It has been awhile since Newcastle United truly battered an opposing team in the Premier League.
Wednesday 5th January 2011 – Newcastle 5-0 West Ham.
Saturday 2nd April 2011 – Newcastle 4-1 Wolverhampton Wanderers.
Which got me thinking, how often do Newcastle score 3 or more goals in Premier League games?
The table below shows how many times Newcastle scored 3, 4 or 5+ goals in a game over the previous 10 Premier League seasons.
Average = how many times each event usually occurs within a season.
|Season||3 Goals||4 Goals||5+ Goals||League Position|
Based on the above table we can see over a 10 season average Newcastle score:
3 goals in a game 5 times during the course of a season.
4 goals in a game once per season.
5+ goals in a game has only occurred 5 times over 10 seasons with 2010/11 being an anomaly where 5+ goals were scored on 3 separate occasions.
In the current season Newcastle are just below the 3 goals in a game average and are yet to score 4+ goals.
With 12 games remaining we will hopefully see at least 1 game where Newcastle score 3 goals and 1 game where 4 goals are scored to match the 10 season average.
(Note – 3 goals = scoring no more than 3 in a game – e.g. 3-1 win)
Update – Newcastle 4-2 Southampton February 2013. As predicted a game with Newcastle scoring 4 goals has occurred before the end of the season.
The odds of Newcastle scoring 3+ goals in a game are usually around 100/30 when playing most teams in the Premier League (excluding top 5).
The odds of scoring 4+ are usually around 10/1.
Any questions ask - @SirDanWilson
Every European away game mapped since 1968.
Cities where Newcastle have played more than once are represented by one black dot only.
Maritimo is off the map.
Anglo-Italian Cup not included.
Any questions/comments or to see the larger image contact – @SirDanWilson
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 2,900 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 5 years to get that many views.
Loyalty Points. One of the big talking points this season for Newcastle United fans.
At Newcastle United away tickets are allocated using a loyalty point scheme. A supporter receives one loyalty point for every away game attended. This is the only way loyalty points can be gained.
But how does this compare to other Premier League teams? I sent the following email to all 20 clubs:
1. How does your football club allocate away tickets?
2. If a loyalty point scheme is used:
a. How are points allocated?
b. Do supporters receive a different amount of points depending on the competition? (i.e. More for league games compared to League Cup games)
c. How many points are allocated per game?
d. Do you offer loyalty points for other reasons apart from games, such as becoming an official club member?
3. If a ballot system is used:
a. Do any fans get preferential treatment?
b. Is the ballot completely random?
c. Are there any influencing factors?
I received 9 replies; 7 very helpful and 2 saying they could not answer my query (Liverpool and Manchester City).
- We allocate away tickets firstly to our Season Tickets holders who have attended 6 away games this is then reduced every couple of days to 4 & 2 away games. They will then be available to season ticket holders with no away games, and then to supporters with 6 away games until subject to availability they will go on general sale.
- We do not use loyalty points, each supporter when purchasing tickets must provide their individual customer number. The ticket will then be purchased against this we can then see if the supporter qualifies for tickets as above.
3. We ballot, we go off qualifying criteria, so season ticket holders +11 [away] games for instance with Liverpool.
We’d never just do an open ballot for everyone as we look to give priority to those who go to the most games. The only time we might have a random ballot would be if we had 40 tickets available for ‘Season Ticket Holder+6’, and we had 55 people who qualified.
Our away match ticket sales are sold to supporters subject to a sales criteria which is set out prior to a game going on sale:
1. On sale to 2012/13 Season Card Holders who attended at least 3 Premier League Away fixtures in the 2012/2013 or 2011/12 season.
2. On sale to 2012/13 Season Card Holders who attended at least 1 Premier League Away fixtures in the 2012/2013 or 2011/12 season.
