Performances over a season

[Armchair Expert]

What about the people that coached them. Do you think they ever looked at stats? Or did they just pretend that football was in this little 1980s bubble where nothing ever changes and there's nothing in that big bad world out there to scare us?

No, I expect coaches implement tactics BEFORE the game in order to try and influence its outcome.

I expect tactics play a bigger role than stats. I'm sure most successful coaches use their eyes and watch games as to the level of success of said tactics, rather than pouring over stats.

 

[DeanoAustin]

If I was to plan exactly the best time to attack Swansea I would say 60th min and the last 10 mins. My problem with this is I dont think football can be played with machine or mathematical style, confidence plays a massive part in football I believe more than people realise.

If I use Hull as an example, Spurs play Hull at White Hart Lane, AVB has come up with a plan that attacking Hull in the 70th minute is best because this is when Hull have conceded most of their goals. Now if I was playing for Hull I would see the Spurs game and think christ today is going to be hard, this team have spent 100m plus in the summer and just missed out of champs league last season, we are going to have to work hard to get any sort of result from this game. So the game starts Hull manage to get to half time and its still 0-0. Spurs haven't really caused us many problems, infact we have caused them a few problems too. My confidence would be sky high I would be saying we can nick this today, as the 2nd half continues and it gets closer and closer to full time and its 0-0, the crowd now starts moaning because Spurs are struggling to break us down, again more confidence to me.

If football was played with robots I could fully agree with AVB's strategy sadly for him its not, maybe its because AVB never played football at the top level he doesnt understand the pressure of playing in front of crowds.

Good post.

You could say that about Swansea but statistically, in general, about 25% more goals are scored in the second half than in the first half. Yet Swansea's record shows that 44% of their goals are conceded in the first half and 56% in the second half. Therefore, statistically, you could argue that it's better to attack Swansea in the first half and then sit back in the second half and ensure that we don't concede because we're more likely to concede in the second half than the first. You could also argue that more goals are scored against Swansea in the last 30 minutes so that's when you attack. To me, both theories over-complicate the game. It's simple. Get yourself ahead in the game and if you have the breathing space with 20 mins to go, sit back and see the game out. If you still aren't ahead, mix it up. We have enough depth in the squad to bring real quality on for the last 20 minutes for an injection of creativity if we need it.

It's also fair to say that it's very hard to sit back and suddenly just up the tempo. How many times do sides set their stall out, concede a goal and they're in the sh!t because they struggle to up the tempo or reverse the momentum. For AVB to be planning when we attack down to a 10 minute burst is extremely dangerous because, as you say, football is not played by robots.

 

[Seedy Ron]

I can see the sense in what BOL, GB and Scara are advocating, but I can't say I've seen much evidence of it in practice. If we were having periods where we completely outplay the opposition, where we obviously implement a pre-game plan to go up a gear or two I reckon I could accept it. I think conserving energy when you've got a game won is sensible, but we aren't getting games won, and we weren't last year either.

I'm not an AVB out guy at this point, but I'm not happy with the way we're playing either.

 

[scaramanga]

No, I expect coaches implement tactics BEFORE the game in order to try and influence its outcome.

I expect tactics play a bigger role than stats. I'm sure most successful coaches use their eyes and watch games as to the level of success of said tactics, rather than pouring over stats.

Tactics? Isn't that part of all this over-analysis that was being complained about? After all, surely it's better to just go out there and play a bit right?

I suspect you know no more about what the most successful coaches do behind the scenes than anyone else but the best we have to go on (their own books/interviews, secret footballer, etc) would all suggest it's a hell of a lot more than

1) Watch team
2) Tell team what to do

 

[Kingdawson]

Arsenal wasn't especially bad, considering what they've done to everyone else too.

Saudi Sportswashing Machine wasn't good, but we didn't play badly.

City and West Ham were the two shockers.

Do you know what bad RESULTS means?

 

[Kingdawson]

you just shifted the post

you used bad results cause you didnt want to use bad performances,,,that would be a lot more

and with bad results they've been given to you...cant pick and choose which you want like that




too hostile??

Ah you've covered it. It was clear as day GB didn't dare want to say "bad performances" but still tries to change the goal posts when talking about bad results :lol:

 

[Rorschach]

I don't think Barca are a good comparison but their renaissance started before Guardiola took over, he built upon the work done by Rijkaard from 2003 onwards.

The Barca comparisons are not that far off the mark. The possession based game is at the core of Barca's style. Where we don't compare well is at the sharp end of the pitch. Where Barca's perpetual movement opens up deferences with ease, we treat the box like Custers last stand.

Pep was widely acknowledged to have added to the defensive aspect of Barca's play. The whole closing down in packs and rules for pressing from the front was one of his main contributions. Ultimately he was just building on the fundamentals that came from the Ajax academy with Cryuff.

