Jump to content

Football Statistics: Their uses in the modern game...


buzza
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm sure we have something in place because i remember Pardew talking about his backroom staff and the staticians in place along with their scouting system.

 

It was a good article to read but regardless of the stats, it's how your players perform on the pitch at the end of the day.

 

If Barcelona rip Man Utd/Arsenal apart, Fergie/Wenger can go and look for their fix of stats after the game all they like but it's not going to take away the fact what everyone's eyes had seen in that they were just completely outclassed regardless of what positions they put their players in to stop Xavi or stop throw ins/corners/freekicks happening.

 

Moneyball my arse! 'It's just bought Jordon Henderson for 20 million pound'!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we have something in place because i remember Pardew talking about his backroom staff and the staticians in place along with their scouting system.

 

It was a good article to read but regardless of the stats, it's how your players perform on the pitch at the end of the day.

 

If Barcelona rip Man Utd/Arsenal apart, Fergie/Wenger can go and look for their fix of stats after the game all they like but it's not going to take away the fact what everyone's eyes had seen in that they were just completely outclassed regardless of what positions they put their players in to stop Xavi or stop throw ins/corners/freekicks happening.

 

Moneyball my arse! 'It's just bought Jordon Henderson for 20 million pound'!

On the contrary to your last comment Jordan Henderson is a very non-Moneyball signing. The theory behind Billy Beane's Oakland As as highlighted in Moneyball is that you buy players who are considered for whatever reason to be undervalued. Indeed, I would say we are in fact pursuing a more Moneyball-like theory. Cabaye was clearly "undervalued" at £4.8m and both Marveaux and Ba are both clearly undervalued on free transfers.

 

Regarding the Barcelona point. Yes, statistics and analysis will only get you so far and are not a magic bullet but I've no doubt they do give teams an advantage.

 

This is more than about stats as such. It's about taking a much more modern approach to the game in terms of talent development, scouting, the medical side, conditioning and tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all sounds far too much like Big Sam's got a big fat head theories to me!

 

John W Henry appoints Comolli ('The Moneyball of Soccer') and has now spent 80 million on Henderson, Carroll and Suarez. No real undervalued player arguably Suarez but 24 million is hardly peanuts.

 

What ever happened to the good old 4-4 f***ing 2?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all sounds far too much like Big Sam's got a big fat head theories to me!

 

John W Henry appoints Comolli ('The Moneyball of Soccer') and has now spent 80 million on Henderson, Carroll and Suarez. No real undervalued player arguably Suarez but 24 million is hardly peanuts.

 

What ever happened to the good old 4-4 f***ing 2?!

I think Sam Allardyce has taken things to the extreme with some of his tactics. A very good example given in the article is using analysis to work out where on average the ball is most likely to land when cleared from a corner so you can work out where best to postition players. On this point as well I think it is a bit naive to think it is only people like Sam Allardyce who use this stuff - I've no doubt clubs who play the beautiful football we love to watch such as Barcelona use these analytical techniques to pinpoint weaknesses in sides.

 

On Comolli I think you can hype up one individual too much as being the standard-bearer of these techniques. I'm not sure why he has bought Suarez, Carroll and Henderson but I'm sure we will see in the coming years whether he was justified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we have something in place because i remember Pardew talking about his backroom staff and the staticians in place along with their scouting system.

 

It was a good article to read but regardless of the stats, it's how your players perform on the pitch at the end of the day.

 

If Barcelona rip Man Utd/Arsenal apart, Fergie/Wenger can go and look for their fix of stats after the game all they like but it's not going to take away the fact what everyone's eyes had seen in that they were just completely outclassed regardless of what positions they put their players in to stop Xavi or stop throw ins/corners/freekicks happening.

 

Moneyball my arse! 'It's just bought Jordon Henderson for 20 million pound'!

On the contrary to your last comment Jordan Henderson is a very non-Moneyball signing. The theory behind Billy Beane's Oakland As as highlighted in Moneyball is that you buy players who are considered for whatever reason to be undervalued. Indeed, I would say we are in fact pursuing a more Moneyball-like theory. Cabaye was clearly "undervalued" at £4.8m and both Marveaux and Ba are both clearly undervalued on free transfers.

 

i don't think it is about finding undervalued players as much as valuing players by a different set of statistical criteria, instead of, or complementing, other ways of rating them. Henderson is a player who doesn't impress observers at all when you watch him play, yet his stats are supposedly very impressive - higher passing completion rate than any liverpool midfielder, 3rd highest key pass rate in the premier league. seems to me like it could be a good example of a stat driven transfer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we have something in place because i remember Pardew talking about his backroom staff and the staticians in place along with their scouting system.

 

It was a good article to read but regardless of the stats, it's how your players perform on the pitch at the end of the day.

 

If Barcelona rip Man Utd/Arsenal apart, Fergie/Wenger can go and look for their fix of stats after the game all they like but it's not going to take away the fact what everyone's eyes had seen in that they were just completely outclassed regardless of what positions they put their players in to stop Xavi or stop throw ins/corners/freekicks happening.

