Football Stats

[sonlyme]

Who is this Romanian Messi of whom you speak?

Is it January?

Can I get a tenner on?

[paul_e]

I'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise.  But how can you tell, from distance covered alone,  whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space?  That stat doesn't give you any of that information.



     

As with all stats the numbers only give you an impression, the odds are someone who's covered 7miles in midfield will have been more productive in harrying the opposition and being available for passes than someone who's covered 5miles, if they also have more interceptions, more touches and more attempted passes then it backs it up further.  No stat is all that useful on it's own but as part of a selection of stats it can be part of a big picture.

[Dante Lavelli]

I'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise.  But how can you tell, from distance covered alone,  whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space?  That stat doesn't give you any of that information.
     

As with all stats the numbers only give you an impression, the odds are someone who's covered 7miles in midfield will have been more productive in harrying the opposition and being available for passes than someone who's covered 5miles, if they also have more interceptions, more touches and more attempted passes then it backs it up further.  No stat is all that useful on it's own but as part of a selection of stats it can be part of a big picture.

I think you’re both right here.  The stats or numbers on their own mean nothing.  It is only after analysis and comparison that any sort of information can be derived.

[Dante Lavelli]

This is an example of stats not providing much/any information (cut and paste from another thread):

Matthew Lowton has started his Aston Villa career strongly and highlighted just how strongly with a goal of the season contender against Swansea City on Saturday.

Villa fans will always welcome a goal from defence but the main concern will be that Lowton is doing his job at the back.

Here's a quick look at his stats so far...

Matthew Lowton has made 4 starts and played 360 minutes of football. He has made 10 interceptions and won 50% of his aerial duels.

He has made 11 clearances and won 79% of his tackles so far.

He has also contributed 147 passes of which only 6 were long balls. He has shown his willingness to get into attacking positions with 9 crosses and 3 clear chances created.

From those 147 passes he has a passing accuracy of 82%.

He has had two shots, both on target and one resulting in a devastating goal from outside the area.

[ktvillan]

I'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise.  But how can you tell, from distance covered alone,  whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space?  That stat doesn't give you any of that information.



     

As with all stats the numbers only give you an impression, the odds are someone who's covered 7miles in midfield will have been more productive in harrying the opposition and being available for passes than someone who's covered 5miles, if they also have more interceptions, more touches and more attempted passes then it backs it up further.  No stat is all that useful on it's own but as part of a selection of stats it can be part of a big picture.

"The odds are"?  Hardly a convincing argument.  There is no reliable correlation between distance covered and what you are claiming can be deduced from it.   A player could be a headless chicken running around in circles all day.  The stats on interceptions, touches, and attempted passes will tell you something about his contribution and involvement re the overall play - but why does it matter if he made his contribution whilst covering 3 km or 10 km? I'm still unconvinced that distance covered adds any  further useful information.   

[paul_e]

I'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise.  But how can you tell, from distance covered alone,  whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space?  That stat doesn't give you any of that information.



     

As with all stats the numbers only give you an impression, the odds are someone who's covered 7miles in midfield will have been more productive in harrying the opposition and being available for passes than someone who's covered 5miles, if they also have more interceptions, more touches and more attempted passes then it backs it up further.  No stat is all that useful on it's own but as part of a selection of stats it can be part of a big picture.

"The odds are"?  Hardly a convincing argument.  There is no reliable correlation between distance covered and what you are claiming can be deduced from it.   A player could be a headless chicken running around in circles all day.  The stats on interceptions, touches, and attempted passes will tell you something about his contribution and involvement re the overall play - but why does it matter if he made his contribution whilst covering 3 km or 10 km? I'm still unconvinced that distance covered adds any  further useful information.   

That's the point though, against a decent team you need to cover more ground to make those interceptions, touches, passes, etc.  At lower levels you'll see similar results for those stats but the distance covered will be lower, as the quality goes up so  does the required work rate to make an impact.  The days of great players being lazy and then lighting up with the ball are long gone, all of the top players (except central defenders and goalkeepers who need to be much more disciplined positionally) in world football currently (except for maybe Ibrahimovic, which is why there is debate about him being included) are hard workers.  If you're static you'll struggle to have an impact on the game, I can't believe anyone can watch football and not see how important fitness and work rate are, distance covered is the most reliable stat to measure this.  Distance covered measures your physical capability to play and the other stats mentioned then measure your techincal ability to use that capability to effect the game, they are irrefutably linked and both are required to make it at the top level.

[Dante Lavelli]

I'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise.  But how can you tell, from distance covered alone,  whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space?  That stat doesn't give you any of that information.



     

As with all stats the numbers only give you an impression, the odds are someone who's covered 7miles in midfield will have been more productive in harrying the opposition and being available for passes than someone who's covered 5miles, if they also have more interceptions, more touches and more attempted passes then it backs it up further.  No stat is all that useful on it's own but as part of a selection of stats it can be part of a big picture.

"The odds are"?  Hardly a convincing argument.  There is no reliable correlation between distance covered and what you are claiming can be deduced from it.   A player could be a headless chicken running around in circles all day.  The stats on interceptions, touches, and attempted passes will tell you something about his contribution and involvement re the overall play - but why does it matter if he made his contribution whilst covering 3 km or 10 km? I'm still unconvinced that distance covered adds any  further useful information.   

