Data: don't fear the numbers.

[Sunderpitt]

Realy good thread this, very interesting reading. I would offer a coaches perspective on it.

I believe football should be played in a certain way, and that is possession based with patience and a bravery across the pitch. I like my defenders to be comfortable receiving and playing short sharp passes, for example. I want strikers who drop in and play. In my opinion players play football to be on the ball, and I want them to experience that. I want technically gifted footballers everywhere on the pitch, ideally who can play on the half turn and with their head up. That, you might say, is my philosophy. I am an all in fan on how Brazil 82 played.

With that in mind I will think about the data I think is relevant to that style of play. So possession stats, pass completion etc. I dont really care about others like running stats, or XG, or tackles made etc. Now data access is limited at the level I coach, but I make use of it. I sit down after each game and write up my own sense of how the important data aspects felt in the game. That then gives me a basis for my next couple of training sessions. What I wont do, and perhaps this is a weakness, is change the way I want to play. I will always be consistent in that and the data helps me focus on how to improve the players in that style of play.

I suspect people like Ainsworth, as he has been mentioned, are similar in some ways. He has a style of play that suits his means and I suspect he focuses on stats that suit him. Maybe things like territory and final 3rd touches, set pieces, duels won. I actually think he is one of the best tacticians in league 1 and his results are remarkable.

My guess is coaches all have a preferred style. They will use data and stats to help them identify how best to improve the team, or who to sign. The higher up the pyramid they will be used to understand the opposition, as the op points out excellently.

Good reply... pick the stats that suit what you want to do...

 

[The Norton Cat]

Realy good thread this, very interesting reading. I would offer a coaches perspective on it.

I believe football should be played in a certain way, and that is possession based with patience and a bravery across the pitch. I like my defenders to be comfortable receiving and playing short sharp passes, for example. I want strikers who drop in and play. In my opinion players play football to be on the ball, and I want them to experience that. I want technically gifted footballers everywhere on the pitch, ideally who can play on the half turn and with their head up. That, you might say, is my philosophy. I am an all in fan on how Brazil 82 played.

With that in mind I will think about the data I think is relevant to that style of play. So possession stats, pass completion etc. I dont really care about others like running stats, or XG, or tackles made etc. Now data access is limited at the level I coach, but I make use of it. I sit down after each game and write up my own sense of how the important data aspects felt in the game. That then gives me a basis for my next couple of training sessions. What I wont do, and perhaps this is a weakness, is change the way I want to play. I will always be consistent in that and the data helps me focus on how to improve the players in that style of play.

I suspect people like Ainsworth, as he has been mentioned, are similar in some ways. He has a style of play that suits his means and I suspect he focuses on stats that suit him. Maybe things like territory and final 3rd touches, set pieces, duels won. I actually think he is one of the best tacticians in league 1 and his results are remarkable.

My guess is coaches all have a preferred style. They will use data and stats to help them identify how best to improve the team, or who to sign. The higher up the pyramid they will be used to understand the opposition, as the op points out excellently.

Really interesting post that. I think what you've said demonstrates the diversity of uses that data collection can be put to, as the things you'd look at, I wouldn't pay much attention to and vice versa. Its not something that can or should be dismissed.

If you don't mind me asking, what means do you use to access your data? Our first team use GPS tracker vests but I don't get involved in any of that and, as far as I understand it, it can't capture certain information. People I know working higher up have people to watch videos.

 

[FellTop]

Good reply... pick the stats that suit what you want to do...

I think that is what most coaches will do mate. I also think it will have been that way probably forever. The difference now is the advent of technology and lots of money. Clubs like Man City will have a team of analysts doing this. @The Norton Cat is maybe the only one at his club doing it, and without the software like he says. It is just more prevalent and talked about because we have more media coverage.

I think it can have a really positive impact on coaches and players, so long as you dont become a slave to it. As people in this thread have said, football is an instinctive game, and we want that off the cuff element to it. Same in player identification. I would bet we can all spot a player couldnt we, at any age. In the younger age groups, say 9 to 13, they stand out a mile, in any level. You can watch a lad for 30 minutes in a game and get a really clear idea of his level. One of my worries is we are not doing enough of this sort of scouting anymore. We cant just say that lad can play anymore and let coaches work with them. It is often about size and pace etc. I know keepers who have not been taken into academy setups because they dont think he will be tall enough, based on parents height. We just have to keep in mind that sometimes we can trust and believe our own eyes, as well as put our trust in the data side of things. Like someone else said, a great coach will be made better by data, a bad one much less so.