3. On sale to Season Card Holders for the 2012/2013 season.
4. On sale to supporters who attended at least 3 Premier League Away fixtures in the 2012/13 or 2011/2012 seasons.
5. On sale to supporters who have Booking History in the 2012/13 or 2011/2012 seasons.
This criteria is similar for most away matches and is the fairest way to distribute tickets. As the season progresses we may change the criteria to reflect away matches previously attended in this current season only rather than last season and this current season.
The allocation of tickets are split in to three different pots; Loyalty Pots, Executive and Season Ticket holders. Away tickets are only available for these 3 pots, they’re not available for official members to apply.
1. How does your football club allocate away tickets?
Season Ticket Holders are first to be invited to apply for away match tickets. Subject to availability, One Hotspur Bronze and Lilywhite Members are then invited to submit an application. If there are tickets remaining after both application periods, tickets will then go on general sale. In some cases the general sale will be on a controlled basis to supporters with a booking history with the Club (depending on any security implications surrounding the fixture).
If a match is oversubscribed with applications, tickets will be allocated using our loyalty points system. Applications from One Hotspur Season Ticket Holders will take priority over One Hotspur Bronze and Lilywhite Members. Tickets will be allocated on an individual supporter’s loyalty points as opposed to a group average. (e.g. If one supporter out of an application for a group of five has the required loyalty points for a fixture, one ticket will be allocated).
2. If a loyalty point scheme is used:
a. How are points allocated? Category A: 1 point … Category B: 3 points … Category C: 5 points
b. Do supporters receive a different amount of points depending on the competition? No, purely dependent on opposition.
c. How many points are allocated per game? See (a)
d. Do you offer loyalty points for other reasons apart from games, such as becoming an official club member? Points are allocated for renewal/purchase of season ticket or membership. Platinum: 50 … Gold: 35 … Silver: 25 … Bronze: 15 … Lilywhite: 10
Tickets will go on sale about 28 days before the fixture.
Week 1 of sales: 1 ticket per season ticket holder only.
Week 2 of sales: 1 ticket per member only.
Week 3 of sales: Members and season ticket holders can purchase two extra tickets (no more than 3 tickets in total per member/season ticket holder)
Please be aware that the more popular games may be sold on a loyalty points basis, which means that tickets get offered to members & season ticket holders who have been to the most amount of games.
Season ticket holders get 60% of the tickets & members get 40%.
Points for the premier league are 1 point for AA games such as Manchester united, Liverpool, etc & 3 points for all others.
5 – 8 points are given for Champions’ League group stages, Capital One cup & FA Cup competitions.
The only time you would get loyalty points other than for attending games would be for renewing memberships before the 31st of July.
We do have a Loyalty Points system, which we use to administer sales for games where we feel demand is likely to far outstrip supply.
Ordinarily we sell away tickets in the same fashion as we do for home games. Tickets are offered firstly to Season Ticket Holders (to buy extra seats for families and friends, then to Club Members. Subject to availability and any other restrictions, we then look to hold a General Sale of any remaining seats closer to the date of the game.
The number of Loyalty Points on offer for each game varies, depending on factors such as the importance, interest in the game and the distance to travel to get there (away games). Points aren’t currently attached to retail or other purchases, but this is something we may look to build into the system in future seasons.
A range of options are presented above. Loyalty Points are not used by all the clubs that replied to my email with Aston Villa allocating to those attending 3 away games first and Everton allocating to those that have attended 6 away games. With Fulham considering the possibility of allocating loyalty points to those who purchase club merchandise it would be interesting to see how their fans react to this as well as seeing if merchandise sales increase.
Written May 2006.
