Do you poach or do you co-operate?

Anyone watching the game today would have been shocked with the final score. However, after applying the 'Goal King's Dilemma' to the match, the lack of goals can easily be explained by basic theoretical animal behaviour modelling.

The Goal King's Dilemma (An adaptation of 'The Prisoner's Dilemma' (Poundstone, 1992):

• If A and B both try and steal goals they both get -2 goals/game
• If A steals B's goal but B doesn't retaliate, A gets +1 goal/game and B gets -3 goals/game
• If A and B don't attempt to steal each other's goals, -1 goals/game each (as person C comes along)

Assumptions: Goals are a finite resource, goals per game is an average of the season (n=33), there are 8 other people on the pitch able to score goals (outside of person A & B) and person 'C' is Rob Barton.

The table below summarises the various different outcomes assuming the above:

_{Table: The Goal King's Dilemma}

Here, regardless of what the other decides, each CSHC player gets a higher Goal King score by betraying the other ("goal stealing"). The reasoning involves an argument by dilemma: B will either cooperate or steal goals. If B cooperates, A should steal goals, since having a little trophy given to you at the end of year club dinner is better than having -1 goals. If B steals goals, A should also try to steal goals, since -2 goals/game on average is better than -3 goals because Rob B will come along. So either way, A should steal goals. Parallel reasoning will show that B should also try to steal goals.

Net outcome however for the species, otherwise known as the M3s or the 'MATHS-Club' (Middle-Aged men Taking Hockey Seriously-Club), is -2 goals/game average.

Is it time the rein of the Goal King was over and the MATHS-Club shifted towards a more team-centric model...? After all, the MATHS-Club are good at statistically modelling match scenarios and tactics in theory...but executing them, however, well...umm...

Oh, and the teams:-