 

Moneyball my arse! 'It's just bought Jordon Henderson for 20 million pound'!

On the contrary to your last comment Jordan Henderson is a very non-Moneyball signing. The theory behind Billy Beane's Oakland As as highlighted in Moneyball is that you buy players who are considered for whatever reason to be undervalued. Indeed, I would say we are in fact pursuing a more Moneyball-like theory. Cabaye was clearly "undervalued" at £4.8m and both Marveaux and Ba are both clearly undervalued on free transfers.

 

i don't think it is about finding undervalued players as much as valuing players by a different set of statistical criteria, instead of, or complementing, other ways of rating them. Henderson is a player who doesn't impress observers at all when you watch him play, yet his stats are supposedly very impressive - higher passing completion rate than any liverpool midfielder, 3rd highest key pass rate in the premier league. seems to me like it could be a good example of a stat driven transfer.

 

Like Sam Allardyce buying Kevin Nolan's 80 percent pass completion rate alongside Gerrard and Cesc.... :mackems:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Analysis of sporting metrics was initially an outsider pursuit, something undertaken by academics in public forums away from the professional side of the game. With that kind of 'open' debate, it advanced quite quickly, until it was demonstratively useful. That was when it infected the professional side of the game.

 

In soccer, the demand for metric analysis of this type came before there was significant academic inquiry into the issue. The clubs basically approached the statisticians, rather than the other way around, and asked them to work on soccer. Most of the big clubs employ experts in the field, but due to the huge amounts of money involved in big-time football and the relatively small circle of experts, there is little public knowledge of their effectiveness. No-one shares their findings in journals and there is very little information available. This leads to the general scepticism about the efficacy of these kinds of analyses. In fact, some of them are very effective, the guy who does it for Arsenal is apparently the genius of the practice, but his work is owned by the club, and he isn't in a position to show the inner workings of what he does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Analysis of sporting metrics was initially an outsider pursuit, something undertaken by academics in public forums away from the professional side of the game. With that kind of 'open' debate, it advanced quite quickly, until it was demonstratively useful. That was when it infected the professional side of the game.

 

In soccer, the demand for metric analysis of this type came before there was significant academic inquiry into the issue. The clubs basically approached the statisticians, rather than the other way around, and asked them to work on soccer. Most of the big clubs employ experts in the field, but due to the huge amounts of money involved in big-time football and the relatively small circle of experts, there is little public knowledge of their effectiveness. No-one shares their findings in journals and there is very little information available. This leads to the general scepticism about the efficacy of these kinds of analyses. In fact, some of them are very effective, the guy who does it for Arsenal is apparently the genius of the practice, but his work is owned by the club, and he isn't in a position to show the inner workings of what he does.

 

This genius needs find some answers from his stats to why Arsenal crumble year after year come the run in to the end of the season and come up with a fecking good solution  :shifty:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Analysis of sporting metrics was initially an outsider pursuit, something undertaken by academics in public forums away from the professional side of the game. With that kind of 'open' debate, it advanced quite quickly, until it was demonstratively useful. That was when it infected the professional side of the game.

 

In soccer, the demand for metric analysis of this type came before there was significant academic inquiry into the issue. The clubs basically approached the statisticians, rather than the other way around, and asked them to work on soccer. Most of the big clubs employ experts in the field, but due to the huge amounts of money involved in big-time football and the relatively small circle of experts, there is little public knowledge of their effectiveness. No-one shares their findings in journals and there is very little information available. This leads to the general scepticism about the efficacy of these kinds of analyses. In fact, some of them are very effective, the guy who does it for Arsenal is apparently the genius of the practice, but his work is owned by the club, and he isn't in a position to show the inner workings of what he does.

 

This genius needs find some answers from his stats to why Arsenal crumble year after year come the run in to the end of the season and come up with a fecking good solution  :shifty:

 

I think you'll find one of the main reasons for that is the human element that statisticians like to pretend doesn't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Analysis of sporting metrics was initially an outsider pursuit, something undertaken by academics in public forums away from the professional side of the game. With that kind of 'open' debate, it advanced quite quickly, until it was demonstratively useful. That was when it infected the professional side of the game.

 

In soccer, the demand for metric analysis of this type came before there was significant academic inquiry into the issue. The clubs basically approached the statisticians, rather than the other way around, and asked them to work on soccer. Most of the big clubs employ experts in the field, but due to the huge amounts of money involved in big-time football and the relatively small circle of experts, there is little public knowledge of their effectiveness. No-one shares their findings in journals and there is very little information available. This leads to the general scepticism about the efficacy of these kinds of analyses. In fact, some of them are very effective, the guy who does it for Arsenal is apparently the genius of the practice, but his work is owned by the club, and he isn't in a position to show the inner workings of what he does.