“At Hillsborough Stadium they usually had two seats every match for the South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service (SYMAS), but these seats were not available for semi-finals. Sheffield Wednesday officials gave these seats to fans. The club would rather gain approximately £24 from the two seats than make sure they had medical cover at the ground. However, they did donate £42 to St Johns Ambulance to make sure they had some basic medical cover, but as Eddie Spearritt puts it, “its first aid cover on the cheap”. First aid cover was not a priority for the club, money was, and this was to prove critical when the disaster unfolded. There were 9 stretchers at the stadium which is a standard amount, especially as football clubs do not expect major disasters to occur in their stadiums. However, in contrast to this there was only one oxygen cylinder for 54,056 fans. With ambulances needed, access to the pitch was paramount but they struggled to get onto the pitch because of a poorly designed access point, the extent of the disaster was increasing. A doctor attending the match, Dr Marsh, said that, “With better facilities, 20-30 lives could’ve been saved.”
“Hillsborough, the Football Associations choice as their semi-final stadium, did not have a valid safety certificate. It was 10 years out of date and did not include the recent refurbishments. A safety inspection would have found that the turnstile area was poorly designed and had no signs, the steep tunnel was dangerous and that the lethal fencing around the pens would do more harm than good.”
“The police used a directive called ‘Operational Order’ to police football games. This Order placed alcohol as one of their priorities. Of the 74 off licenses in and around the stadium the fundamental evidence shows that not much alcohol was purchased. Of the public houses in Sheffield, 23 served more than 100 Liverpool fans each and 51 pubs served more than 20 each. Lord Justice Taylor stated that “many supporters drank enough to affect their mood. At first excitement, later frustration.” Police accounts vary over the presence of alcohol. Some said that the fans behaved like “lager louts” and “animals”, whilst others said that it was just an uncooperative minority who had drunk too much. Lord Justice Taylor said, “In my view some officers seeking to rationalise their loss of control overestimated the drunken element in the crowd.” “
“Perhaps the most decisive event of the Hillsborough disaster took place 21 days before the actual event. Chief Superintendent Mole, head of the South Yorkshire Police command in Hammerton Road, was transferred. This was a very experienced man who had controlled many football matches. His replacement, Chief Superintendent Duckenfield, had no experience whatsoever of controlling match days. Mole had devised Operational Order that I have previously mentioned. This was 12 pages detailing the tasks of every serials (20 officers) duty for the football match. Duckenfield decided to keep the Order so that his officers would be used to the routine and know their tasks. The Order had been used since the 1987 FA Cup semi-final and no changes had been made since then. It stated that 2 serials were to cover the stadium track and were to face the crowd before kick-off, at half-time and at full-time. The perimeter fence gates were to remain ‘locked and bolted at all times’ with ‘no-one allowed access to the track from the terraces without the consent of a senior officer.’ This was to play a crucial role when the disaster unfolded. A further 2 serials were to police the rear enclosure of the Leppings Lane terrace with their main responsibility of enforcing stadium rules, such as no alcohol or violence. This was linked to the spate of hooliganism that had blighted football for 2 decades. However the police still had a view that a macho situation must be combated with a macho response. Figures had shown that this so called macho situation of hooliganism was no longer a main feature in football. The arrest rates of fans in the 1984-5 season saw 0.34 fans arrested per 1000 attending. In the 1985-6 season this figure fell by 51% and was to continually fall for seasons after that.”
“Fan statements reveal that, “A young lad tried to come over and the policeman literally put his hand on his forehead and pushed him back in.” Many fans were screaming at the officers on the perimeter track to open the relief gate. The police ignored fans, turned away and in once case told those being crushed against the fencing to “Shut your fucking prattle.” Even the Liverpool goalkeeper, Bruce Grobbelaar, ran to ask a policewoman behind his goal to “get the fucking gate open”. He actually asked her three times but received no response.”
“Ambulances were sent for at 3.13pm. More ineptitude occurred when one ambulance turned up at the opposite end of the ground and had to make its way round to the Leppings Lane end. When hydraulic cutting equipment was requested to help cut away the fencing, they arrived at 3.22pm at the opposite end of the stadium just like the ambulance.”
I asked people to submit a ‘decent’ starting XI made up of Newcastle United players, past or present.
I did not specify a formation but the majority went for 4-4-2 and 4-3-3.
