http://unorthodoxcoaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/blinded-by-stats-do-you-actually-know.html
|
Keeper
|
Comp
|
H/A
|
Opposition
|
Result
|
Score
|
Target
|
Poss
|
CBs
|
|
Caballero
|
PL
|
Home
|
Sunderland
|
W
|
2-1
|
3
|
77
|
Stones, Kolarov
|
|
Caballero
|
CL
|
Away
|
Steaua
|
W
|
0-5
|
2
|
71
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Caballero
|
PL
|
Away
|
Stoke
|
W
|
1-4
|
3
|
58
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Hart
|
CL
|
Home
|
Steaua
|
W
|
1-0
|
3
|
62
|
Stones, Kolarov
|
|
Caballero
|
PL
|
Home
|
West
Ham
|
W
|
3-1
|
2
|
67
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
Man Utd
|
W
|
1-2
|
3
|
60
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
CL
|
Home
|
‘Gladbach
|
W
|
4-0
|
1
|
56
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Home
|
Bournemouth
|
W
|
4-0
|
2
|
64
|
Otamendi,
Kolarov
|
|
Caballero
|
CC
|
Away
|
Swansea
|
W
|
1-2
|
4
|
60
|
Stones,
Kompany
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
Swansea
|
W
|
1-3
|
5
|
58
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
CL
|
Away
|
Celtic
|
D
|
3-3
|
3
|
61
|
Kolarov,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
Spurs
|
L
|
2-0
|
7
|
58
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Home
|
Everton
|
D
|
1-1
|
2
|
73
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo (R)
|
CL
|
Away
|
Barcelona
|
L
|
0-4
|
7
|
47
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Home
|
Southampton
|
D
|
1-1
|
2
|
65
|
Kompany, Stones
|
|
Caballero
|
CC
|
Away
|
Man Utd
|
L
|
1-0
|
2
|
52
|
Otamendi,
Kompany
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
West
Brom
|
W
|
0-4
|
1
|
70
|
Otamendi,
Stones
|
|
Caballero
|
CL
|
Home
|
Barcelona
|
W
|
3-1
|
2
|
35
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Home
|
Middlesboro
|
D
|
1-1
|
3
|
71
|
Kolarov, Stones
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
Palace
|
W
|
1-2
|
2
|
62
|
Kompany,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
CL
|
Away
|
‘Gladback
|
D
|
1-1
|
5
|
69
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
Burnley
|
W
|
1-2
|
5
|
67
|
Kolarov,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Home
|
Chelsea
|
L
|
1-3
|
4
|
61
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Caballero
|
CL
|
Home
|
Celtic
|
D
|
1-1
|
6
|
57
|
Clichy,
Adarabioyo
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
Leicester
|
L
|
4-2
|
6
|
78
|
Stones, Kolarov
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Home
|
Watford
|
W
|
2-0
|
2
|
63
|
Kolarov,
Otamendi
|
|
Barvo
|
PL
|
Home
|
Arsenal
|
W
|
2-1
|
1
|
61
|
Kolarov,
Otamendi
|
|
Caballero
|
FA
|
Away
|
West
Ham
|
W
|
0-5
|
2
|
67
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
Everton
|
L
|
4-0
|
4
|
71
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Home
|
Spurs
|
D
|
2-2
|
2
|
55
|
Kolarov,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
Hull
|
W
|
0-3
|
3
|
67
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Away
|
Liverpool
|
L
|
1-0
|
1
|
57
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
PL
|
Home
|
Burnley
|
W
|
2-1
|
3
|
55
|
Kolarov,
Otamendi
|
|
Caballero
|
FA
|
Away
|
Palace
|
W
|
0-3
|
3
|
63
|
Kolarov,
Kompany
|
|
Caballero
|
PL
|
Away
|
West
Ham
|
W
|
0-4
|
1
|
70
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Caballero
|
PL
|
Home
|
Swansea
|
W
|
2-1
|
2
|
69
|
Stones, Kolarov
|
|
Caballero
|
PL
|
Away
|
Bournemouth
|
W
|
0-2
|
1
|
62
|
Stones, Kolarov
|
|
Bravo
|
FA
|
Away
|
Huddersfield
|
D
|
0-0
|
3
|
63
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Caballero
|
CL
|
Home
|
Monaco
|
W
|
5-3
|
6
|
67
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Bravo
|
FA
|
Home
|
Huddersfield
|
W
|
5-1
|
2
|
66
|
Stones,
Otamendi
|
|
Caballero
|
PL
|
Away
|
Sunderland
|
W
|
0-2
|
3
|
71
|
Kolarov,
Stones
|
|
Caballero
|
PL
|
Home
|
Stoke
|
D
|
0-0
|
2
|
65
|
Kolarov,
Otamendi
|
Many would say that Man City are definitely missing the presence of
Vincent Kompany. Probably, but hard to prove conclusively. We'll examine what we can prove.