 

[FellTop]

Really interesting post that. I think what you've said demonstrates the diversity of uses that data collection can be put to, as the things you'd look at, I wouldn't pay much attention to and vice versa. Its not something that can or should be dismissed.

If you don't mind me asking, what means do you use to access your data? Our first team use GPS tracker vests but I don't get involved in any of that and, as far as I understand it, it can't capture certain information. People I know working higher up have people to watch videos.

I have quite a basic approach to it mate. Firstly, and this sounds mad, I record myself on my phone during a game. So I will record me almost commentating on sections of the game, or a quick note on something I liked or didnt. Secondly we have someone who does a decent job of videoing the game (when the oppo says ok). I usually then spend the night after reliving the game using those two and picking out the good and bad and designing my next sessions. So all pretty basic stuff, but I think it suits my quite intuitive way of looking at things.

I am pondering a new coaching opportunity at the minute, which would see me focous on U18 sides for a non league club, with a clear task of getting lads into u21 and first team. They have more access to data, like you mention. I dont want to get too formalised in my coaching, so have some concerns about having targets to meet etc. It will be interesting though because I will get access to the first team sessions and matches and even play a part at times. So it would be next level of data analysis.

 

[marcusblackcat]

“Data don’t fear the numbers, nor do the wind, the sun or the rain”?? No?

 

[Sunderpitt]

I think that is what most coaches will do mate. I also think it will have been that way probably forever. The difference now is the advent of technology and lots of money. Clubs like Man City will have a team of analysts doing this. @The Norton Cat is maybe the only one at his club doing it, and without the software like he says. It is just more prevalent and talked about because we have more media coverage.

I think it can have a really positive impact on coaches and players, so long as you dont become a slave to it. As people in this thread have said, football is an instinctive game, and we want that off the cuff element to it. Same in player identification. I would bet we can all spot a player couldnt we, at any age. In the younger age groups, say 9 to 13, they stand out a mile, in any level. You can watch a lad for 30 minutes in a game and get a really clear idea of his level. One of my worries is we are not doing enough of this sort of scouting anymore. We cant just say that lad can play anymore and let coaches work with them. It is often about size and pace etc. I know keepers who have not been taken into academy setups because they dont think he will be tall enough, based on parents height. We just have to keep in mind that sometimes we can trust and believe our own eyes, as well as put our trust in the data side of things. Like someone else said, a great coach will be made better by data, a bad one much less so.

The 'he will never be big enough'... is a very lazy and stupid way of kicking kids out of an academy.
Just off the top of my head Messi, Maradona, Best, Defoe, Denise Law etc.

Then in our team it could be argued that Pritchard is the smallest and our best player.

It is very difficult to say how a youngster will develop.

When I was 11, I was tallish, skinny with the coordination of 'twizzle,' ( for those than can recall that programme). By the time I was 16 and 'filling out' I was running 400 yards and high jump at County standard. I got bigger and stronger...

My mates daughter, just missed out on selection for the 2012 Olympic triathlon.
When she was 14, walking round the golf course with her dad, she had to rest after 9 holes knackered.

 

[The Norton Cat]

I have quite a basic approach to it mate. Firstly, and this sounds mad, I record myself on my phone during a game. So I will record me almost commentating on sections of the game, or a quick note on something I liked or didnt. Secondly we have someone who does a decent job of videoing the game (when the oppo says ok). I usually then spend the night after reliving the game using those two and picking out the good and bad and designing my next sessions. So all pretty basic stuff, but I think it suits my quite intuitive way of looking at things.

I am pondering a new coaching opportunity at the minute, which would see me focous on U18 sides for a non league club, with a clear task of getting lads into u21 and first team. They have more access to data, like you mention. I dont want to get too formalised in my coaching, so have some concerns about having targets to meet etc. It will be interesting though because I will get access to the first team sessions and matches and even play a part at times. So it would be next level of data analysis.