 

This genius needs find some answers from his stats to why Arsenal crumble year after year come the run in to the end of the season and come up with a fecking good solution  :shifty:

 

I think you'll find one of the main reasons for that is the human element that statisticians like to pretend doesn't exist.

 

;D  :clap:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest CheickMansour

Stats are for people with no knowledge, it's raw information without insight.

 

What happens when people who do have insight use it though? I mean, haven't people like Comolli got a lot of experience in the game e.g. He played at youth level and scouted for teams like St.etienne and Arsenal.

 

It's true that statistics get too much importance attached to them. But as johnnypd says, it's just another way of looking at things in a different light and getting new and interesting perspectives on the game. Obviously, this will fail if you take the stats at face value. But if you use them as just another a tool alongside other traditional methods, I don't see why you couldn't use it to your advantage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting read, but it didn't budge me from a sceptical position. Football is probably the least susceptible to statistical analysis of all sports. There's something about the way in which a team functions as a unit that makes it very difficult to isolate the effectiveness of individuals in statistical isolation.

 

Eg Nolan's pass completion may reflect the fact that he's not often in possession of the ball, and when he is, he tends to play safe to avoid losing it rather than risk anything creative.

 

That's not to say stats don't have their uses, if you know precisely what to look for, and how to handle the information.  Wenger likes his players to release the ball quickly rather than dwell on the ball, and confronts his players with stats about how long on average they stay in possession before passing.

 

Of the after-match stats that we get, I find the shots total the most telling in terms of which team had the upper hand, but even that's far from foolproof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

I'm sure we have something in place because i remember Pardew talking about his backroom staff and the staticians in place along with their scouting system.

 

It was a good article to read but regardless of the stats, it's how your players perform on the pitch at the end of the day.

 

If Barcelona rip Man Utd/Arsenal apart, Fergie/Wenger can go and look for their fix of stats after the game all they like but it's not going to take away the fact what everyone's eyes had seen in that they were just completely outclassed regardless of what positions they put their players in to stop Xavi or stop throw ins/corners/freekicks happening.

 

Moneyball my arse! 'It's just bought Jordon Henderson for 20 million pound'!

On the contrary to your last comment Jordan Henderson is a very non-Moneyball signing. The theory behind Billy Beane's Oakland As as highlighted in Moneyball is that you buy players who are considered for whatever reason to be undervalued. Indeed, I would say we are in fact pursuing a more Moneyball-like theory. Cabaye was clearly "undervalued" at £4.8m and both Marveaux and Ba are both clearly undervalued on free transfers.

 

Regarding the Barcelona point. Yes, statistics and analysis will only get you so far and are not a magic bullet but I've no doubt they do give teams an advantage.

 

This is more than about stats as such. It's about taking a much more modern approach to the game in terms of talent development, scouting, the medical side, conditioning and tactics.

 

there's a difference between signing players on the cheap and signing undervalued players based on statistical analysis. this theory is related to the cost of the players only in so much as it makes it possible to find hidden gems more efficiently and thus buy undervalued players. The main point of the theory is pretty obviously that it enables you to judge more accurately the productivity of each player, and thus whether they would be a good signing, even if they do cost 17million. Henderson may prove to be more value for money than any of our cheap signings if he plays well and ours flop.

 

That said, the purchase of tiote in particular has these sort of statistics written all over it, so i would say its likely we are using these methods, and drawing sound conclusions from them, which is the important bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest optimistic nit

It all sounds far too much like Big Sam's got a big fat head theories to me!

 

John W Henry appoints Comolli ('The Moneyball of Soccer') and has now spent 80 million on Henderson, Carroll and Suarez. No real undervalued player arguably Suarez but 24 million is hardly peanuts.

 

What ever happened to the good old 4-4 f***ing 2?!

I think Sam Allardyce has taken things to the extreme with some of his tactics. A very good example given in the article is using analysis to work out where on average the ball is most likely to land when cleared from a corner so you can work out where best to postition players. On this point as well I think it is a bit naive to think it is only people like Sam Allardyce who use this stuff - I've no doubt clubs who play the beautiful football we love to watch such as Barcelona use these analytical techniques to pinpoint weaknesses in sides.

 

On Comolli I think you can hype up one individual too much as being the standard-bearer of these techniques. I'm not sure why he has bought Suarez, Carroll and Henderson but I'm sure we will see in the coming years whether he was justified.

 

That example on allardyce seemed like a pretty sensible use of statistics to me. the one that sounded a bit dumb was the one about the ball chaning hands 400 times etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The part that mentioned positioning for set pieces and that it was statistically supported that the ball should fall in certain areas once defended instantly reminded me of Fat sam and Stoke. They always seem to be in the right place for loose ball...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It think there is an embarrassing lack of statistical analysis about football available to the general public. The other sport I follow very closely is basketball, and they have many inventive ways of comparing player performance despite differences in the amount a player is used, style that his team uses, and the role that he takes up in the team. There are many flaws, but it is often a good means of comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...