|
|
Goals
|
Shots
|
Possession
|
Points per game
|
Shots per game
|
Goals per game
|
Shots per goal
|
|
M City
Av
|
45
|
129
|
65.23%
|
1.92
|
3.077
|
1.154
|
2.866
|
|
PL Av
|
31
|
75
|
65%
|
2.037
|
2.777
|
1.148
|
2.419
|
|
Otamendi
|
33
|
92
|
62.031%
|
2.063
|
2.875
|
1.031
|
2.788
|
|
Otamendi
PL
|
21
|
55
|
66.421%
|
2.21
|
2.895
|
1.105
|
2.62
|
|
Bravo
|
34
|
83
|
71.727%
|
2
|
3.773
|
1.55
|
2.441
|
|
Bravo
PL
|
25
|
58
|
71.125%
|
2
|
3.625
|
1.563
|
2.32
|
|
Caballero
|
11
|
44
|
63%
|
2.56
|
2.75
|
0.688
|
4
|
|
Caballero
PL
|
4
|
17
|
67%
|
2.714
|
2.429
|
0.571
|
4.25
|
The stand out stats here are that Man City have a lot more possession when
Bravo is playing, and that it takes more shots on target to beat Caballero than
it does to beat Bravo. After seven appearances. Cabellero has won six Premier
League games and drawn one, conceding just 0.571 goals on average per game.
That's very good. Perhaps Man City didn't need to bring in Bravo, just to
promote Caballero.
Comparing the two goalkeepers, why is it that they allow more Shots
against Bravo than they do against Caballero? It's about one extra shot per
game. And with the possession stats, the opposition is often looking at less
than 30% of the ball when Bravo is in goal. With Bravo in goal, Man City are
still managing two points per game, which is very good. With Caballero, it's
much higher. With the extra possession earned by Bravo, and the one less shot
per game, why are Man City picking up less points with Bravo in goal than with
Caballero? We'd have to see where Man City are losing the ball, and what the
opposition's route to goal is to be able to understand that.
|
|
Goals
|
Shots
|
Possession
|
Points per game
|
Shots per game
|
Goals per game
|
Shots per goal
|
|
Bravo +
Otamendi
|
29
|
68
|
68.15%
|
2.05
|
3.4
|
1.45
|
2.345
|
|
Caballero
without Otamendi
|
3
|
19
|
65.6%
|
2.6
|
3.8
|
0.6
|
6.3
|
Bravo + Otamendi gives us a sample size of 20 games, and Caballero
without Otamendi gives us a sample size of 5 games. not conclusive, but it is
starting to suggest something. I believe many would agree with Caballero in
goal and a fit Kompany, or a new world class defender, and Man City are doing a
lot better. Much like the WSL table earlier in the piece, we can compare Man
City and Chelsea at the top of the table. Chelsea have conceded 20 goals from
27 games, which is far better than Man City. They've scored a few more, but
conceded a lot less. Stop the leak at the back, and Man City will be fine. Do
you think Guardiola is too stupid to realise that?