I have to do a similar thing and capture information any way I can. I usually video set pieces because there's so much I want to see at those points in a game. Obviously videoing a whole game in my position isn't possible. So my tally charts are a fall back. I've recently seen the proforma a Football League oppo scout uses so that's been useful and I will be tailoring my stuff to incorporate the useful bits of that. Its different to the stuff I've seen from courses.

The new role sounds interesting. Someone I know spent a long time as an age group coach for a non-league side. I think a lot of his players went on to have respectable non-league careers but I don't know if there was as much pressure as there sounds like there is in your's.

 

[John Wick]

I thought this was a Blue Oyster Cult b-side when I read the title.

 

[The Norton Cat]

Reep's data collection was certainly miles ahead of its time.

But data is only as good as what you do with it. Ultimately, his POMO theory ended up with teams like Wimbledon, Sheff Utd, Leeds Cambridge and a few others just booting the ball into the corners, where the grass was often cut to a longer length, and playing from there.

Often this was done by the goalie, who would get the ball, wait for half a dozen players to gather towards a corner of the pitch and boot it down there. It was said of Beasant, by his then manager Basset, that he would have been signed almost without his ability because he could belt the ball effortlessly 80+ yards!

Thank the God's for the back pass rule which stopped a lot of that stuff.

I always considered Reep to be a bit of a bogeyman but after reading a couple of articles on him my stance has softened slightly. I think the long ball game of the 80s, although based on Reep's work, was really brought in by Charles Hughes who was head of coaching at the FA for a long period. He published a book called 'The Winning Formula' which had a big influence on coaching in England over a long period. As the article I posted at the start of the thread suggests, Reep wasn't necessarily that pleased to be linked to that kind of football. His work also showed the importance of winning the ball high up the pitch, which is a key aspect of Rinus Michels' 'total football' and of the game associated with Barcelona ('post-Cruyffian', as some people call it) which are arguably 'better' versions of football.

 

[FellTop]

I always considered Reep to be a bit of a bogeyman but after reading a couple of articles on him my stance has softened slightly. I think the long ball game of the 80s, although based on Reep's work, was really brought in by Charles Hughes who was head of coaching at the FA for a long period. He published a book called 'The Winning Formula' which had a big influence on coaching in England over a long period. As the article I posted at the start of the thread suggests, Reep wasn't necessarily that pleased to be linked to that kind of football. His work also showed the importance of winning the ball high up the pitch, which is a key aspect of Rinus Michels' 'total football' and of the game associated with Barcelona ('post-Cruyffian', as some people call it) which are arguably 'better' versions of football.

It is quite interesting to track national football bodies approach to coaching. It is often done in response to what others are doing. Some of what Reep and Hughes did were about trying to use what they thought we had, which they deemed was physicality, pace etc. I think a lot of Reep's thinking was based on Herbert Chapman and Arsenal, not certain though. When England played the more long ball game and had big lads up front some european nations reacted to that. Spain for example re-wrote their coaching approach to combat it. Now our own coaching approach, from the FA, is much more orientated toward producing technically gifted players, which is now bearing fruit. When the FA were designing it they had people in Spain, Germany, France etc trying to learn. Now other nations are looking to us as a good example.

 

[rowley]

I always considered Reep to be a bit of a bogeyman but after reading a couple of articles on him my stance has softened slightly. I think the long ball game of the 80s, although based on Reep's work, was really brought in by Charles Hughes who was head of coaching at the FA for a long period. He published a book called 'The Winning Formula' which had a big influence on coaching in England over a long period. As the article I posted at the start of the thread suggests, Reep wasn't necessarily that pleased to be linked to that kind of football. His work also showed the importance of winning the ball high up the pitch, which is a key aspect of Rinus Michels' 'total football' and of the game associated with Barcelona ('post-Cruyffian', as some people call it) which are arguably 'better' versions of football.

Yep. Hughes was a real Bogeyman. Awful, and held great influence for a long time, way more than Reep.

Always worth saying in a small defence of these two and their disciples, that " long ball" football was also a product of our pitches in the winter for many decades. Grass all gone by mid January, then it was mostly a slog through hideously cut up turf, or playing on sand or rock hard mud.

Amazing how any good ball players emerged from that time!

 

[FellTop]

Yep. Hughes was a real Bogeyman. Awful, and held great influence for a long time, way more than Reep.

Always worth saying in a small defence of these two and their disciples, that " long ball" football was also a product of our pitches in the winter for many decades. Grass all gone by mid January, then it was mostly a slog through hideously cut up turf, or playing on sand or rock hard mud.

Amazing how any good ball players emerged from that time!

Good point re the pitches. It would be interesting to look at those countries with a similar climate to us and their style of play. I know when Norway knocked Taylor's England out of the world cup Reep was helping with Norway tactics.

One of the most distressing things is the lead FA coach before Hughes was Bobby Robson. He and Hughes worked together on FA coaching things but Robson ultimately had to concentrate on the first team.

 

[smithy in nl]

If anyone mentions expected goals they get a lifetime ban. Hope @Gordon Armstrong is on the same page with this!! Actually, I don’t care. Expected goals is bullshit. Pomo I understand

What I’ve never understood is how hitting the post isn’t classed a a shot on target! Does my head in.

 

[The Norton Cat]

It is quite interesting to track national football bodies approach to coaching. It is often done in response to what others are doing. Some of what Reep and Hughes did were about trying to use what they thought we had, which they deemed was physicality, pace etc. I think a lot of Reep's thinking was based on Herbert Chapman and Arsenal, not certain though. When England played the more long ball game and had big lads up front some european nations reacted to that. Spain for example re-wrote their coaching approach to combat it. Now our own coaching approach, from the FA, is much more orientated toward producing technically gifted players, which is now bearing fruit. When the FA were designing it they had people in Spain, Germany, France etc trying to learn. Now other nations are looking to us as a good example.

I love this stuff. When did we start changing our approach to coaching, in this most recent review of it? I know the Germans had a big overhaul in their approach in the early 2000s and Didier Deschamps was suggesting not long ago that the French needed to shake things up.

Glad that Bobby Robson has been brought up. I was going to say in reply to @rowley that its interesting that, despite the long shadow Hughes cast over the game in England at the time, the manager that presided over the national team for most of the 80s isn't usually associated with that type of football (despite many of his Barcelona team saying that he was a typical English manager and valued physicality and heart) and it was only really Graham Taylor who might be considered to subscribe to Hughes' way of doing things.

 

[rowley]

I love this stuff. When did we start changing our approach to coaching, in this most recent review of it? I know the Germans had a big overhaul in their approach in the early 2000s and Didier Deschamps was suggesting not long ago that the French needed to shake things up.

Glad that Bobby Robson has been brought up. I was going to say in reply to @rowley that its interesting that, despite the long shadow Hughes cast over the game in England at the time, the manager that presided over the national team for most of the 80s isn't usually associated with that type of football (despite many of his Barcelona team saying that he was a typical English manager and valued physicality and heart) and it was only really Graham Taylor who might be considered to subscribe to Hughes' way of doing things.

True about only Taylor being in the long ball gang.

But a lot of managers were and had been around that time and this had an effect on the players, particularly young ones. When the decision was taken about which players to keep from the young lads , it was often " can he kick the ball eighty yards, tackle a horse, run all day and head the ball? "

Nice to see that has changed.

 

[FellTop]

I love this stuff. When did we start changing our approach to coaching, in this most recent review of it? I know the Germans had a big overhaul in their approach in the early 2000s and Didier Deschamps was suggesting not long ago that the French needed to shake things up.

Glad that Bobby Robson has been brought up. I was going to say in reply to @rowley that its interesting that, despite the long shadow Hughes cast over the game in England at the time, the manager that presided over the national team for most of the 80s isn't usually associated with that type of football (despite many of his Barcelona team saying that he was a typical English manager and valued physicality and heart) and it was only really Graham Taylor who might be considered to subscribe to Hughes' way of doing things.

The current coaching framework was launched in 2014. It was Dan Ashworth that led it for the FA, along with the Southgate. A huge amount of work went into it, including learning from overseas approaches - Spain, Germany, France and south America. I am a huge fan of it personally and you can see the results in lads coming into first teams now. The outcomes at National team levels are also better. The technical levels are higher across a bigger range of players. EPPP played a part as well, a few years earlier.

