When Speakman, and Lee Johnson, first arrived at the club there was a lot of talk about the use of data analysis in football. Well, for anyone interested in the subject or for anyone who thinks that its complete nonsense, the BBC website has a good article about the founding father of data analysis in English football, Charles Reep, and the impact his work had on the game on the 1950s. The article doesn't mention it, but Reep was the first to use the term that disgusted so many from the lips of Lee Johnson, POMO- position of maximum opportunity. Here it is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/61648608
Interesting mate, enjoyed that. SAFC seems to consider everything that can improve us. I'm all for it providing the players aren't fed too much info.
Thanks for posting that, I didn't know he was so successful at certain clubs. It's an interesting subject when it's written like the article in plain English
I dont know what to make about the whole "Data" thing. I understand it's place in sport and when used and interpreted expertly it can do wonders. Billy Beane etc. I'm not against it, quite the reverse. In the cases where it's used to great effect it's bigger than the numbers. It leaks into decision making elsewhere. And that is ****ing marvellous. I just wonder how data convinced us to sack a manager without a replacement in sight or to sign an 74 year old striker who hadn't played first team football in years. Etc. They felt like aimless, weak decisions. When someone who clearly has their head screwed on starts talking about data it's scary for the opposition but when a moron starts talking about data it gets really terrifying. Lots of learning to be done if we are to solidify ourselves as the former.
This has got me curious now about something I will proper never find out. It appeared to me that Alex Neil has meticulous planning on tactics, style of play etc for each individual team and in some cases individual players in the opposition team. Which if I'm wrong ****s the whole point of my questions but hey ho. Is this done with the support of the data or is it watching games, scouting etc? Then are the players given dossiers to read up on or is it more "on the grass" type of stuff?
I do 'opposition analysis' (we just call it scouting but 'officially' its referred to as that to distinguish it from talent identification) for a non-league club and I'm working my way through the relevant badges/certificates with the PFSA so this is something that really interests me. We don't have the budget to use the data analysis software that is available so I can't go in to as much detail about certain things. When I provide my report to the manager, there are no bar graphs or pie charts in there but I do, depending on what the manager wants to know, collect data to inform what my report says. For example, I'll use tally charts to tell me certain things. It sounds really simple (and it is) but the courses I've done refer to that as 'data capture'. The players don't get a dossier, the manager just adjusts tactics based on whats in my report and that tactical info is given to the players during training. I've also got a close relative who, until a few weeks ago, was first team coach much further up the pyramid. Their 'opposition analysis' was more in depth than ours but it was still more 'on the grass' that the detail was got across to the players. One of my relative's jobs was to speak to players individually about their role, who they were marking/being marked by, what they needed to do, specifically for each game. I don't know what its like by the time you've got a full time staff doing data analysis everyday but that's my experience of it in non-league. From speaking to other people though, I think its less complicated and more practical than people imagine. I know that when it's used for signing players its used in conjunction with the old fashioned, flat cap, gut feeling, watching from the stands type scout, not just on its own.
Thanks for that insight, I really am behind the times with all this. It's easier when people talk properly rather than the sky "xg" "promo" type waffle. If they explained it better (and slower) I would probably listen more. This is going to send me down a Google wormhole now
I think people like to hide behind terminology because they think it makes them sound more intelligent. I suppose they want to keep some mystery around it too.
so what happens when you get data such as wycombes? iirc they were 'floundering around' at about 23rd for their stats yet won enough games to reach the play offs, it appeared as if they found a way of playing/winning games while looking sh1te on paper...pure luck or is ainsworth more of a tactician than we tend to give him credit for?
true, but then it depends on what you do while you have the ball, a team may only have 30% of the ball but if they pass the ball well and score they will have decent stats...from the data/stats it looked as if wycombe did not use the ball well at all.
I can't remember if those stats were only for things like possession, shots on goal, number of passes or if they included other things. If you look at average goals per game and average goals conceded per game, their stats are more consistent with their final league position. I can't claim to be an expert on the data collection done by pro clubs but the kind of stats that are published in match reports or are generally shown on TV are nothing like the numbers I use. Those things are of no help to me. So, I'd imagine it would be possible to show through some form of data the effectiveness of Wycombe's tactics.
Data is just raw information. The problem is that it's become the latest trend and people are determined to interpret each piece of data as either good or bad. The Wycombe stat is a prime example - because of Pep's great Barcelona team and the Spanish side of that era, people have wrongly concluded that more possession is always better.
I think this is the key point. Its the way the data is interpreted that matters. Data, in itself, won't tell you how good a team or player is, but it can be used to illustrate how good they are if it is presented in appropriate context.
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
Sometimes what looks like complicated data and its results isn't. In that teams are more likely to score when the opposition has not had time to get all its defenders back and into formation. Long balls over 'the top', with a speedy forward on the shoulder if a defender, will catch teams out and a good scoring opportunity will present itself. Similarly a ball given to a winger who runs to the byline and delivers a good cross is again a good scoring opportunity. Whilst the obverse also has an obvious outcome. Namely possession football as practiced by Barcelona and Man City. As teams keep the ball passing it around a packed defence looking for for an opening. 2 points come to mind, if you have the ball they cannot score, then of course lose the ball and you are vulnerable to a breakaway goal. Golf similarly has gone overboard with stats. However the simple ones are best, fairways and greens in regulation and putts made. For football, the team that scores most goals wins. Passes made and completed are good stats I reckon. Having a couple of prolific goalscorers and goalkeepers who keep clean sheets, are another good guide.
It's easy to collect a mountain of data, but then you have to have talented people to interpret it in a way that lets your coach use it effectively with lads who, let's face it, aren't usually the cleverest.
I think you're right, it is less complicated than people imagine. Things like possession and passes completed are really only for the television viewer, in my opinion, until they're put into greater context. When I'm putting together a match report, I might say, for example, that a goalkeeper usually kicks to the right hand side of the attacking third but that's just a general impression I've got from watching the game. However, if I keep a running tally of areas that the goalkeeper kicks to, I can be more confident that I've got a clear picture of that element of the game. There are various other aspects of the game that I can do a similar thing for; whether a winger cuts inside or goes outside, areas of the pitch in which a team wins back possession etc, etc. Because I have to watch games live and only rarely have access to video footage (and often don't have the time to watch any footage that I can access) I can't keep counts on every aspect of the game I might like to. I have to be selective. But, if you're doing it full time, have extensive video footage of several games, and have the latest software that helps you gather and collate the data, you can get a clear picture of how a team plays and, from that, work out things like xG and all of that other stuff.
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.
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.