Well, many people accuse him of being stubborn. Wouldn't you be stubborn
if you'd won what he's won? Many people are stubborn having achieved absolutely
nothing in their life. Check out this article. Pep
Guardiola: I got things wrong but I have adapted to life in England. Hardly the
words of a stubborn man. People have been acting as if City have been dreadful
this season. Actually, aren't they doing better than last season? They've
progressed well in the FA Cup and Champions League, and are a place or two
above their previous league position. There's still a way to go yet.
***It's time for an admission. After originally writing and publishing
this piece, it turns out the final version had bits missing (it was too big to
save, and is now in two separate articles). I've had to go over some of it
again, but at least it's given me a chance to address some more stats. Since
writing this, Man City played against Middlesbrough in the FA Cup. They won 2-0
with Bravo and Otamendi. I was trying to show that's perhaps not the best
combo. That now makes City undefeated in their last eleven games. Otamendi and
Bravo have only played together in three of those eleven games. There's not
enough in there to suggest I'm right, but there is a little something. What
else that comes out of this is that there's very little praise in the English
media about such a run. Pep is stubborn and Man City aren't brilliant.
This creates a confirmation bias. We would (not me) like to see
Guardiola fail because it confirms our idea of English supremacy. We have the
best league in the world, and here comes a foreigner with these different ideas
to ours, who thinks he's all that. It's sickening. People accuse him of only
winning because he had the best players at Barcelona. He's admitted that many
times. The media salivate after a City loss, prodding Guardiola to admit that the
Premier League has defeated him, and that his success with Barcelona and Bayern
was just smoke and mirrors. Please Pep, tell us our league is great.
Here is some of the rubbish spouted by journalists in opinion pieces:
Fair and balanced response or sensationalist and provoking?
It’s clear that many want him to fail. I’ve touched before on why he’s
brilliant, and why people shouldn’t underestimate him, but still do, even
devoting an entire article to it. In regards to Pep’s supposed Stubborness,
he’s been playing Caballero a lot more recently. Hardly the actions of someone
that is stubborn. Pep has to find a balance between sticking with an idea because
it’s a transitional period and it will take time, and also watching, waiting,
anticipating… SAY IT AIN’T SO, CLAUDIO BRAVO, TURN THE LIGHTS OFF, CARRY ME
HOME
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
At what point does it become apparent it’s not working? At what point is
it no longer part of the process? Do you want my opinion? The opinion of a
journalist with no playing or coaching experience that may be instructed to
write provoking articles to sell papers? Our thoughts on this matter are
irrelevant. Sure, we can all be guilty of holding on too long to something we
believe (often hope) is right. It’s why we give those we like more second
chances than those we don’t. It’s why some are suggesting that Klopp is getting
less grief than Deluded Brendan, despite having similar records. We like Klopp.
Klopp says funny things. It’s almost moronic. Pep wants to win. He’s shown
before he can change and adapt. Two Champions League titles, keeping Real
Madrid in second place despite their huge budget, continuing Bayern’s run of
successive Bundesligas following their monumental treble season. We have this
idea that it would be easy to continue that good work because of the base that
he had to build on. We also know it’s not true. When confronted with these two
conflicting beliefs, it creates cognitive dissonance. We can either assimilate
and re-evaluate, or let our biases shine through and betray our true selves.
Anyway.
We cannot do a comparison of Hart v Bravo that will definitively prove
which one is better. They have both played for Man City in 2016, but for
different managers in different systems, with different roles. We can look at
some individual stats from the last year, but must keep in mind that these were
not under the same conditions. It's like trying to determine who is faster by
measuring one's speed across an 80m track, uphill, with the wind behind them,
in the rain, versus one's speed across 100m, downhill, but with the wind
against them, and not wearing running shoes. There's not enough constants
between the two of them to make it entirely relevant.
