Proof that Lawro underrates Villa

[cdbearsfan]

The article suggests he's better at predicting than the bookies. Had you bet on the outcome he predicted in each game you'd have made a profit.

I remember Sky interviewing a bookmaker who said he thought "bet of the week" was Villa to win away. This was in anticipation of the Stamford Bridge game.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

How about the BBC clear them all out ?

Next seasons MOTD presented by Fergie, predictions and punditry from Becks, Scholesy and Owen ?

[Dave]

The article suggests he's better at predicting than the bookies. Had you bet on the outcome he predicted in each game you'd have made a profit.

You would, but it's not particularly impressive.

"I'm delighted to hear I've beaten the bookies, because in my experience they don't get too many things wrong," says Mark Lawrenson as the BBC website grab the opportunity to tell us that Lawro's predictions really aren't as bad as we all thought after all. Beaten the bookies, eh? Wow. Well done Lawro. We take it all back.

The final table constructed from Lawro's predictions might have Manchester United ending the season with a record 96 points, QPR sitting pretty in eighth, Swansea relegated and Southampton somehow staying up with just 30 points, but ignore that table. He beat the bookies!

Except. Erm. Wait.

According to the BBC fluff: 'The ex-Liverpool defender turned BBC football expert correctly predicted 200 of the 379 results (win, lose or draw), giving a 52.77% success rate. The bookmakers successfully predicted 199 correct results (ie the home win, draw and away win result with the shortest odds), giving a success rate of 52.36%.

'If you had put £1 on the shortest odds offered by the bookies in each of the 380 games (ie the result they thought most likely), then you would have lost £28.91 over the course of the season. If you had put £1 on all 379 results Lawro predicted, you would have made £18.60.'

Which all makes perfect sense and means Lawro really did beat the bookies...if the bookies ever offered their shortest odds on the draw. Which they absolutely don't. So the point is entirely moot. But yeah, well done Lawro.

[cdbearsfan]

The article suggests he's better at predicting than the bookies. Had you bet on the outcome he predicted in each game you'd have made a profit.

You would, but it's not particularly impressive.

"I'm delighted to hear I've beaten the bookies, because in my experience they don't get too many things wrong," says Mark Lawrenson as the BBC website grab the opportunity to tell us that Lawro's predictions really aren't as bad as we all thought after all. Beaten the bookies, eh? Wow. Well done Lawro. We take it all back.

The final table constructed from Lawro's predictions might have Manchester United ending the season with a record 96 points, QPR sitting pretty in eighth, Swansea relegated and Southampton somehow staying up with just 30 points, but ignore that table. He beat the bookies!

Except. Erm. Wait.

According to the BBC fluff: 'The ex-Liverpool defender turned BBC football expert correctly predicted 200 of the 379 results (win, lose or draw), giving a 52.77% success rate. The bookmakers successfully predicted 199 correct results (ie the home win, draw and away win result with the shortest odds), giving a success rate of 52.36%.

'If you had put £1 on the shortest odds offered by the bookies in each of the 380 games (ie the result they thought most likely), then you would have lost £28.91 over the course of the season. If you had put £1 on all 379 results Lawro predicted, you would have made £18.60.'

Which all makes perfect sense and means Lawro really did beat the bookies...if the bookies ever offered their shortest odds on the draw. Which they absolutely don't. So the point is entirely moot. But yeah, well done Lawro.

Still more impressive than Sky's psychic Polar bear that is going to predict the Champions League Final winner.

Proof that she is psychic is that she correctly managed to predict one out of the two semi-finals.

Although a psychic Polar bear would still be much better than Shearer as a pundit. Maybe she could eat Lawrenson too, then everyone would be happy.

[not3bad]

How about the BBC clear them all out ?

Next seasons MOTD presented by Fergie, predictions and punditry from Becks, Scholesy and Owen ?

Problem with that would be that MOTD would always be 8 minutes longer than you thought it would be.

[eric woolban woolban]

Robin Friday was right about Mark Lawrenson all those years ago when he shat in his kitbag after being sent off.

[Kingthing]

Fuck Lawro and the horse he rode in on. The blokes not fit to blow my nose.

[Mazrim]

I'm just glad I got the opportunity to call him and that little Stoke fan (Nick Hancock?)who used to be on everything in the 90s a pair of twats when they were filming some poor quality programme outside my house (Moor Green FC).
He's as much a charmless automaton fannyclown in real life as he is on the TV.

[Damo70]

Since 'Paul The Octopus' popped his eight clogs the media have been determined to contrive a successor. The polar bear being the latest. Seeing as this annoys me as much as 'Lawro' (80's speak for a Liverpool player, as in 'Aldo' and 'Beardo'), I would prefer they stick him in a Zoo and get him to guess results. Then two things that annoy me are handily packaged into just one big annoyance.

[frankmosswasmyuncle]

How about the BBC clear them all out ?

Next seasons MOTD presented by Fergie, predictions and punditry from Becks, Scholesy and Owen ?

With Phil Dowd as the "referee expert" it would be a massive Manu Lovefest!
No change there then!

[Damo70]

Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand hosting and phoning up referees to 'question them' on their decisions (and female members of their family). A panel of Roy Keane, Joey Barton and that bloke off Big Brother from a few years back who had Tourettes as a bit of a wildcard.

[SoccerHQ]

I can't believe the BBC still pay him.

Do they think there is anyone anywhere in the country who actually appreciates his "insight"?

Not just that but I must be the only one who can't stand his apparent witty remarks when he's doing co-comms on 5 live? That's one reason to be thankful BBC have no live football currently.

[Dave Clark Five]

The way that they try to hint at past games between members of the MOTD, or equivalent, panel, hinting about bad tackling or poor scoring records, pisses me off. This is especially annoying when the careers of the individuals concerned do not overlap at all.

[Damo70]

It is a totally bland old boys club that would only appeal to casual football fans who want to see the goals. Even ITV are ahead of them for God's sake with the likes of Dixon and Keane. And Gary Neville is excellent on SKY. The likes of Souness and Hoddle tell it as they see it too. Even the resident fence sitters like Redknapp and Wilkins are more value than the MOTD three.

[TheSandman]

The BBC really do employ a lot of shit pundits. And as soon as they find anybody with a modicum of insight, such as Dixon, they get saddled with Colin Murray on MOTD2 unable to break into the Saturday night boy's club. So they run off to ITV, SKY or whoever will pay them enough and give them a lead pundit's role.