The '6' Point Match.

[libya 115]

When the top teams are battling it out at the top of the league, a match between them is often called a six-pointer.

I say it is still a 3 point match. What is the logic behind calling it a six point match?

Any views?

[OneeyedJohn]

Quite simple in that the team that wins moves 3 points (UK Fottball) further away from the losers thereby requiring that losing team to win twice to make up the deficit.

The difference between PLUS 3 and MINUS 3

Not alot of help really.

Edited November 29, 2006 by OneeyedJohn

[game4shame]

When the top teams are battling it out at the top of the league, a match between them is often called a six-pointer.

I say it is still a 3 point match. What is the logic behind calling it a six point match?

Any views?

it's just pundit bullshit talk.

another classic is when a goal is decribed as a 'clinical finish'.

[kayo]

did footie commentators often qualify as mathematicians?

[ThaiPauly]

Six Pointer's only really come into play at the top or bottom of the leage.

I can completely comprehend it.

If you take the Watford v Sheffield United Match..that was a six pointer as far as those two teams were concerned.. Say that both teams were on 9 points (United were on one more I think, but it does not matter). If Watford had won it would have taken them to 12 points , 3 clear of United, which would have meant that United would have to get three points from somewhere else to catch them. As it happened the result went the other way round so it is United who are now 3 points clear of Watford, who now have to make up those points if they are to avoid relegation. matches played in the middle of the table are never considered six pointers really

[libya 115]

Six Pointer's only really come into play at the top or bottom of the leage.

I can completely comprehend it.

If you take the Watford v Sheffield United Match..that was a six pointer as far as those two teams were concerned.. Say that both teams were on 9 points (United were on one more I think, but it does not matter). If Watford had won it would have taken them to 12 points , 3 clear of United, which would have meant that United would have to get three points from somewhere else to catch them. As it happened the result went the other way round so it is United who are now 3 points clear of Watford, who now have to make up those points if they are to avoid relegation. matches played in the middle of the table are never considered six pointers really

Yes, I agree it seems to matter most when the team(s) are at the top or the bottom of the table, but I am still suspicious of the logic.

For example, does that mean winning certain matches is more important than winning other matches?

Chelsea v Man Utd is equally important as Chelsea v Watford; they both give 3 points to the winner, and no matter which game a team plays, it will always be just 3 points and the final tally at the end of the season will matter.

Is it an illusion of logic?

[OneeyedJohn]

We are going to convince you Libya one way or the other

Agree with TP about the top/bottom scenario and that is the nub of it.

By beating your closest rival ( given you are even at the onset ) you effectively have taken away their chances of overtaking you presuming u both carry on winning all other games. Therefore your closest rival would have to win 2 extra games ( 6 pts ) to overtake you.

Thats my best effort

Cheers

[ThaiPauly]

Six Pointer's only really come into play at the top or bottom of the leage.

I can completely comprehend it.

If you take the Watford v Sheffield United Match..that was a six pointer as far as those two teams were concerned.. Say that both teams were on 9 points (United were on one more I think, but it does not matter). If Watford had won it would have taken them to 12 points , 3 clear of United, which would have meant that United would have to get three points from somewhere else to catch them. As it happened the result went the other way round so it is United who are now 3 points clear of Watford, who now have to make up those points if they are to avoid relegation. matches played in the middle of the table are never considered six pointers really

Yes, I agree it seems to matter most when the team(s) are at the top or the bottom of the table, but I am still suspicious of the logic.

For example, does that mean winning certain matches is more important than winning other matches?

Chelsea v Man Utd is equally important as Chelsea v Watford; they both give 3 points to the winner, and no matter which game a team plays, it will always be just 3 points and the final tally at the end of the season will matter.

Is it an illusion of logic?

There are no RULES regarding which matches are deemed six-pointers.

When someone declares "This is a big six-pointer game" it is only:

Promotion by the media that this is a big game and you should not miss it, promotion by the clubs to get you to pay to watch these games,motivation by the clubs to instill in their players how vital it is to win that particular match.