I know that’s what many of you came here to read. There is, however, a
very good article from the Manchester Evening News. It’s a Catalan journalist with experience of watching both Man City and Barca,
stating that they are both good keepers with plenty of success, though he feels
Bravo is better than Hart. Not conclusive proof either way. This was before the
start of the season. There’s an even better article from Give Me Sport which
analyses to two keepers from last season. It looks at three parts of their game; keeping, distribution, and errors, and
concludes that Bravo wins in all three areas. But this is comparing title
winning Barca to fourth place Man City. The stats may be true, though how much
relevance they hold is questionable.
This one has a bit more satire to it as it blames Bravo for Brexit, such
is the reaction of some fans. This article makes a comparison between Hart and Bravo, but you’ll know
by now that it holds little relevance, as they are playing for different teams
in different leagues, under different managers in different systems. Too many
different variables to be able to make a compelling comparison.
Opta Stats released by the BBC does a comparison of Bravo looking at the
goals that have been scored against him, versus the goals he should have saved.
They call it expected goals. In that regard, only three Premier League keepers
are performing worse.
|
Rank
|
Keeper/club
|
Expected goals conceded
|
Actual goals conceded
|
Additional goals conceded
|
|
19/23
|
Fraser Forster (Southampton)
|
19.7
|
26
|
6.3
|
|
20/23
|
Claudio Bravo (Man City)
|
16.3
|
23
|
6.7
|
|
21/23
|
Lukasz Fabianski (Swansea)
|
42.2
|
49
|
6.8
|
|
22/23
|
Ron-Robert Zieler (Leicester)
|
7.7
|
16
|
8.3
|
|
23/23
|
David Marshall (Hull)
|
26.3
|
37
|
9.7
|
That same article uses Opta Stats to look at Hart’s expected goals versus
those of Bravo.
|
Claudio Bravo
|
2016-17
|
Joe Hart
|
|
1620
|
Minutes played
|
1620
|
|
57
|
On target shots faced
|
81
|
|
16.3
|
Expected goals conceded
|
24.5
|
|
23
|
Actual goals conceded
|
23
|
|
6.7 conceded
|
Additional goals prevented/conceded
|
1.5 prevented
|
This is perhaps the most accurate measure so far. There is a formula
used by the statisticians to work out what an expected goal is. Now we see a
swing of eight goals more or less. Speaking hypothetically, if we could choose
those eight goals, minus four from Everton’s 4-0 win, minus one from Spurs 2-2
draw, and minus three from Chelsea’s 3-1 win, and City have an extra six
points. Title rivals Spurs have one less, and title rivals Chelsea have three
less.
|
Position
|
Team
|
Played
|
GD
|
Points
|
|
1
|
Chelsea
|
27
|
34
|
63
|
|
2
|
Man City
|
27
|
32
|
62
|
|
3
|
Spurs
|
27
|
32
|
55
|
|
Such a hypothetical table now has Man City just
one point off top. We could perhaps manipulate those eight goals into other
games. Wasting four goals on Everton when we could have picked four games
when they conceded once and either drew or lost, like Southampton (1-1),
Everton (1-1), Liverpool (1-0) and Boro (1-1) that’s an extra seven points,
which would put them on 63 points, and take the other four goals from Chelsea
and Spurs, to keep those results, Man City would be joint on points at the
top, with one embarrassing 4-0 defeat to Everton. It’s a shade better, but
now we’re just getting silly with these hypotheticals.
Still, we’re a little closer to the direct
comparison we require in order to have a conclusive view one way or the
other.
So what’s the point in Claudio Bravo? We all know
he was bought for his distribution, as this Mirror article shows: They can both pass almost perfectly over short distances, with Bravo being at
99% and Hart being at 97%. Over long distances, Bravo makes 49% completion,
to Hart’s 33%. Now we’re seeing a clear advantage. For percentage of long
passes, Bravo goes long 51% of the time, and Hart goes long 75% of the time.
To fully understand what this means requires just a tad more math.
