect, however small, surely we should try to take advantage of this and maximise the good that we can do?
And since there is little data to go on besides what the players and fans believe, I am skeptical that the effect can be that big.
Surely you've proved the point there. Psychology plays a huge part in determining the results of matches - otherwise why would so many top clubs spend so much money on getting it right?
Because I prefer to base my opinions on more than the 2 examples (Cardiff and Forest games) people frequently reel out to "prove" the positive effect of the fans is so great. There have been loads of other good performances where the atmosphere has been average at best over the last 2 seasons.
I'm not talking about 2 examples, I'm talking about the countless media quotes, comments on Twitter, and verbal comments I have heard directly from the mouth of a Charlton player about how much difference the crowd makes. If the players really didn't care, why would they say such things - if it genuinely made no difference there would be no incentive.
The fact that there have been other performances in front of a flat atmosphere is irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that the team with the loudest support wins the game. But it can give that extra 10% or even 1% motivation which can lead to an extra chance being created, and can change the momentum of a match. I'm not saying it happens every time, but if the crowd can have an effect, however small, surely we should try to take advantage of this and maximise the good that we can do?
And since there is little data to go on besides what the players and fans believe, I am skeptical that the effect can be that big.
Surely you've proved the point there. Psychology plays a huge part in determining the results of matches - otherwise why would so many top clubs spend so much money on getting it right?
Because I prefer to base my opinions on more than the 2 examples (Cardiff and Forest games) people frequently reel out to "prove" the positive effect of the fans is so great. There have been loads of other good performances where the atmosphere has been average at best over the last 2 seasons.
I'm not talking about 2 examples, I'm talking about the countless media quotes, comments on Twitter, and verbal comments I have heard directly from the mouth of a Charlton player about how much difference the crowd makes. If the players really didn't care, why would they say such things - if it genuinely made no difference there would be no incentive.
The fact that there have been other performances in front of a flat atmosphere is irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that the team with the loudest support wins the game. But it can give that extra 10% or even 1% motivation which can lead to an extra chance being created, and can change the momentum of a match. I'm not saying it happens every time, but if the crowd can have an effect, however small, surely we should try to take advantage of this and maximise the good that we can do?
And since there is little data to go on besides what the players and fans believe, I am skeptical that the effect can be that big.
Surely you've proved the point there. Psychology plays a huge part in determining the results of matches - otherwise why would so many top clubs spend so much money on getting it right?
But what the players and fans believe doesn't make it true (or at least it doesn't make it true to the extent of some of the figures being mentioned on this thread - an extra 10 points for example). There are countless examples of tacit knowledge spewed by people "in the know", who if you disagree with them would say (ala Savage/Collymore), "You couldn't possibly know, because you've never played the game." I'm not that interested in guesses, I want some data. And if there isn't any or it's a bit vague, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to take the viewpoint that I do.
It could cause a 10% improvement, it could cause a 0.0001% improvement. Since it's difficult to know, I'm more inclined to go with a lower guess at how much it improves performance. I completely agree that that means the crowd should make extra noise in order to get behind the team if that means we might create the extra chance per game, I'm just doubtful that it makes *that* much difference. Definitely not trying to claim the crowd have no impact on the game. My instinct tells me a negative atmosphere is likely to have a bigger impact than a positive one.
Because I prefer to base my opinions on more than the 2 examples (Cardiff and Forest games) people frequently reel out to "prove" the positive effect of the fans is so great. There have been loads of other good performances where the atmosphere has been average at best over the last 2 seasons.
I'm not talking about 2 examples, I'm talking about the countless media quotes, comments on Twitter, and verbal comments I have heard directly from the mouth of a Charlton player about how much difference the crowd makes. If the players really didn't care, why would they say such things - if it genuinely made no difference there would be no incentive.
The fact that there have been other performances in front of a flat atmosphere is irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that the team with the loudest support wins the game. But it can give that extra 10% or even 1% motivation which can lead to an extra chance being created, and can change the momentum of a match. I'm not saying it happens every time, but if the crowd can have an effect, however small, surely we should try to take advantage of this and maximise the good that we can do?
And since there is little data to go on besides what the players and fans believe, I am skeptical that the effect can be that big.
Surely you've proved the point there. Psychology plays a huge part in determining the results of matches - otherwise why would so many top clubs spend so much money on getting it right?
