To be honest I wouldn't worry too much because we have to play everybody twice, whatever the date or whoever is at home first

He may have stumbled onto a point ....obviously by accident as he's a red.

Hope we can sort out Mirallas soon by the way.

The computer program that generates the fixtures takes into account certain rules, like which clubs can't play at home the same day being the most obvious. It has a lot of other rules built into it too, such as trying not to send teams too far away from home over the Christmas/New Year period so the fans don't have to travel too much, although it always ends up with at least one fixture quite away from home.

Taking all these rules into account, it just means that there are a great number of constraints so certain fixtures get generated at the same time of year.... there isn't a lot of randomness left in the system!

Do you really think someone is "fixing" it to favour the so called "big" teams?? Such paranoia, you should be Everton fans! Oh yeah you are! ;-)

Your reasoning falls apart precisely because it is the derby fixture and the only two teams that are affected by who is home or away on each occasion are the RS and us - a random distribution would be expected to show roughly 50% of the first derbies at Goodison and the remainder at Analfield.

Not sure whether it has a great impact on the results but it is an odd coincidence and alternating roughly every season would be preferable in my mind to ensure fairness.

It's our own friggin' fault if we start off cack every year the idea someone's saying " right these are shite pre xmas get the Goodison game in early doors so the reds can fill their boots" is absolute rubbish.

Paranoia defined.

It's not fixed, just the weightings work out that way.

I guess you're not programmers or you'd realise that nothing is truly random, but neither is it fixed!

Look at it another way for this season, their new manager needs time to get them playing as he wants, maybe we can get them before they're organized...

However, your reasoning was faulty because you linked this fixture to others that have zero influence on where (not when) it is played at any one time. 10 times on the trot is statistically significant and well above what would normally be expected simply because the venue for derby fixtures is one thing that can be truly randomised in the system. Of course that doesn't mean it is being fixed by anyone, but that doesn't have to stop people from debating whether this unusual sequence is an advantage / neutral / disadvantage.

I saw this as a largely immaterial piece and wouldn't have contributed, but your attempt to quash the discussion was so ham-fisted and off beam that I felt obliged to reply.

Ten times in a row? A matter worth considering, and thank you Nick Entwistle for pointing this up.

The naysayers, led by the blameless Brian Cleveland, state that there are many constraints involved, and of course there are - he who pays the piper being the clear winner. But whoever these 'programers' (scuse the Americanism) are, they clearly don't review the fruits of their labour. To randomise a local derby - given everything else involved - arriving at a 10 to zero is clearly abject failure.

Wonder if anyone got sacked?

No one has said it has to exactly alternate each season so the odds for a particular sequence are not what people should be looking at. It is the chances of getting the same outcome 10 times on the trot for a 50/50 gamble rather than getting something much more like a 50/50 split. The probabilities are going to favour anything closer to 50/50 (which can arise from many different sequences) than 100% either way (only 2 sequences can give this outcome).

Nothing 'suspicious', but it is unusual by any reasonable definition. Worthy of debate? Let each person decide that for themselves.

1. the failure of a 'random' system and

2. the crass case put against you by someone who obviously knows much more about the "X Files' than I do.

I often hesitate to post because it seems people automatically want to polarise your opinion, even when at times all you are doing is trying to redress the balance by politely pointing out the flaws in their reasoning.

I have my own opinions and like to constructively debate them, but it is wearying when your second comment on a thread has to be along the lines of "Actually, I don't think I am a nutcase ....."

I thought Brian was mainly being jokey but his logic wasn't as sound as he believed and his follow-up was at least a little bit derogatory (no, I am not a 'programmer' and I don't know whether to be upset or immensely pleased about that!).

However, any thing other than this sequence is 1023/1024!

And let's not forget this isn't a sequence that has concluded, but continuing... yeah, well... so let that be a lesson! Did Mulder ever find his sister?

I once saw derren Brown toss ten heads in a row on TV (no sniggering at the back!). How did he do it? Well he just filmed himself tossing coins until that sequence came up. It took about 12 hours...

nothing like a bit of maths on a footy thread to stimulate conversation! Or not.

I don't disagree with your odds, but probabilities are what makes this sequence statistically significant or unusual. How many times would the coin have been tossed in a twelve hour period and wouldn't all of the discarded sequences have been closer to a 50/50 split than your 'ten in a row'?

Yes, you're right Si, it's the law of large numbers – the more trials you have the closer you will get to a 50/50 ratio.

The problem with saying it's unusual is that any sequence of ten could be classed as unusual as the odds of throwing say, HTTHHTHHTT is 1 in 1024.

But I know what you mean, and from my recent memory we always seemed to be at home on Boxing Day too!

I'm afraid that no random computer programme could throw those 'Super' weekends up so regularly. If certain rules are planted in the programme such as was suggested in a previous post then it ceases to be random and becomes formulaic.

Sometimes I wonder if SKY 'insisted' on those 'super weekends' in return for their dosh and the computer programme was appropriately manipulated to provide them. Once you do this the programme has much less elbow room and tends to throw up repeated patterns as a result. The derbies are just one of those repeated patterns.

As the major broadcast rights purchaser, Sky does get some input. Because of the global appeal of the game (and the huge increases in each succeeding broadcast contract), the Premier League and Sky collaborating on the Super Sunday concept - they've never pretended it was random!

For those interested in the head or tails 50 50 experiment.

OF COURSE it's a fix! It's the red shite! Somebody, somewhere thinks it benefits that shower so they arrange the fixtures this way.

If the referee has to make a few questionable decisions to favour the shite in their away derby fixture, better it's in october than may. That way the mistake/cheating will "all be balanced out of a season". Whereas in May it will look like what it really is, a decision(s) to ensure LFC stay solvent. How many derbies have questionable refereeing decisions? Imagine the reaction of the Goodison crowd if it was during a decider for European competition.

BTW, did anyone see that programme "Premier League's Most Shocking"? They interviewed the ref from the hutchinson-goal-that-never-was derby, behind him was a framed LFC shirt with Gerrards name on it!

I'm actually watching X-Files right now. Jesus! Duchovny's acting is so wooden I'm surprised the rest of the cast haven't all got splinters!

So, I'll just shut up and get out.

What's the expression - 'no harm, no foul'?

Fuck the Red Shite....lets just go and win both derbies....where ever and when ever they are !!!!

HORRIBLE DELUDED BASTARDS !!!!!!!!