Judging by what types of pass they make, and how
successful they are, I provide a pass completion rate of:
Bravo 72.5 %
Hart 35%
That’s quite substantial. Hart goes long more,
and loses the ball more. But again, how valid of a comparison this is, is
unknown as it was two different teams in two different leagues. The next step
would be to look at goals scored when they are on the pitch, and compare it
to possession levels. The variables to consider here make the time consuming
effort just not worth it. We could look at how many goals are scored when
each keeper is on the pitch, and even if the league, opposition, manager etc.
were the same, it would still give us only a weak idea of how much each
keeper contributes.
We can say with some certainty that both
Caballero and Hart are saving more than Bravo, but also that Bravo gives the ball
away less. Which one you value more depends on how you want to play. We also
know that Bravo is not a bad keeper, perhaps just having a bad season.
Players do that. New team, country, language, league. How many of us have
ever done something like that? Add in that you are replacing the national
team’s goalkeeper, and a club hero. Those are big gloves to fill. The
psychological factor is even harder to measure, so it just becomes
speculation.
Realistically, when comparing the goalkeepers as
we’ve done in this article, how many people have had access to such numbers?
The truth is, we all do. I’ve got these from easily accessible websites like
Premier League, Sky Sports, Man City, ESPN, BBC. It’s not some hard to find
corner of the internet run by stat nerds. So when most people are making a
case, what are they actually basing it on? And when someone does bring a stat
to a rhetoric fight, do they even know how to use it? The importance of
stats, or the importance we place upon certain stats, can blind us. Like
shots on target, pass completion, save percentage, unless you go deeper and
get into the real nitty gritty, such figures tell us very little.
This is definitely the case in politics over the
last few years. When something happens, it’s amazing the amount of different
views that suddenly pop up from people that read the same article, or viewed
the same programme. It’s often a case of selective hearing (or reading) that
we place more importance on what supports our views, and disregard that which
conflicts our views. If you want to be successful, surround yourself with
people of different opinions, who can provide other perspectives (so long as
they’re not “alternative facts”). “I’ve never learned anything from a man who
agreed with me” said the American politician Dudley Field Malone. We’re all
guilty of surrounding ourselves with those that agree with us (echo chambers)
and can then become annoyed about things that aren’t even a reality (THEY TOOK
ER JERBS!!!)
I don’t wish to become political, but since Nigel
Farage is actually insignificant into what he brings to politics or British
society in general, I feel I can provide such an example while remaining
impartial. After the new president vaguely alluded to something which
happened in Sweden, his number one toad faced fan had to try to provide some
weight to the claim. Honest Nigel was quoted as saying “Pro rata, Sweden has taken more young male
migrants than any other country in Europe and there has been a dramatic rise
in sexual crime in Sweden, so much so that Malmö is now the rape capital of
Europe and some argue even the rape capital of perhaps the world and it is
the Swedish media who, frankly, just don’t report it.”
It turns out that
sexual assault has not increased in Sweden. It’s just that they’ve changed
the way that they have reported it. A football analogy would be that the ball
doesn’t just have to go into the net to be a goal, but for it to have entered
the opposition’s six yard box. As such, a lot more goals would be scored.
Facts and perspective don’t really matter too much when you’re trying to push
an agenda and create some kind of political relevance for yourself. We all
have a mate like Nigel, who just wants to be accepted as intelligent, witty,
creative, and even thoughtful. These are the kind of people that will try to
blind us with irrelevant stats.
Below are news
articles covering the story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-sweden-rape-comments-criticised-donald-trump-immigration_uk_58ac01b4e4b07028b7036683
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3022743/sweden-malmo-immigration-nigel-farage-ylva-johansson-rape-statistics-u-turn/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-sweden-donald-trump-rape-capital-of-europe-refugees-malmo-why-wrong-debunked-claim-a7591636.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39056786 https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/this-swedish-criminologist-says-nigel-farage-is-talking-nons?utm_term=.hiwxV1DX2#.msOP6Ml5q http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4285628/Swedish-minister-makes-u-turn-sex-attack-statistics.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/20/what-statistics-say-about-immigration-and-sweden/ – Your least biased
source is always Politifact. They are not interested in sensationalism, fear
mongering, party preference etc. They just want to distinguish between true
and untrue. The level of detail they go into is a level of detail not many of
us go to when discussing such issues.