But what the players and fans believe doesn't make it true (or at least it doesn't make it true to the extent of some of the figures being mentioned on this thread - an extra 10 points for example). There are countless examples of tacit knowledge spewed by people "in the know", who if you disagree with them would say (ala Savage/Collymore), "You couldn't possibly know, because you've never played the game." I'm not that interested in guesses, I want some data. And if there isn't any or it's a bit vague, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to take the viewpoint that I do.
It could cause a 10% improvement, it could cause a 0.0001% improvement. Since it's difficult to know, I'm more inclined to go with a lower guess at how much it improves performance. I completely agree that that means the crowd should make extra noise in order to get behind the team if that means we might create the extra chance per game, I'm just doubtful that it makes *that* much difference. Definitely not trying to claim the crowd have no impact on the game. My instinct tells me a negative atmosphere is likely to have a bigger impact than a positive one.
I don't need data - I've witnessed Charlton fans over a long period, and most pertinently, from 1998-2010.
Tranmere 3-2. West Ham 4-2. Newcastle 2-2. These are results I genuinely believe wouldn't have happened if the fans were as they are today.
Because I prefer to base my opinions on more than the 2 examples (Cardiff and Forest games) people frequently reel out to "prove" the positive effect of the fans is so great. There have been loads of other good performances where the atmosphere has been average at best over the last 2 seasons.
I'm not talking about 2 examples, I'm talking about the countless media quotes, comments on Twitter, and verbal comments I have heard directly from the mouth of a Charlton player about how much difference the crowd makes. If the players really didn't care, why would they say such things - if it genuinely made no difference there would be no incentive.
The fact that there have been other performances in front of a flat atmosphere is irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that the team with the loudest support wins the game. But it can give that extra 10% or even 1% motivation which can lead to an extra chance being created, and can change the momentum of a match. I'm not saying it happens every time, but if the crowd can have an effect, however small, surely we should try to take advantage of this and maximise the good that we can do?
And since there is little data to go on besides what the players and fans believe, I am skeptical that the effect can be that big.
Surely you've proved the point there. Psychology plays a huge part in determining the results of matches - otherwise why would so many top clubs spend so much money on getting it right?
But what the players and fans believe doesn't make it true (or at least it doesn't make it true to the extent of some of the figures being mentioned on this thread - an extra 10 points for example). There are countless examples of tacit knowledge spewed by people "in the know", who if you disagree with them would say (ala Savage/Collymore), "You couldn't possibly know, because you've never played the game." I'm not that interested in guesses, I want some data. And if there isn't any or it's a bit vague, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to take the viewpoint that I do.
It could cause a 10% improvement, it could cause a 0.0001% improvement. Since it's difficult to know, I'm more inclined to go with a lower guess at how much it improves performance. I completely agree that that means the crowd should make extra noise in order to get behind the team if that means we might create the extra chance per game, I'm just doubtful that it makes *that* much difference. Definitely not trying to claim the crowd have no impact on the game. My instinct tells me a negative atmosphere is likely to have a bigger impact than a positive one.
I don't need data - I've witnessed Charlton fans over a long period, and most pertinently, from 1998-2010.
Tranmere 3-2. West Ham 4-2. Newcastle 2-2. These are results I genuinely believe wouldn't have happened if the fans were as they are today.
If you're happy to give 3 or 4 examples and ignore 400 odd games to prove your point, then we're bound to see things differently!
Dabos, I get your points, but just cant agree with you. Your job is to compile odds on football, but when have odds ever been 100% accurate? It's factors like the crowd that sway matches so people win when they shouldn't do according to the stats). Implying that of course such factors do affect players.
A fair point, but then again, you appear to have ridiculous expectations from an internet forum. Few here have the time nor the inclination to provide you with the data you crave in order to come to the conclusion our experiences have led us to believe.
However, one might argue that our fan response directly reflects the trajectory of the team, but I'd argue one came before the other. I believe Curbs said that a major factor in his decision to quit came soon after we beat Liverpool 2-0 at home, partly because he was surprised at how the fans had come to expect such results, with the reaction after the final whistle being rather muted.
You might want 400 games of evidence, but one might argue that the crowd responses to good results directly or significantly led to our current predicament. And it's not a freak moment - it's a story that rather neatly sums up what happens to a team who achieves more than the fans realise they deserve, and the consequence of that naivety.
Besides, if cheering for 400 games means we win 4 of them when we wouldn't have done, I'd take that. At least it means the other 396 were pleasant experiences. not the painful, snidey, poisoned atmosphere I've come to expect.
I love a stat as much as the next man. I also have a Masters in Group Psychology, most of which was centered around statistical based analysis. However, Football is a sport which can be quantified in many ways but is also truly subjective in many more other ways. Fan interaction and atmosphere is one of those.