30 different players were selected (number of selections in brackets):
Fraser Forster (1)
Steve Harper (10)
Andrew Griffin (1)
Danny Simpson (1)
Warren Barton (5)
Steve Watson (2)
Steve Howey (5)
Robbie Elliott (1)
Darren Peacock (1)
John Beresford (8)
Steven Taylor (7)
Jonathan Woodgate (9)
Ryan Taylor (1)
Barry Venison (2)
Frank Clark (1)
David Batty (5)
Rob Lee (10)
Lee Clark (4)
Kieron Dyer (1)
Scott Sellars (5)
Chris Waddle (2)
Paul Gascoigne (8)
Peter Beardsley (8)
Kevin Keegan (1)
Sir Les Ferdinand (8)
Andrew Cole (1)
Alan Shearer (10)
Jackie Milburn (2)
Shola Ameobi (1)
Malcolm MacDonald (1)
The Starting XI On Most Selections:
Sir Les Ferdinand
Stumbled across this piece which I wrote in 2004 for my English Language AS Level coursework.
Adrian Mutu has recently been shamed for taking recreational drugs in his private life. The punishment he received was a 7-month suspension from playing football anywhere in the world, a fine of £20,000 and the cancellation of his contract with Chelsea Football Club. Is all of this really necessary?
To start with, Mutu did not take any performance enhancing drugs. If anything, the drugs he did take would have had a negative effect on his performance. The drug in question, cocaine, was taken in Mutu’s private life, away from the football club. He admitted that he had taken the drug but also admitted that he never let it get in the way of his job and that he never let it affect his performances. Should his employers punish an illegal activity that happened in his private life? Take the following example; three footballers from the same debt-ridden former Premiership Club are out one night, attack an Asian youth and end up in court. Their employers did not fine, suspend or dismiss any of them. This case had police involved and literally all Britain’s press on their backs. The outcome, one player gets community service and the other two get let off. Their employers allow them to return to football. Does this mean that using recreational drugs in your private life is worse than attacking and causing harm to another person?
The current F.A rules state that ‘players who test positive for recreational drugs can avoid a ban if they agree to take part in rehabilitation and that they admit the offence’. Adrian Mutu did admit to taking cocaine and had signed up for rehabilitation at a local clinic before the allegations even came to light. He followed the rules set by the highest football authority in England but still ended up with a fine and a ban. Did the F.A suspend him because of pressure from FIFA, or did they want to show youngsters how to act and the consequences they face if they do take drugs? The Football Association believe that if you are accused of taking drugs you must be guilty until proven innocent. Does this set a good example to the youngsters who will be playing Premiership football only a few years from now?
In recent years there have been numerous allegations of drug use in football. Only a few months ago Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger said that footballers he has purchased from clubs abroad usually have, “a higher red blood cell count”. This is usually linked to performance enhancing drugs such as nandrolone and THG (tetrohydrogestinone). The punishment for the players who have knowingly or unwittingly taken performance-enhancing drugs is the equivalent to a slap on the wrist compared to players who have taken recreational drugs. A recent study has shown that the average suspension for using recreational drugs is 7 months, exactly what Mutu got. Compare this to players who have taken performance-enhancing drugs, the average suspension for this offence is only 3 months! Where’s the fairness in that?
Jaap Stam, Edgar Davids, Frank de Boer and Fernando Couto all tested positive for nandrolone. Stam received a fine of £64,000 and a 3-month suspension. Davids, Couto and de Boer all received 4-month suspensions and fines varying from £25,000 to £35,000. Couto was originally banned for 10-months but after he appealed it was reduced to a measly 4-months. However Mutu over in the ‘blue’ corner takes a recreational drug in his private life away from the football club, and gets dismissed from his football club, fined and suspended for 7 months. Another example of a player getting suspended for taking recreational drugs was Claudio Cannigia who played for AS Roma in 1993. A drugs test for cocaine was confirmed as positive and he was later suspended for 13-months! A 13-month suspension for taking drugs, that Cannigia said had no effect upon his club game performances and that he never used the drugs to enhance his game play, is extremely harsh. I accept that these are world-class players who children look up to and admire so they should be setting moral examples by staying the hell away from drugs and other vices but to punish a player for 13-months is exceptionally callous. All these players need is help and someone to support them, not fines, suspensions and getting sacked.