It's interesting to
see which news outlets focus on which aspects, and why they might do so.
Football fans are the same. We might dislike a team, manager, or player, due
to silly things like their haircut, facial expressions, celebrations, or the
way their bum sticks out when they run. These are all silly and arbitrary. We
search and search for when they do something wrong, and when they inevitably
do, we use it as justification for why we dislike them. Often, it’s the
opinion that comes first, then we find the facts to suit our agenda.
When being blinded,
we do look for what suits us. We don’t want to be wrong, and this guides our
process. There exists a website that searches out spurious correlations. Below are
some examples.
 
Do you really think
that Nicholas Cage movies have any effect on people drowning in pools? With
such a pretty graph, we could make a convincing case to many people. There’s
far more on there, and they simply become ridiculous. Is this what
politicians do? Is it what football fans do?
When watching
football, we often do it for social reasons. We enjoy the company of others,
and the feeling of belonging when OUR group of overpaid millionaires we’ve
never met performs better than THEIR group of overpaid millionaires we’ve
never met. Some amazing feeling overwhelms us when our South American who can’t
speak the language, had never heard of our town, and didn’t even know our
team existed, scores past their African that had also never heard of their
town, and only went to that club because he couldn’t get a move to his preferred
destination. “I can’t explain it” is a response given by football fans when
questioned about their tribal behaviours. Well, actually, we can explain it.
We like success, we like belonging, and we like a purpose. We also actively
seek out and trade with what’s known as social currency. Being right, or
appearing to hold more information, is a form of social currency. "Dave got
all five right on his accumulator. Dave’s a top bloke who knows his stuff." Imagine the look on Dave’s face after reading that. All the other blokes now
look up to Dave, and wish to emulate Dave’s success. What about Darren? Well
Darren read the Sunday papers and found a stat that he believes is going to
prove him right about his opinions in regards to something or other. The
others marvel at Darren recalling the figure, and think that he may be onto
something. Suspense builds as the lads wait to see if his bet will come in.
With football being
such a random and nuanced game, the only black and white is the score. The
rest of it is so grey. We can quite easily, and with utter vagueness, argue
that the other team won, but our team played better. That’s an honest assessment
there. Admitting defeat and claiming superiority. We love a bit of that. It’s
like a humble brag, or an honest put down. We should have won because we had
ten corners. Our top defender was injured. The referee missed a clear foul in
the build-up to the goal. Whenever you add a “but”, it takes away from the
first part of the sentence. “You may have won, but” suddenly throws into
question the validity of the win. It means the win wasn’t a true win. Not by
the speaker’s undefined and obscure parameters, nonetheless. And since humans
are loss averse, we use stats to hide our own deficiencies. It’s a mask. We
try to blind the listener to the reality. It’s about not looking stupid. Not
truly accepting defeat.
A long running
biased opinion was that Man Utd always got penalties at Old Trafford. They
did. This was a fact. We tried to use this as a way to say that referees or
the FA were biased. There are also correlations that show Man Utd had more
50/50 decisions given to them at home (like a lot of home teams). We couldn’t
truly accept United’s dominance, and so had to discredit them. We couldn’t
accept we had been beaten, so had to claw back some credibility. There are
examples, like Louis Saha’s volleyball assist to Paul Scholes in the added
time of added time at Ewood Park. Those things do happen. But why did Man Utd
get more penalties? They went into the opposition’s box more times. That
alone is enough. Also, their fast and tricky attackers were exposed to clumsy
defenders that had been given instructions to get stuck in. What would
normally happen in such a situation?