You can try and look at data all you want, but there really is no substitute for experience in these situations. If the impact isn't that significant, then why on earth do fans bother singing at all?
If 15,000 heads drop around you when a goal goes in, then you can't tell me that it doesn't have a significant effect on 11 men in the middle of it all with the weight firmly on their shoulders.
The human psychology involved with Football is worth much more.
Dabos, I get your points, but just cant agree with you. Your job is to compile odds on football, but when have odds ever been 100% accurate? It's factors like the crowd that sway matches so people win when they shouldn't do according to the stats). Implying that of course such factors do affect players.
I guess it depends what you mean about being accurate. The odds could suggest that the probability of a home win is 70%, draw 25% and away win 5%. If the away team wins it doesn't necessary mean the odds were 'wrong', because you still expect the away team to win 5% of the time. And teams never play each other 100 times in a row for you to be able to ascertain whether your prediction was a good one or not
The crowd may sway matches, but I'd hesitate to adjust my prediction on a game by very much (I'm not saying I wouldn't adjust at all) based on the atmosphere in the stadium.
Newcastle fans are always told they are the most passionate but yet are always shit.
Man Utd fans are always crap at home but yet are always at the top
Looking at that a different way, Newcastle fans are very passionate, but can also get on their teams back easily, and this can't help the team.
Man Utd fans can sometimes be quiet at home, but they stay calm and don't start getting on the teams back. Does this have anything to do with the fact Man Utd are (until this season at least) so good at winning games late on?
You can try and look at data all you want, but there really is no substitute for experience in these situations. If the impact isn't that significant, then why on earth do fans bother singing at all?
That assumes the only reason fans sing is to inspire the team but we know that isn't true. Fans sing before and after games, often miles away from stadia. Fans also sing to amuse themselves, to show off, to taunt other fans or players or even refs.
I don't doubt that fans also sing to TRY to inspire their team to greater efforts but you haven't proved a direct cause and effect between more singing and better results.
But that fans BELIEVE that their singing inspires their team is not proof that it actually does
Anecdotally, I agree that a positive atmosphere and crowd noise will inspire teams to perform well better than negative or no noise but IMO that can not be the only factor. Form, injuries, confidence, luck, the opposition, the weather, home or away, personal preference of players, referee, tactics must all be considered and weighted.
Singing would be just one part of the jigsaw. Fans may believe that it is more important that the other factors precisely because it is the only factor they can personally influence while the game is in progress. But that doesn't necessary make that "significant" as you say but don't define.
You can try and look at data all you want, but there really is no substitute for experience in these situations. If the impact isn't that significant, then why on earth do fans bother singing at all?
Because it's fun? And why not add up all those experiences to form some data, rather than rely on vague assertions.
You can try and look at data all you want, but there really is no substitute for experience in these situations. If the impact isn't that significant, then why on earth do fans bother singing at all?
Because it's fun? And why not add up all those experiences to form some data, rather than rely on vague assertions.
I've already stated that I don't believe the overall nature of a team's atmosphere can be quantified properly.
I personally think it is bit of a no-brainer that a good atmosphere will have a positive impact on the team and will help in the long run. I don't need to gather data to inform me of something which is bleedin obvious to myself and the majority of other Football fans in the Championship.
I think people need to take into consideration its not always the amount or HOW LOUD you are .. Its how as fans you put the message across. Singing is away of trying to back/send a message to the team.
Most of our guys on that pitch as soon as that goal went in probably expected us to instantly start booing and turning on them. We didn't ... The whole home end sends out a
'' Chrissy Powell's red and white army rawr '' which is likely to pick the guys up and make them, want to battle for it.
If I played football at a high level and my set of supporters responded in that way I would respond by giving it more on the pitch.
The same can be said with the east stand RAWR near the end of the first half. the players responded and the every end of the ground did. And Wilson celebration after the assist straight to the covered end and fist pumping.
We where the 12th man.
We turned that game around. and this is why its important fans stick with there team
You can try and look at data all you want, but there really is no substitute for experience in these situations. If the impact isn't that significant, then why on earth do fans bother singing at all?
Because it's fun? And why not add up all those experiences to form some data, rather than rely on vague assertions.
I've already stated that I don't believe the overall nature of a team's atmosphere can be quantified properly.
I personally think it is bit of a no-brainer that a good atmosphere will have a positive impact on the team and will help in the long run. I don't need to gather data to inform me of something which is bleedin obvious to myself and the majority of other Football fans in the Championship.
Spoken like a real scientist : - ) When asked to back up your claim that singing would add 10 points your answer is "it's bleedin' obvious"
You also claim to not only speak for yourself but a majority of fans in the Championship without having any data to back that up.
You also haven't responded to the point made in response to your statement about "why do fans bother singing at all?"
And before you say it, it was you who mentioned that you have a masters in group psychology
You can try and look at data all you want, but there really is no substitute for experience in these situations. If the impact isn't that significant, then why on earth do fans bother singing at all?
Because it's fun? And why not add up all those experiences to form some data, rather than rely on vague assertions.
I've already stated that I don't believe the overall nature of a team's atmosphere can be quantified properly.
I personally think it is bit of a no-brainer that a good atmosphere will have a positive impact on the team and will help in the long run. I don't need to gather data to inform me of something which is bleedin obvious to myself and the majority of other Football fans in the Championship.
Spoken like a real scientist : - ) When asked to back up your claim that singing would add 10 points your answer is "it's bleedin' obvious"
You also claim to not only speak for yourself but a majority of fans in the Championship without having any data to back that up.
You also haven't responded to the point made in response to your statement about "why do fans bother singing at all?"
And before you say it, it was you who mentioned that you have a masters in group psychology
Ah, the condescending Henry Irving we all know and love is back. Right then....
My answer of 'its bleeding obvious' was in reference to the general idea that fans in the terraces can give a lift to those on the pitch. No, I don't have a statistical pocksy spreadsheet to prove it. Its called intuition.
In an earlier post I suggested it COULD be the difference in up to 10 points a season. There are likely to be two or three games a season like last night where the fans play their part and help get the players up for a match when they're struggling or trying to turn a draw into a win. Then again, that goes for all clubs, not just us. If all games at The Valley were played behind closed doors bar the away fans, I expect our home record would be frighteningly bad.
No I don't have any data to back up what other fans in the Championship are saying. But again, this is based on what the common Football fan says game to game "lets get behind the boys, make some noise", "sing your hearts out", "have a good atmosphere" etc etc.
I didn't respond to the point about "why do fans bother singing at all?", because I know they do it for fun, and to taunt and all the rest of it. Just as much as I know that they do it to try and spur the team on. Do I have "data" to back this up? No, but then why would I?
Is it invalid to say ANYTHING about the crowd without having a load of data based on it? No wonder our support gets laughed at considering some of the spreadsheet warrior talk going on in here.
Sorry but it had nothing to do with the crowd, the players or the need for a good performance. It was 100% down to the fact that For the first time this season, I was wearing my lucky top. Its the same top I would wear in our L1 winning season and the same one I wore in the last few games of last season when our performance picked up and we started winning again. Without my lucky top last night we would easily have lost that game by 2 or 3 goals!
Anyone who has ever played any sport in front of a loud crowd will tell you it made a difference. Can't believe people are actually trying to argue the opposite
Anyone who has ever played any sport in front of a loud crowd will tell you it made a difference. Can't believe people are actually trying to argue the opposite
Sorry but it had nothing to do with the crowd, the players or the need for a good performance. It was 100% down to the fact that For the first time this season, I was wearing my lucky top. Its the same top I would wear in our L1 winning season and the same one I wore in the last few games of last season when our performance picked up and we started winning again. Without my lucky top last night we would easily have lost that game by 2 or 3 goals!
Anyone who has ever played any sport in front of a loud crowd will tell you it made a difference. Can't believe people are actually trying to argue the opposite
Can I see your data/evidence for this please? If you don't have any, then its really not contributing to the discussion effective to Charlton Life standards.
Comments
The fact that there have been other performances in front of a flat atmosphere is irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting that the team with the loudest support wins the game. But it can give that extra 10% or even 1% motivation which can lead to an extra chance being created, and can change the momentum of a match. I'm not saying it happens every time, but if the crowd can have an effect, however small, surely we should try to take advantage of this and maximise the good that we can do? Surely you've proved the point there. Psychology plays a huge part in determining the results of matches - otherwise why would so many top clubs spend so much money on getting it right?
It could cause a 10% improvement, it could cause a 0.0001% improvement. Since it's difficult to know, I'm more inclined to go with a lower guess at how much it improves performance. I completely agree that that means the crowd should make extra noise in order to get behind the team if that means we might create the extra chance per game, I'm just doubtful that it makes *that* much difference. Definitely not trying to claim the crowd have no impact on the game. My instinct tells me a negative atmosphere is likely to have a bigger impact than a positive one.
Tranmere 3-2. West Ham 4-2. Newcastle 2-2. These are results I genuinely believe wouldn't have happened if the fans were as they are today.