That's the point though, against a decent team you need to cover more ground to make those interceptions, touches, passes, etc.  At lower levels you'll see similar results for those stats but the distance covered will be lower, as the quality goes up so  does the required work rate to make an impact.  The days of great players being lazy and then lighting up with the ball are long gone, all of the top players (except central defenders and goalkeepers who need to be much more disciplined positionally) in world football currently (except for maybe Ibrahimovic, which is why there is debate about him being included) are hard workers.  If you're static you'll struggle to have an impact on the game, I can't believe anyone can watch football and not see how important fitness and work rate are, distance covered is the most reliable stat to measure this.  Distance covered measures your physical capability to play and the other stats mentioned then measure your techincal ability to use that capability to effect the game, they are irrefutably linked and both are required to make it at the top level.

That’s a very persuasive answer Paul e.  Have you completed coaching badges or read shit loads on the subject?

[paul_e]

I'm a qualified rugby coach and the same argument holds true in both sports.

[UK Redsox]

This is an example of stats not providing much/any information (cut and paste from another thread):

Matthew Lowton has started his Aston Villa career strongly and highlighted just how strongly with a goal of the season contender against Swansea City on Saturday.

Villa fans will always welcome a goal from defence but the main concern will be that Lowton is doing his job at the back.

Here's a quick look at his stats so far...

Matthew Lowton has made 4 starts and played 360 minutes of football. He has made 10 interceptions and won 50% of his aerial duels.

He has made 11 clearances and won 79% of his tackles so far.

He has also contributed 147 passes of which only 6 were long balls. He has shown his willingness to get into attacking positions with 9 crosses and 3 clear chances created.

From those 147 passes he has a passing accuracy of 82%.

He has had two shots, both on target and one resulting in a devastating goal from outside the area.

What about his VORP and WAR ratings ?

[Dave Cooper please]

I really can't be arsed with all these stats, reducing the beauty of football into a load of scientific data about how far a player runs and percentages of crosses made etc....nah, not for me. I watch the game and make my own mind up if a player did well or not, I won't change my mond because OPTA say he only made four successful dribbles.

In a seperate thread we're talking about Dalian Atkinson, I'm sure that if OPTA stats had been around back then his would have uniformly awful, but he still provided some of the finest moments in my football watching career.

[N'ZMAV]

Statistics are just like mini-skirts, they give you good ideas but hide the most important thing.

[paul_e]

Statistics are just like mini-skirts, they give you good ideas but hide the most important thing.

Absolutely no amount of statistics will ever replace watching someone play and making a decision but they can serve as a guide as to whether a player is worth looking at (or back up an existing opinion) or suggestions of things that could be changed to improve performance.

Stats most certainly aren't the most important thing but, as can very successfully be evidenced in the team sky cycling team, gathering stats and interpreting them correctly to adapt coaching can see a massive increase in performance.  This increase is clearer in a more closed skill environment (such as cycling and sprinting) but at the highest levels of any sport that improved strength/pace/fitness can make the difference.  For fans it's a stat to talk about at the pub, for clubs it should be an important element of the coaching team.

[ktvillan]

I'm well aware that some stats have value, I've not argued otherwise.  But how can you tell, from distance covered alone,  whether a player was getting back to cover, or finding space?  That stat doesn't give you any of that information.



     

As with all stats the numbers only give you an impression, the odds are someone who's covered 7miles in midfield will have been more productive in harrying the opposition and being available for passes than someone who's covered 5miles, if they also have more interceptions, more touches and more attempted passes then it backs it up further.  No stat is all that useful on it's own but as part of a selection of stats it can be part of a big picture.

"The odds are"?  Hardly a convincing argument.  There is no reliable correlation between distance covered and what you are claiming can be deduced from it.   A player could be a headless chicken running around in circles all day.  The stats on interceptions, touches, and attempted passes will tell you something about his contribution and involvement re the overall play - but why does it matter if he made his contribution whilst covering 3 km or 10 km? I'm still unconvinced that distance covered adds any  further useful information.   

That's the point though, against a decent team you need to cover more ground to make those interceptions, touches, passes, etc.  At lower levels you'll see similar results for those stats but the distance covered will be lower, as the quality goes up so  does the required work rate to make an impact.  The days of great players being lazy and then lighting up with the ball are long gone, all of the top players (except central defenders and goalkeepers who need to be much more disciplined positionally) in world football currently (except for maybe Ibrahimovic, which is why there is debate about him being included) are hard workers.  If you're static you'll struggle to have an impact on the game, I can't believe anyone can watch football and not see how important fitness and work rate are, distance covered is the most reliable stat to measure this.  Distance covered measures your physical capability to play and the other stats mentioned then measure your techincal ability to use that capability to effect the game, they are irrefutably linked and both are required to make it at the top level.

Why do you think I don't consider work rate and fitness are important?   I don't need to know actual distance covered to get that.   I know that Milner used to work his bollocks off for Villa.  How far did he used to run to do it?  I've absolutely no idea and have absolutely no need or intention of finding out.  Because, to me at least,  it's irrelevant.

If you have links to all the stats and analysis that can prove all the correlations you assert between distance covered and effectiveness of teams and players then fair enough.  If not I'll stick to my opinion that it's a meaningless stat. 

[Dante Lavelli]

In the instance of Milner you have the benefit of having watched him play on numerous occasions.  Whereas stats will allow you to compare players that maybe you haven’t had the benefit of watching/scouting.

For example who is the hardest working player between Milner, Holman, Arteta and Scholes?

[Monty]

That sort of stat isn't very nuanced, but expanded upon has uses. For instance, towards the end of his career Bergkamp used to complain to Wenger about being subbed off for the last 20 minutes. Wenger, however, had the stats up his sleeve to say "look Dennis, you started running less and less. And your speed decreased." The evidence of ones own eyes are not enough, but neither are statistics: together they inform a good decision.