When coaching or
managing, we often have to make snap judgements. Inexperience or lack of
knowledge can show very quickly. The only way to remedy that is to keep
gaining experience and knowledge. You’re not born to succeed. You’re born to
suffer for eighty years and then die. Anyone who is successful at what they
do has built a skill set that enables them to manipulate situations to their
advantage. We, as coaches, need to know what instructions to give, how to
give them, what the pros and cons are, and weigh up the risk and reward. The
only time we can stop and think is at half-time. If your keeper gets sent-off
in the first twenty minutes, now what? THINK THINK THINK!!!
Knowledge is
remembering in disguise, telling us that expert decision making comes from
experience. You start off by beginning to assess which variables are
important, and start to switch your focus mainly to them. Our brains adapt to
the stimuli, and we become adept at sieving through what’s necessary. We can
begin to make snap judgements using only the necessary information. Malcolm
Gladwell’s Blink is an excellent book that talks a lot about being blinded by
information, or not knowing which the relevant variables are. What do you
actually need to know, and how much of that is important enough for you to be
able to do your job? Information overload is blinding.
I’ll provide one
example to toot my own horn. Any ex-players reading this will be able to
provide countless examples of when I got it wrong. Last season, with
Southampton Saints Ladies Reserves, in the Women’s Premier League, we were
playing against bottom of the league, Chichester City. They were having a
woeful season. Even worse than us. The game started and we flew into a 2-0
lead. It looked inevitable that we would build on this and score plenty more.
As the half wore on, our right back and right wing were flagging. One was ill,
and one was injured. We had two subs, that were U16s that had just played an
exhausting cup match that morning. What were we to do?
To my assistant and
I, it was obvious. The two players could not continue, and had to be
replaced. The team fought the decision. They were not happy. It would mean no
subs for the rest of the game, playing with two fatigued players, and with
one of them being vastly out of position. It was somewhat of a gamble. To me,
it really was quite straight forward. I couldn’t get why they were so opposed
to the decision. The captain tried to get us to compromise. Play them for
another ten or fifteen minutes and see how it goes, then make the changes.
The compromise wasn’t good enough. It would only work if we did it now.
What was difficult
for them was obvious for us. We had information that they did not. While they
were out on the field playing, they had not noticed the behaviour of our two
U16 subs. They were bouncing off the walls. Hyperactive following their
important victory and fifteen bottles of Lucozade. While the rest of the team
was worried if they had the energy to play again, we were concerned with
getting them to shut up and sit still.
It was also obvious
that Chichester had no real attacking threat, and had only scored because we
were essentially playing with nine players. It wouldn’t matter if one of them
was out of position. What mattered is having eleven able bodies on the pitch.
Another factor, obvious yet neglected, was that this was a team that was used
to winning. They weren’t mentally strong enough to mount a comeback unless we
handed it to them by handicapping ourselves by playing the way we were. If we
were to score another goal to go 3-1 up, there was no way they were going to
turn that around. They were frail. And we were quality at defending with our
backs to the wall.
It was also an
advantage that our two U16s were brilliant players, who both very soon moved
into the first team. Using that, one could make a case that they were two of
the best players on the pitch. It hardly sounds like we’re weakening the team
now with such a double substitution. With the energy and skill, all we needed
was a good first fifteen or twenty minutes. Then we could die. At that point,
we’d have re-established our two goal lead, and Chichester wouldn’t have long
enough to feasibly win the game. The U16s were hyper and good players. Why
not chuck them on?
Now you’re
desperate to know what happened. Of course, we restarted the second half
well, scoring after twenty minutes. The two subs combined for the goal. A
one-two down the right, and a shot from distance that went over the keeper
and into the net. A brilliant goal. And smugness ensued. I probably wasn’t as
smug as I should have been, because I was hiding it from the world. But I was
smug. That killed Chichester. They saw no way back. We went on to win 5-1.
The players were
distracted with the game, and they placed too much importance on the subs.
