I’ve read the shorter version now and parts of the longer version. I’m not a football data guy, but I worked in informatics for over 12 years so I am comfortable with data. His case is compelling but he’s stretching a bit to claim he’s proved it. That’s dangerous language than can be (and is) being taken to be “truth” (and in many cases as something that it’s not, eg bias against Liverpool in all cases or outright corruption). He is right that the data is objective, but he is using it to make a point about Liverpool among only 4 teams and that in itself is not objective. Anyone that’s worked around data long enough knows it’s possible to spin partisan narratives using objective data. I’m not saying he’s wrong, it’s really, really good stuff, but it’s not proof.

But regardless he has shown there is something there that should definitely be investigating further. I’d like to see the analysis extended to Spurs and Arsenal in the first instance and, to be honest, you can’t exclude any team in light off how competitive the Premier League is now.

What I don’t understand is why, if the analysis is considered so incontrovertible, why is Liverpool not picking this up and running with it rather than putting out reactionary statements? In any investigation, a smoking gun should be leapt on, surely? If I were Liverpool, I’d be all over this.