Its all about the'hype" really

TP

Edited due to smelling pisstakes

Edited December 1, 2006 by ThaiPauly

[johnnyk]

It comes into play if Team A is in first place 3 points ahead of Team B, or if the teams are at bottom and trying to escape relegation.

If at the top of the table, when they face each other Team B can win and then share first place.

If Team A wins then Team B falls 6 points behind.

Therefore, there is a potential 6-point difference depending on the result.

Both teams can derive extra motivation to win from such a situation and it can make for a better, harder-fought game.

In those situations it is not hype.

There is something at stake given that the idea is either to win the league or escape relegation, both of which carry importance in the world of professional sport.

[Cromarty]

for Cliff's sake, it is a cliche. By it's very nature a definition of a cliche is its trite connotation.

There may be certain situations where certain results make the game a '6 pointer' but this is not the same for both side at the same time e.g a side is 3 ahead and will move 6 ahead should they win.

Your examples above are merely reinforcing the cliche. Mathematically, if both teams, top middle or bottom, it doesn't matter, are on the same number of points IT IS NOT A 6 POINTER, unless they have changed the rules whereby the winner gets 3 points and the loser has 3 points taken off. Then it is a 6 pointer as the points difference between the two teams has swung by 6 points. Or if they are now awarding 6 points for games, again it then becomes a six pointer.

Pundits have created this phrase, probably originated when a team needed to win to avoid going 6 points behind, hence it was seen as a '6 pointer', but only for that particular team. Under no circumstances can the phrase '6 pointer' be relevant for both sides therefore cannot be used to descirbe a game.

Next we will have people asking if the game is actually over if a fat lady sings!

[mrbojangles]

TP

Edited due to smelling pisstakes

I nearly missed that one

[Mossfinn]

TP

Edited due to smelling pisstakes

I nearly missed that one

It had me chuckling too

Moss

[Sophon]

When the top teams are battling it out at the top of the league, a match between them is often called a six-pointer.

I say it is still a 3 point match. What is the logic behind calling it a six point match?

Any views?

I don't understand why people have so much trouble understanding the logic behind the concept.

A perfect example would be the situation in the top of the premier league. It's basically a two horse race at the moment between Manchester United and Chelsea, with Manchester U at the moment being 6 points ahead in the table. If these two teams were to meet tomorrow it would be a six-pointer, because depending on the outcome after the match Chelsea could be either 3 or 9 points behind - the difference being six points.

And in a two horse race the match against "the other horse" is in fact more significant than other matches, because if you win such a match by definition your rival loses. If you win a match against another team then your rival could (and probably will) win their match as well.

I think the "six-pointer" is a perfectly valid concept, but probably one that is being abused by the media.

Sophon

Edited December 3, 2006 by Sophon

[Cromarty]

I think the "six-pointer" is a perfectly valid concept

of course it is. But so is a 9 pointer or a 4 pointer or in fact any pointer. But only in some circumstances and not for both teams at the same time.

I think it has come from the belief that one team has gained three points and the other team has lost the opportunity of three points, so the losing side has seen their rivals move 3 points further away and they lost 3 points, hence 6 pointer. Mathematically it is nonsense.

[joe1912]

I think the "six-pointer" is a perfectly valid concept

of course it is. But so is a 9 pointer or a 4 pointer or in fact any pointer. But only in some circumstances and not for both teams at the same time.

I think it has come from the belief that one team has gained three points and the other team has lost the opportunity of three points, so the losing side has seen their rivals move 3 points further away and they lost 3 points, hence 6 pointer. Mathematically it is nonsense.

just wondering if you draw a 6 pointer then is it a no pointer or a two pointer or a 1 pointer?

[joe1912]

I think the "six-pointer" is a perfectly valid concept

of course it is. But so is a 9 pointer or a 4 pointer or in fact any pointer. But only in some circumstances and not for both teams at the same time.

I think it has come from the belief that one team has gained three points and the other team has lost the opportunity of three points, so the losing side has seen their rivals move 3 points further away and they lost 3 points, hence 6 pointer. Mathematically it is nonsense.

just wondering if you draw a 6 pointer then is it a no pointer or a two pointer or a 1 pointer?

and if it is a game of two halves then do you add them together to get a one pointer