Substitutes are there to replace others when things aren’t working, usually
injury or fatigue. So we used them for their primary purpose. It’s just
because it was both of them, and earlier than tradition, that it started to
make the players panic. They were blinded by stats. They were absolutely
right in their assumptions, which clouded their judgement, and they were
missing one vital piece of information. THE GIRLS WERE HYPER. Good, young,
fit players, with bags of glucose, and high arousal levels. How could anyone
have thought it would have ended badly given the opposition and what was
required of the game? My assistant and I saw no way that it was going to go
wrong. We needed that twenty-minute boost, and that was enough. We considered
only the information that was relevant, and we saw one clear path.
I still remind them
of it when I see them. I’m now across the coast at the rival club, so
obviously don’t see them as much. Still, it’s a great way to demonstrate
instinctive decision making, and how people in the same situation can have
such polarised views, and even that one bit of hidden information can be the
difference maker.
So to finally recap
all that’s been discussed in this piece.
Messi is better than Ronaldo. They have similar records, similar trophy
hauls, and have played in the same league at the same time for clubs of similar
stature with players of similar ability. That means we get to look at just
one important stat; Messi scores more important goals in more important
games. Ronaldo beats dead horses, Messi changes games.
The best league in Europe is La Liga. The Spanish teams win more against teams
from England and Germany. Spanish teams get further in European competition.
The latter stages of the Champions League and Europa League have repeatedly
been filled with Spanish teams. Several finals and semi-finals have been
competed between two Spanish clubs.
The Premier League is not the best. Certain cases can be made using certain
metrics, but it’s like having a better goal difference, despite having less
points. Where it really matters, the Premier League is behind Spain, and
similar to Germany.
It was not easy for Guardiola to win the
titles with the teams he’s had. It looks easy considering his points haul, but that’s more down to
their greatness rather than the inefficiencies of opponents. His dominance in
Spain and Germany was incredible. To finish above Real Madrid with their
spending and talent, and to win three successive titles with Bayern in such a
comprehensive way, is truly amazing. It’s not because the other teams aren’t
very good, that’s not true. Pep’s teams were just better.
Does the Premier League need a winter
break? Yes it
does. It would help our clubs in European competition, and also in
international tournaments. Premier League clubs do have a better head to head
against Bundesliga clubs in Europe, but such games are predominantly group
stage matches, i.e. before winter. English clubs play four extra league
games, are in two cup competitions, and will play far more games than German
teams, with no break in between. Currently, German teams are more successful
over the last five years than the English, yet we know the English win in
head-to-head. The English are great at the start and fade out at the end.
Perhaps with a winter break and less games, the Premier League sides won’t
have European success inhibited by fatigue.
The Premier League is slightly more
competitive in the
sense that there are more teams capable of winning it, and that title races
are often closer, but that does not by any means the quality of players or
teams is superior. As stated before, La Liga
is the best, and the Premier League is there or thereabouts with the
Bundesliga.
Claudio Bravo is not a bad keeper. He’s just having a below average season
in a new environment.
Joe Hart is not a better keeper than
Claudio Bravo. They’re
both excellent shotstoppers, both prone to mistakes, but Bravo is the better
all-round package.
Joe Hart playing for Man City this season
would not mean they would win the league. Having him in goal would change their style of play
dramatically, and so conclusive proof one way or the other is impossible. It’s
all hypothetical and alternate realities.
Willy Caballero may currently be the better
choice for Man City going
forward as they tend to do better with him in goal than Claudio Bravo. Form
is temporary, class is permanent. Caballero is doing well and Bravo is not.
This may change.
Guardiola is not stubborn, or at least none more so than any other
coach to have won countless trophies and revolutionised the way we view
football. He does change and he does adapt.
Now that you’re
aware of all this, and WHY, please do tell a friend. And be more responsible
in future when sharing stats. And don’t just pick stats based on which ones
agree with you. And question the validity of those stats. Watch football more
objectively. Recycle. Help your fellow man. And don’t perpetuate the nonsense
that clogs the game.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment