Rumours going around that Comolli was much more involved in the first team selection than thought. We all know he bought in heavily to the statistical/moneyball side of the game which relies on several certain stats to attain a higher chance of succeeding. Those 'certain' things were summed up nicely by the Secret Footballer in one of his Guardian columns: “At Liverpool Comolli has relied more heavily on the so-called “Moneyball philosophy”, which argues, among other things, that a team that wins more than 40 headers, or crosses the ball more than 30 times or makes 12 regains in the final third, will nearly always win”. Now, this makes complete logical sense. You cross more into the box, win more headers and win more possession in dangerous positions and ultimately, the odds are high that you'd convert something. But to me, it's a very simple and dumbed down approach to take to the game. Consider our signings though. Downing had a high cross completion rate at Villa, Adam also. Carroll was one of the dominant headers of the ball last year. People like Henderson at Sunderland pushes with high energy up the field and tries to regain possession in the final third. It's obvious Comolli bought into this approach from who we signed, but it's still overly basic for such a complex game. This article by Andrew Beasley, of the Tomkins Times, discusses this precise issue very nicely but it's a lengthy read. http://tomkinstimes.com/2012/04/moneyball-statistics-and-damien-comolli/ Amongst his 'conclusions' are that Liverpool have the highest number of final third regains per match in the division. Again, this makes logical sense since you're more likely to score if you receive possession in a dangerous position and generally, teams with a higher points per game have a higher stat for regains in the final third. How many teams build around this idea though? Suarez, Henderson, Kuyt, Gerrard, Carroll and Bellamy have all shown a big desire to press in the final third this season. Did this 'statistic' influence our starting 11 this year? Next stat. Crosses per game. We average 30 crosses per game this year which is bang on the money for such a moneyball philosophy and a higher attempted cross rate than last year or the year before, even though Carroll hasn't even started all the games despite being our biggest aerial threat. Swinging the ball in for Suarez makes no physical sense, but moneyball says to do it. The only team in the PL in the last 4 years who've crossed more than 30 times per season was Man Utd in 2009/2010. (Kenny's first 6 months in charge which saw us play fantastic, fluid football and a massive movement up the table only had us crossing 20 times per season but after Comolli's first big transfer window and the start of the next full season, we increase our cross rate by 50%...that's massive). Also from this, Downing/Henderson/Adam average more crosses per match than Kuyt/Maxi so this could explain why they saw more gametime. Those three were also the highest cross per match player from their respective teams before moving to liverpool. Again, Comolli's stat based football coming to light? Now again, this is largely common sense or nothing 'new'. We know he likes stats. We know more crosses gives a higher chance to score more goals, etc. But the summary of the article is what interests me. Given the big change from last seasons tactics to this years, he believes that Comolli influenced the board/Kenny that this approach was the best way to play. There are also rumours going around, as mentioned in the opening line, that Comolli had a bigger influence in first team selections than was are aware of...Since this year was such a let down, could it be that Comolli was fired because his philosphy towards football was just incorrect and flawed and NOT simply because of his transfer dealings (overpriced)? Could it be that he was medling with the way the team was setup each week and that's why we underperformed with an improved squad on last year? I believe this could be true. The article finished by saying that the true test is how Liverpool play without Comolli here and whether or not we go back to the successful performances we saw at the end of the last campaign. We beat Everton in the first game without him and we have 7 games to go. I'm interested to see how the team is setup from now til the end of the year...it could explain in greater detail why Comolli was axed because I'm confident there's more to it than simply the transfers. It also explains why Kenny remains here in full confidence of the board.
I think those saying DC had anything to do with selecting the starting XI on match day are clutching at straws looking for an excuse for our poor league season. Do you seriously think Kenny would listen to anyone when it comes to who starts? I could understand Kenny buying in to DC's strategic philosophy but not who gets the nod for games, if this was the case then we'd have seen Carroll start more games. With regards to his transfer dealings, the only real downer in my view was Carroll and that is based on price, we should have waited until the summer or even this January before considering a bid... we could have survived with Suarez up front with Maxi, Kuyt or Babel supporting him and then Gerrard this season. Downing will improve, I have no doubt in that while I strongly beilive Henderson will be worth more than £16m one day... Adam... meh, we got what we paid for while Coates & Bellers will be/are inspired buys... espec. if we get some decent players from Natcional's youth set up
Technically, a DoF is above the manager and given the inexperience of our board in football (hence they brought in Comolli to bridge the gap), it seems likely that Kenny was answerable to DC and perhaps was more restricted than he would have prefered whilst Comolli experimented with his philosophy. The selections have been bizzare at times this year, the tactics equally so and completely different to last season, a 50% increase in cross rate over a year isn't insignificant (especially when even Carroll doesn't play to feed off them). Also consider our owners, if they're as smart as they come across, they wouldn't fire comolli if the team was just underperforming (surely kenny's job, as manager, or both of theirs) and they wouldn't fire him just because he overpaid on a few signings (which was just poorly reinvested money anyway, hence our low net spend). Honestly, Comolli was fired for something we don't know about...and this is the best stuff I've read which could go someway to realising why.
JJ ... you're a prick I'm just after a smoke and now you've got my stoned lil head all into a conspiracy. I love it
The thing that has always gets me with this "Moneyball" bollocks is that it puts the players ahead of the team. Whilst that's fine for something like baseball, where there's only one person batting at once, football is much more of a team game. The Moneyball view seems to be "if we buy players who win the ball in the opponents half we will win games". But that relies on your whole team being set up to support that. Fine if you're Barca, who press to win the ball then pass, pass, pass, pass to Messi, goal. But if the game plan is to lump crosses in to your big centre forward, surely you want to win the ball more towards your own half, so the centre forward can run into the box rather than already being in the box getting spitroasted by the centre backs. Ditto the "a team that wins more than 40 headers, or crosses the ball more than 30 times will nearly always winâ. Makes sense if you're Stoke and are already set up to score from crosses, probably not if you're Barca. Apparently Fulham scored 31% of their goals from crosses last season, whereas City scored 7%. Anyone reckon City will be looking for players who cross the ball 30 times a game next season? Another thing is that these Moneyball stats appear to be massively exaggerated versions of reality. So apparently a team that makes 12 regains in the final third, will nearly always win. And yet Liverpool, who make the most 'regains' in the final third only make 3.3 of them on average and have a maximum of nine. So who the **** makes 12 regains in the final third on average? That sounds a lot like saying "any team who scores more than ten goals in the match will nearly always win". Of course they will, but it will apply to one or two teams playing on their really best day. Massively unconvinced by the whole thing. And so very happy Liverpool have chosen to use it
Regarding the final third regains, the philosophy number seems well off the mark if liverpool averages the highest with only 3.3, but the other values are very close to what's realistic if you set a team out that way. I agree with your assessment. I think it's a very naive way to put a team together and tries to oversimplify the game to raw fundamentals which don't necessarily guarantee anything. However, regarding your last sentence, I actually feel (and this is the point of my entire discussion really) that it was Comolli who influenced the board into going along in this approach but ultimately, he was fired because this method is clearly failing. Hence the Comolli Vs Kenny title and why I'm interested to see if we revert to the tactical formations/system we adopted at the end of last season. Appreciate your views as ever, Swarbs.
Said it before; The Owners are learning, this was there first lesson. As Swarbs said; moneyball was a system designed with American sports in mind where the games are built AROUND statistics. Despite what sky will tell you, Football is more about team chemistry and tactics than a series of individual formulae. Look at Newcastle as proof. Don't know how much Kenny bought into it but this year has shown to the owners that while scouts & managers can glean useful information about players you have to start with a plan of tactics & style and buy the players from there. Carroll although improved showed the failure of clashing statistics taken from performances with another team, playing with a different approach and trying to force him into our style of play. That however doesn't mean as a young player HE can not adapt to a change in style which is what I believe we are seeing. Assuming that Kenny is given the trust next year in the market; we have to make additions based on what our playing style needs to improve not what the stats say are missing.