It could be argued that Mutu has ‘got away with it’, if compared to Rio Ferdinand. He got an 8-month suspension for missing a test all because he was moving mansions. However in the ‘blue’ corner (again) we have Mark Bosnich who got a 9-month ban for exactly the same circumstances as Mutu, although the F.A say that Mutu got two months less because he admitted to taking the drug. Had Mutu been treated even more harshly, other players in his situation would refuse to take the drug-test and accept an 8-month suspension instead of a higher penalty.
It seems to most football fans that the sports drugs administrators have problems in how to deal with young, rich footballers who care for something illegal once in a while. Should these players be treated as drug cheats even if the drug is recreational, or men who need help? Players will not get the same ‘high’ from nandrolone as they would from cocaine. The repercussions from footballs authorities for using performance-enhancing drugs or recreational drugs should be entirely different. Footballers who make use of performance-enhancing drugs should be severely punished, and those who use recreational drugs should be offered help, not punishment.
Adrian Mutu should have been offered rehabilitation support from his club. He definitely should not have been sacked. Chelsea were wrong to dismiss him. But as Chelsea’s past shows, they don’t support any drug user who plays in their team. Mark Bosnich was sacked and suspended for 9-months because of an addiction to cocaine. Chelsea got rid of him as quick as they could just so that their image and reputation were not damaged. Charlton Athletic are quite the opposite. In 1995 they set a good example by allowing Lee Bowyer to continue to play for them after a drugs test showed he was taking cannabis. He wasn’t fined, but was instead ordered to complete a set of counselling sessions. Charlton placed the well being of their player first ahead of their reputation. This could be seen as a weak approach towards drugs and to a certain extent I agree, however this method could be adopted by all clubs so that the player is receiving support at all times as they try to battle their addiction and/or problem and the club is showing that they want to eradicate drugs from the team.
Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho stated at a press conference last weekend that he suspected Mutu of taking cocaine or some type of drug, so the club target tested the Romanian, which lead to his sacking. Why did the egotistical Portuguese manager ‘grass up’ one of his players? He could have easily took Mutu to one side and told him that he could help by sending him to counselling sessions. Mourinho’s decision was widely criticised by Gordon Taylor and by key drugs-support groups. Chelsea issued a club statement saying that, “Chelsea has a zero-tolerance policy towards drugs. This applies to both performance enhancing and so-called recreational drugs. They have no place at our club or in sport.”
These players who resort to drugs clearly need help. But maybe it’s the clubs who bring about the problems that lead to players resorting to drugs. They are bought by a club for millions, paid thousands a week and then told that they are a role model. Being young and rich will place being a role model to the back of a players mind. And how is a player taught to be a perfect role model to kids? There is no one there to help them and guide them or say, “don’t do that, do this instead” or “advertise this but not that”. Lack of guidance is the downfall of most young players in the beautiful game.
Adrian Mutu is more a victim of his own weaknesses than he is guilty of cheating. He has protested that he never used cocaine to interfere and enhance his performances. If he wanted to enhance his performances why did he not use THG or nandrolone instead of cocaine? For that reason alone Adrian Mutu should not have been sacked, fined £20,000 and suspended for 7 months. Getting sacked for undertaking an act in his private life is immoral. Mutu is devastated and admits that he has made a big mistake. He could and should have been disciplined internally, made to work in the community or Chelsea could have prevented him from playing in near future matches.
Mutu is one of many footballers (and certainly wont be the last) who has used recreational drugs in his private life and has been punished more severely, harshly and unfairly than those cheats who have actually tried to deceive and take advantage of the beautiful game and its great supporters.