One of the things we have to be careful of is a lack of investment due to pandemic losses. The FA have cut back massively. So much so that you can now do your level 1 coaching badge online, and I have heard second hand it isnt very good. When I did my badges it was all in person, on the grass, very practical. Level 2 and B licence take a long time to complete and require huge amounts of on the grass time and assessors coming to your coaching sessions. I had massive support from FA coaches, and professional club coaches. I worry the next batch of coaches wont get that and therefore may struggle a bit. Coaching can be a slog and a lonely place. The way the game is now coaches at younger age groups are, in my opinion, the foundations on which a club is built. Wenger said something like young players are better off having no coach than a bad one, which I have seen first hand unfortunately.

I suspect our approach needs evolving again soon. It is coming upto 10 years old. If I had my way I would emphasise Futsal much more in kids aged 7-12. It creates much more technically gifted players. The stats are frightening when you look at how many touches of the ball you get in futsal compared to football. The FA were starting to pump some money into it before the pandemic. I did my badges and got some grant money to do a bit in the area. The kids loved it, and you could see the rapid improvement, but that is something harder to access now as well.

 

[The Norton Cat]

True about only Taylor being in the long ball gang.

But a lot of managers were and had been around that time and this had an effect on the players, particularly young ones. When the decision was taken about which players to keep from the young lads , it was often " can he kick the ball eighty yards, tackle a horse, run all day and head the ball? "

Nice to see that has changed.

Oh yeah, it was all pervading too. I remember at the age of about 11, a friend of mine complaining that at his Saturday morning team, the goalkeeper had been instructed to roll the ball to a defender who was then to launch it in to one of the corners. This was in stark contrast to the school team that we played for together. Even at 11 we thought this was wrong.

Another thing that I think is noteworthy is that Lee Johnson (who, no matter what you think of him, can't be lumped in with the long ball types) spoke about learning a lot from watching John Beck, one of the chief proponents of Hughes' way, when his dad was on the coaching staff at Cambridge.

 

[The Norton Cat]

The current coaching framework was launched in 2014. It was Dan Ashworth that led it for the FA, along with the Southgate. A huge amount of work went into it, including learning from overseas approaches - Spain, Germany, France and south America. I am a huge fan of it personally and you can see the results in lads coming into first teams now. The outcomes at National team levels are also better. The technical levels are higher across a bigger range of players. EPPP played a part as well, a few years earlier.

One of the things we have to be careful of is a lack of investment due to pandemic losses. The FA have cut back massively. So much so that you can now do your level 1 coaching badge online, and I have heard second hand it isnt very good. When I did my badges it was all in person, on the grass, very practical. Level 2 and B licence take a long time to complete and require huge amounts of on the grass time and assessors coming to your coaching sessions. I had massive support from FA coaches, and professional club coaches. I worry the next batch of coaches wont get that and therefore may struggle a bit. Coaching can be a slog and a lonely place. The way the game is now coaches at younger age groups are, in my opinion, the foundations on which a club is built. Wenger said something like young players are better off having no coach than a bad one, which I have seen first hand unfortunately.

I suspect our approach needs evolving again soon. It is coming upto 10 years old. If I had my way I would emphasise Futsal much more in kids aged 7-12. It creates much more technically gifted players. The stats are frightening when you look at how many touches of the ball you get in futsal compared to football. The FA were starting to pump some money into it before the pandemic. I did my badges and got some grant money to do a bit in the area. The kids loved it, and you could see the rapid improvement, but that is something harder to access now as well.

Oh right, Dan Ashworth, I think I was vaguely aware of that. I should maybe familiarise myself with it- could be useful. I have to say, the number of teams in our league who play the kind of football that people seem to assume is associated with non-league is very few. Maybe thats down to the coaching framework- a lot of players come out of academies at pro clubs. A lot more plastic pitches about now too which,as mentioned earlier, probably helps with the quality too.

 

[Hefty fullback]

You must log in or register to see images

I'm probably the last one to the party -- I just found out why male players wear sports bras -- data analytics

 

[Disco down under]

What I’ve never understood is how hitting the post isn’t classed a a shot on target! Does my head in.

It isn't on target unless the target was to not score a goal. I don't think that's the metric they use for shots on target.