Could be true about the crosses, but then a Prozone study showed that in the Erdedivise teams headed the ball on average 75 times per game: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/pitchequip/cs_dutch_technical_study_37436.pdf So it doesn't seem all that hard to win 40 headers a game! I do also wonder about the causality of these stats. Do teams that try to put lots of crosses in tend to win games, or do better teams that win games just put lots of crosses in as a consequence of being so good? Also with the regains - is that the team being great at winning the ball back, or just the opponents being **** and giving it away in dangerous areas? The whole Moneyball thing seems a bit akin to saying "rich people all take holidays in Barbados, I'm going to go there on holiday next year so I can get rich". I was saying to RHC at the weekend - what Liverpool really need is a strategy to get all the players playing in a way that will actually win games. Work out an approach and stick to it, whether it's pass and move, fast counter attacks, plenty of crosses, aggressive pressing and regaining or whatever. Cos at the moment you seem to be trying to do everything at once and it just isn't getting you results.
Once again, I agree. But I feel whilst this is painfully obvious to seasoned football watchers, to an American group new to football, they could buy into this thing from someone like Comolli (who I hear is quite silver tongued and very much able to bend people to his line of thinking) and thus get them onboard. It's my current belief that the owners have grown savvy to this after their time at the club and come around to Kenny's methods rather than Comolli's - hence his removal and the search for a new DoF, who I'm assuming, will be more in line with kenny's footballing philosophy. The proof of this theory will be how we play next and I think that's where yours and RHC's discussion will come into play - we'll see what our true strategy is and if I were a betting man, I'd put money on us knocking in less than 30 crosses average per game for the next 7 matches, probably a narrower formation and more emphasis on keeping the ball short and always moving.
Very interesting theories and exactly why I've always thought football and stats are a marriage made in hell. A player can have a 90% tackle success rate but if the one tackle he misses every game results in a pen then he's ****ing useless right I've never cared what a players stats are as I use my eyes to work out whether a player is any use not some post match spreadsheet. The only stat that matters is goals scored vs goals conceded and thus it always shall be this is why I win fantasy leagues don't ya know
Moneyball will not work in Soccer, I mean football. Baseball is another matter, average runs ect but football is far more fluid and there are far far more variables than in a baseball game
Everyone knows stats can be chosen to "prove" whatever you set out to prove. It's a stupid way to plan football strategy imo and if Comolli was influencing player choice and style then I'm glad he's gone. You can sling in 50 crosses per game, but if you've no-one in the box it's a waste of time. You can regain possession as many times as you like, but if there's no-one who can score then it means nothing. I've said repeatedly football is not about the best players, but the best team, and it's because there are so many variables that it's the fascinating game that it is. I think managing a successful team is an art, not a science. Anything that assists managers is worth looking at, but trying to distil the game down to a few bare statistics is futile.
The only statistics I know is that the team that score more goals and concede less goals usually win the match.Any other fotball theory does not work.
IMO DoF and Owners etc should have no say on tactics, team selection etc. The manager should report to them regularly as its there investestment/ work involved, but they should not interfere. But our owners will learn.
ok so here is the problem with this. Whats the conclusion? Are you saying comolli was picking the team? There's a mashing together of thoughts and strands here.... as per mr tomkins his mate is similarly wedded to making up stats and Stats are fine once they ar ein context and factual. The far more pressing facts of this case are that kenny laid claim to every sinlge player, the fact remains our midifled and attack lines have been dirt all year really, and the lack of true cover was exposed as well. Now simply put all the stats and theory in the world don't explain that, nor do they explain why fsg removed comolli so abruptly. Without those pertenant data points feeding into the big picutre I find this over simplification fo the issues at hand... IE a very poor conversion rate and far too few wins at home.
Some thing I'll point out is.... I wasnt born when Kenny was in charge before. But I remember some one analysing his tactics now to tactics then on the old 606. They spoke about our midfield at the time. -Meireles-Lucas-Spearing-Maxi- Centre mid-centre mid-centre mid-wide man They did have an image of Kennys midfield from before, which I dont have. But it went: centre mid-centre mid-centre mid-wide man Obviously I am going by a 606 users word here, this is not my own researched knowledge. But it fits our current midfield. Henderson-Lucas-Gerrard-Downing Centre mid-centre mid-centre mid-wide man So by that, signings were all Kenny's tactical choice.
Well i don't think it was quite that simple but it was dependant on the game and who's available and such. You see back before the big bang, you know the time when only ferguson existed... pre 92 you know... .... well there we tpositions that players had that were really nothing like today. No not that WM malarchy, that was in the bible or somehting like adam and eve... no i am talking about a right midfielder as distinct form a right WINGER. Lets look at two such players. Craig johnson and ray houghton. Now in no way could with be construde as a right winger.. not really. but you can see the type of game both had in spades. On the other wing then obviously there was a really out and out winger in jonh barnes. Grobs nicol Hanson Lawro Belign (for example) Houghton Molby Mcmahon Barnes Beardsley aldo I am firmly of the opinion that if kenny said he picked the guys to sign then he's steightofrward and he did in fact choose them. I am also of the opinion that despite what a baseball movies and stats say a fluid game like football needs more than simple raw stats to get things right. We needed to completely replace a lot of dross, we lost lucas for the majority of the yea, gerrard for the same and suarez for 9 matches too. in the end we could not afford that with the squad we had and too much was expected of average but decent squad players we built up. downing was a big dissappointment of course... in the end no matter what the moneyball theory is comolli is not the root cause of 8th in the table. Kenny and the players have not done well enough but equally it was always alwyas unreasonbale to expect 4th. we should be 5th or 6th, we are 8th. in the end next year needs to be 4th.
We're all just guessing here, of course, but if the owners are unhappy and they sack Comolli, then logic suggests they consider him responsible for their unhappiness- at least in part. Therefore, he must have had a significant input into either the players we have or the way we employ them. If the players are decent but they are under-performing, that is the responsibility of the manager and senior coaches. For FSG to show Comolli the door and not Kenny suggests to me that they think the fault lies with whatever he was doing. As far as I can see the club seems to be being run fairly well off the pitch at the moment, the problem is with some of the results. Why sack someone if he isn't responsible for that?
saint. i would have to agree given what warner said. he's not the guy to take the project forward.... either the signings to come were not right or the past was not right. I really really do not think kenny would have allowed and players would not have kept quiet about comolli. I honeslty do not think comolli was down at the ground suggesting who played. I have to wonder if comolli got a list of no 1 no 2 and no 3 preferences and then picked up who he could off that list... ws he not getting the strucutre right in scouting, was there an issue up coming.... OR did he come to FSG and tell hem he was off to PSG or somewhere and they let him go but said they sacked him... I guess we need to hear what comolli is doing now don't we.... for all we know his family wante dot be in france and he chucked it in... god knows.
And yet Comolli was the one fired, which is the same point Saint is picking up on. We don't know what goes on behind Liverpool anymore, nothing leaks out, we can only go on what we see. We saw the team underperforming which is typically the managers fault, and yet the manager was given a glowing reference and full confidence yet the DoF was fired before the season was up. I understand the idea that Kenny backed the players and said he wanted them, but given how he's defended the players all season through thick and think, what else was he going to say? "Yes, I didn't want henderson/carroll/adam/downing, they were Comolli's signings"? That's not going to get anything out of them, particularly with the FA cup final coming up, and just drops their value IF he wanted to put them in the market this summer. Kenny HAS to support them and show faith in them. His comments were a no-brainer. Of course, like mentioned by other people, this is largely guess work but it's logical guess work. There is no conclusion here MITO. It's not a factual article, it's a discussion based on a theory which will be proved/disproved based on the next seven games largely and how we progress into the next season. I'm not (and neither is the article) saying Comolli picked the team every week, I'm saying it's a possibility that he was influencing our style of play and restricting Kenny in order to fit his philosphy of football. It's an open discussionb based on logic and stats, not a "Here's what happened" being shoved down your face article.
