Since it was established, the men’s England football team has only played one game on the day itself. On 11 November 1987, we beat Yugoslavia 4–1 away from home. But almost every year in recent memory, England has played a match somewhere close to the date. In 2005, we beat Argentina in Switzerland the day after Armistice Day. In 2001, we drew with Sweden at Old Trafford the day before.

Yet for some reason, this year there is a big row over Fifa’s original decision not to allow the England team (and indeed the Welsh team) to sport a poppy on their jerseys. Apparently today, they have changed their stance slightly, allowing poppies before the game as well as one on the black armbands that the team will wear during the friendly against Spain on Saturday 12 November.

David Cameron confronted the issue during Prime Minister’s Questions today.

I think [the questioner] not only speaks for the whole House, but in fact the whole country, [in] being completely baffled and frankly angry [at] the decision made by Fifa.

Quite frankly David, he doesn’t.

Fifa’s original stance was, in my view, correct. While I expect that the majority of people across the globe would support the principles behind the allied forces’ stance against Nazi Germany, I doubt that more recent wars in which Commonwealth countries have engaged would attract similarly unanimous support.

Sport is divorced from politics and agendas. And this is one of its beauties. The furthest it has historically gone in commemorating the past has been the wearing of black armbands as a mark of respect for a recently passed sporting hero, or a minute’s silence before a match for similar reasons.

Should Germany be allowed to wear an emblem on their jerseys to commemorate those lost in their wars? Or Afghanistan and Iraq? Or is the Commonwealth – or more to the point England – seen as a force of good, the founder of football, a country elevated above other nations’ causes?

The furore has been fatuous. And the cynic in me thinks that maybe it’s been raised this time around to divert attention away from the racist allegations against the England captain.

Instead of wearing a poppy, maybe Mr. Terry should commemorate the Commonwealth’s contribution to the war efforts by embracing fellow players that have emanated from the Commonwealth.

Across all 7,466 Premiership/Premier League games, only 2.3% have seen seven or more goals. (Portsmouth’s 7–4 win over Reading in 2007/8 holds the single game goal record, btw.)

If we ignore the home/away victor, 1–0 has been the most common scoreline (18.52% of games), followed by 2–1 (14.91%), 2–0 (12.63%), 1–1 (12.22%) and 0–0 (8.68%).

Two is the most likely number of goals (24.85% of games seeing this many goals), followed by three (20.80%), one (18.52%), four (14.26%) and zero (8.68%).

If you want to see lots of goals from your team while they’re at home, buy a Man Utd season ticket, with an average of 2.21 goals scored, 4.34 goals per season more than their closest rivals, Arsenal. (Steer clear of Wigan Athletic, with 1.06 goals scored by themselves per home game.) If you want to follow a team around the country, choose Man Utd, with 1.74 away goals per game. Of the current Premier League crop, don’t follow Norwich around, at 0.68 away goals per game.

If you just want to see goals, irrespective of who scores them, follow QPR, with 3.01 goals seen per game. Steer clear of Stoke City, with only 2.30.

Fabulous dataset, btw. Took a little compiling.

• Man. Utd. has the best average finishing position: 1.6th
• Watford has the worst: 20th (in both of its seasons)
• Man. Utd. has scored the most goals: 1,150
• Of the seven teams to have competed in all 15 seasons (Aston Villa, Liverpool, Arsenal, Man. Utd., Spurs, Chelsea, Everton), Everton has scored the fewest: 734
• Of these seven teams, Everton has let in the most goals: 725. Man. Utd. the fewest: 493
• Man Utd. has won 13% more games than any other club (372), Arsenal being second with 329
• Spurs has the most losses (211) followed by Everton (205)
• Man Utd. has scored 1,230 points (2.16 per game), 8.6% more than its nearest rival (Arsenal: 1,133; 1.99 per game)

Impressive.

• 30 points: once (2009/10)
• 33 points: three times (1999/2000, 2003/04, 2004/05)
• 34 points: three times (2000/01, 2005/06, 2008/09)
• 36 points: three times (1998/99, 2001/02, 2007/08)
• 38 points: twice (1995/96, 2006/07)
• 40 points: twice (1996/97, 1997/98)
• 42 points: once (2002/03).

This is the number of points that you’d need to exceed to stay in the league. This season, 39 looks certain to get you relegated.

At the top, the second-placed team (the number to exceed to win the league) has had:

• 68 points: once (1996/97)
• 70 points: once (2000/01)
• 73 points: once (1999/2000)
• 77 points: once (1997/98)
• 78 points: three times1995/96, 1998/99, 2002/03)
• 79 points: once (2003/04)
• 80 points: once (2001/02)
• 83 points: three times (2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07)
• 85 points: twice (2007/08, 2009/10)
• 86 points: once (2008/09).

This season it looks like being a mere 73.

So this season has seen more competitiveness from the lower teams, leaving less spoils for the top teams.

In the Premier League:

• Dalglish: Managed 16. Won 10 (62.5%), Drew 3 (18.8%), Lost 3 (18.8%)
• Hodgson: Managed 20. Won 7,  (35.0%), Drew 4 (20.0%), Lost 9 (45.0%)

Dalglish has averaged 2.06 points per Premier League game, to Hodgson’s 1.25. Incredibly, Dalglish would have averaged 2.06 points per game had all of his games finished at half time too. Hodgson would have averaged a meagre 1.15. Unfortunately, for Liverpool, the average points per game across the two managers was 1.61, not sufficient to trouble the top of the table.