However, one might argue that our fan response directly reflects the trajectory of the team, but I'd argue one came before the other. I believe Curbs said that a major factor in his decision to quit came soon after we beat Liverpool 2-0 at home, partly because he was surprised at how the fans had come to expect such results, with the reaction after the final whistle being rather muted.
You might want 400 games of evidence, but one might argue that the crowd responses to good results directly or significantly led to our current predicament. And it's not a freak moment - it's a story that rather neatly sums up what happens to a team who achieves more than the fans realise they deserve, and the consequence of that naivety.
Besides, if cheering for 400 games means we win 4 of them when we wouldn't have done, I'd take that. At least it means the other 396 were pleasant experiences. not the painful, snidey, poisoned atmosphere I've come to expect.
You can try and look at data all you want, but there really is no substitute for experience in these situations. If the impact isn't that significant, then why on earth do fans bother singing at all?
If 15,000 heads drop around you when a goal goes in, then you can't tell me that it doesn't have a significant effect on 11 men in the middle of it all with the weight firmly on their shoulders.
The human psychology involved with Football is worth much more.
The crowd may sway matches, but I'd hesitate to adjust my prediction on a game by very much (I'm not saying I wouldn't adjust at all) based on the atmosphere in the stadium.
Man Utd fans are always crap at home but yet are always at the top
Looking at that a different way, Newcastle fans are very passionate, but can also get on their teams back easily, and this can't help the team.
Man Utd fans can sometimes be quiet at home, but they stay calm and don't start getting on the teams back. Does this have anything to do with the fact Man Utd are (until this season at least) so good at winning games late on?
I don't doubt that fans also sing to TRY to inspire their team to greater efforts but you haven't proved a direct cause and effect between more singing and better results.
But that fans BELIEVE that their singing inspires their team is not proof that it actually does
Anecdotally, I agree that a positive atmosphere and crowd noise will inspire teams to perform well better than negative or no noise but IMO that can not be the only factor. Form, injuries, confidence, luck, the opposition, the weather, home or away, personal preference of players, referee, tactics must all be considered and weighted.
Singing would be just one part of the jigsaw. Fans may believe that it is more important that the other factors precisely because it is the only factor they can personally influence while the game is in progress. But that doesn't necessary make that "significant" as you say but don't define.
I personally think it is bit of a no-brainer that a good atmosphere will have a positive impact on the team and will help in the long run. I don't need to gather data to inform me of something which is bleedin obvious to myself and the majority of other Football fans in the Championship.
Most of our guys on that pitch as soon as that goal went in probably expected us to instantly start booing and turning on them. We didn't ... The whole home end sends out a
'' Chrissy Powell's red and white army rawr '' which is likely to pick the guys up and make them, want to battle for it.
If I played football at a high level and my set of supporters responded in that way I would respond by giving it more on the pitch.
The same can be said with the east stand RAWR near the end of the first half. the players responded and the every end of the ground did. And Wilson celebration after the assist straight to the covered end and fist pumping.
We where the 12th man.
We turned that game around. and this is why its important fans stick with there team
You also claim to not only speak for yourself but a majority of fans in the Championship without having any data to back that up.
You also haven't responded to the point made in response to your statement about "why do fans bother singing at all?"
And before you say it, it was you who mentioned that you have a masters in group psychology
My answer of 'its bleeding obvious' was in reference to the general idea that fans in the terraces can give a lift to those on the pitch. No, I don't have a statistical pocksy spreadsheet to prove it. Its called intuition.
In an earlier post I suggested it COULD be the difference in up to 10 points a season. There are likely to be two or three games a season like last night where the fans play their part and help get the players up for a match when they're struggling or trying to turn a draw into a win. Then again, that goes for all clubs, not just us. If all games at The Valley were played behind closed doors bar the away fans, I expect our home record would be frighteningly bad.
No I don't have any data to back up what other fans in the Championship are saying. But again, this is based on what the common Football fan says game to game "lets get behind the boys, make some noise", "sing your hearts out", "have a good atmosphere" etc etc.
I didn't respond to the point about "why do fans bother singing at all?", because I know they do it for fun, and to taunt and all the rest of it. Just as much as I know that they do it to try and spur the team on. Do I have "data" to back this up? No, but then why would I?
Is it invalid to say ANYTHING about the crowd without having a load of data based on it? No wonder our support gets laughed at considering some of the spreadsheet warrior talk going on in here.
Without my lucky top last night we would easily have lost that game by 2 or 3 goals!