In the Premier League, Dalglish has won four (50.0%) of his eight away games, drawing a further one (12.5%). Hodgson won one (10.0%) of his ten away games, drawing a further two (20.0%). In front of the Kop, Dalglish has won six (75.0%) and drawn two (25.0%). Not a loss in sight. Hodgson won six (60.0%), drew two (20.0%) and suffered two (20.0%) losses.

In Hodgson’s nine losses, his team lost by an average of 1.67 goals. Dalglish’s team lost by an average of 1.33 goals in their three losses. (This number is, by its very nature, always greater than or equal to one, btw.) Dalglish’s winning margin is a staggering 2.5 goals per game compared to Hodgson’s 1.71. Across all Premier League games, Dalglish racked up an average of 2.19 goals per game, letting in an average of 0.88; Hodgson’s team averaged 1.20, letting in 1.35.

At half time, Hodgson’s average was 0.5 goals for and 0.5 goals against. Dalglish averaged 1 goal for and a mere 0.19 goals against.

In Europe (including qualifying), Hodgson performed better, although he would have managed the easier games at the start of the season:

• Dalglish: Managed 4. Won 1 (25.0%), Drew 2 (50.0%), Lost 1 (25.0%)
• Hodgson: Managed 10. Won 6 (60.0%), Drew 4 (40.0%)

Across all competitions, Dalglish has won 11 (52.4%) of his 21 matches, Hodgson winning 13 (38.2%) of his 34, again inflated by early European competition.

Dalglish’s record in the FA Cup is less rosy. One game played, one game lost. 1–0 away at Old Trafford. It was on his second day in charge though.

Now this morning, the sun is shining and conditions are perfect for a relaxing round of golf.  Yesterday, there was light rain throughout the day, clearing up the moment we stepped off the 18th green.  Bastard rain.

I’ve not played for a couple of years, but held my own pretty well.  Actually, that’s not quite true.  I held Simon’s late dad’s.  His driver.  And it served me very well indeed.  The direction was not always spot on, but the distance and connection was there 90% of the time, which is no mean feat for someone whose last round was probably two years ago.

I went out in 56, which I was marginally disappointed with, mainly because it was tainted by a septuple bogey on the first hole—four shots of which were taken within inches of one another in a bunker.  Had that been a six instead of an eleven, I’d have been ecstatic with a 51.

And I came back in 48, a remarkable feat for me, but a half-round again tainted by a hapless nine on the twelfth.  My last six holes were all fives, something I don’t think my scorecard has ever seen.

And four pars in a single round is unheard of for me.  (Simon disagrees, and never having played me before, believes I’m a ringer.  I’ll suggest he calls my dad to vouch for my overall ineptitude for the game.)

Simon will be producing a full, Excel-driven Stableford analysis forthwith.  But in the meantime, I’ll dine out on my score of 104 and my three pars.  Despite the rain, I spent a great day in very good company, and here’s hoping my next round is less than two years from now.

Now, I must speak to Simon about his dad’s will, and whether the driver was in fact left to his son’s friend, one that he’d never met.  I’m hopeful.

The sun has dipped over the house and now drenches the tops of the trees and the houses opposite with its deep orange sunlight.  And the breeze is sufficient to make the trees rustle and sway, but is not so strong as to interrupt my pleasure at the passage of the evening.  Meanwhile my daughter sleeps soundly and safely in her cot.

Life is good.

Tangential Ramblings has moved to http://blog.osirra.com.  The plan is to use the main http://www.osirra.com domain for an altogether more professional presence, advertising my company’s offerings and being the home of my less bizarre side; and there won’t be much in the way of cross-linking from the sublime to the ridiculous.  For the next few days, it will continue to point to Tangential Ramblings, to allow you a few days to accommodate the change.

The new sub-domain (http://blog.osirra.com) is already working, so please change your bookmarks and subscription details so that you’re not caught looking for the old blog come the big switch.  All being well, the new http://www.osirra.com site will be going live on Monday, the fifth anniversary of the domain.

Please comment if you have any questions.  And welcome to the new home—grab yourself a glass, and cheese and pineapple on a stick.

While it looks fine and dandy on the web, the page has a fundamental flaw when viewed on a mobile: the right-hand modules, including these live scores, are nowhere to be seen.  So you have to follow each and every textual update in an attempt to figure out what the latest scores are.

Thankfully, the fact that Newcastle lost meant that I only had one score to concentrate on.

Please sort it out for next season, BBC.

I decided to get off my lazy arse last Sunday lunchtime while my daughter slept (which I just mis-typed spelt), and ran 6.32km in 32m 55s.  It was my first outing in twelve months, and I ran too far, too fast.

I spent the afternoon hacking and went downhill from there.  A visit to the doctor on Thursday morning equipped me with steroids and antibiotics, and fingers crossed they’re doing the trick, along with the ibuprofen, Lemsip and Strepsils.  Today is the first day I’ve felt good since.  Not great, but good.  But don’t speak to me.  My face is still hiding a wealth of ghastly goo that makes me sound like Monica in The One With Rachel’s Sister.  I’m fine-d!

Anyway, I was thinking.  If I am one of the “lucky” ones who gets selected in the ballot, I’ll run it (mentally) in the following order:

• 194 metres
• 2 km
• 10km (x4)

It would be very painful to do it in the reverse order, finishing four stints of 10km only then to have to do a further 2km, only to find you’ve still got 194m to run.

It’ll be tough to think of it that way, particularly with the big milestone banners throughout the route of the course.  But they’re probably all in miles, so maybe easier to ignore if I work in kilometres.