 

[Baleforce]

I meant Barca right now, they had the pain in the past as well, looking at their results from Rijkaards first season there were a few stinkers in there, they got mauled 5-1 by Malaga for example.

To say Guardiola came in and changed it overnight would be wrong, it was evolution not revolution, I think for us its the latter.

 

[Rorschach]

I meant Barca right now, they had the pain in the past as well, looking at their results from Rijkaards first season there were a few stinkers in there, they got mauled 5-1 by Malaga for example.

To say Guardiola came in and changed it overnight would be wrong, it was evolution not revolution, I think for us its the latter.

Yep, I wholeheartedly agree with that.

What worries me our attacking play. Pretty obvious thing to say I know but I see no cohesive plan around it. He really needs to rethink what he's telling the players to do in the final third as it's not working. I don't know if he is trying to replicate his Porto approach or whatever but he has to try something else. Our movement for the most part is appalling which in my opinion is the main problem.

 

[Armchair Expert]

Tactics? Isn't that part of all this over-analysis that was being complained about? After all, surely it's better to just go out there and play a bit right?

I suspect you know no more about what the most successful coaches do behind the scenes than anyone else but the best we have to go on (their own books/interviews, secret footballer, etc) would all suggest it's a hell of a lot more than

1) Watch team
2) Tell team what to do

I don't think that acknowledging the existence of tactics is subscribing to the notion of reliance on a plethora of statistics.

If you think it is then I'd have to question your interpretation of what's being said.

Children's U-10 village teams have to take to the field in some semblance of a formation. Would you attempt to argue that the said formation is a product of statistical analysis?

 

[DeanoAustin]

I don't think that acknowledging the existence of tactics is subscribing to the notion of reliance on a plethora of statistics.

If you think it is then I'd have to question your interpretation of what's being said.

Children's U-10 village teams have to take to the field in some semblance of a formation. Would you attempt to argue that the said formation is a product of statistical analysis?

Exactly. "Lob high balls down the left wing coz our left winger is six inches taller than their right back and our centre forward is lighting quick so will get the flick ons" is a form of common sense that doesn't need "their right back has only won 38 of 216 headers (17.59%) this season and of the 178 he's lost, 31 (or 17.41%) have lead to goals".

Both are tactics but the latter over-complicates the f**k out of something that should be simple.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't think that acknowledging the existence of tactics is subscribing to the notion of reliance on a plethora of statistics.

If you think it is then I'd have to question your interpretation of what's being said.

Children's U-10 village teams have to take to the field in some semblance of a formation. Would you attempt to argue that the said formation is a product of statistical analysis?

You were the one that brought up stats - I think you may be getting confused between two separate threads.

I was merely responding to another poster's suggestion that "all this over-analysis" is the problem. My assertion is that without analysis we stay the same whilst everyone else improves.

As an example of how analysis and non "kicking a ball about" improvements have been made, how do you think our double-winning side would fare against our current team? Or even our b team for that matter?

Oh and if the kids team you mentioned comes out in a formation - let's say 4-4-2 - how to you think someone came up with that formation? By just running about a bit or did someone in the 80s spend a lot of time analysing other teams' weak points and calculating that it was the best way of exploiting them?

 

[Armchair Expert]

Exactly. "Lob high balls down the left wing coz our left winger is six inches taller than their right back and our centre forward is lighting quick so will get the flick ons" is a form of common sense that doesn't need "their right back has only won 38 of 216 headers (17.59%) this season and of the 178 he's lost, 31 (or 17.41%) have lead to goals".

Both are tactics but the latter over-complicates the f**k out of something that should be simple.

100% agree.

 

[Armchair Expert]

You were the one that brought up stats - I think you may be getting confused between two separate threads.

I was merely responding to another poster's suggestion that "all this over-analysis" is the problem. My assertion is that without analysis we stay the same whilst everyone else improves.

As an example of how analysis and non "kicking a ball about" improvements have been made, how do you think our double-winning side would fare against our current team? Or even our b team for that matter?

That's a non-sensical argument. How do you think Don Bradman would fare against James Anderson? You can't sensibly fit different era's into an analogous argument I'm afraid.

Ok, instead of saying stats I should have said over-complicated analysis. Sorry.

 

[scaramanga]

That's a non-sensical argument. How do you think Don Bradman would fare against James Anderson? You can't sensibly fit different era's into an analogous argument I'm afraid.

Ok, instead of saying stats I should have said over-complicated analysis. Sorry.

Of course you can. What do you think led from the old "pint at the pub at half time" players to the Ronaldos and Bales of today?

Years and years of analysis, science, testing, theories, etc. If every other team had spent the last 50 years "over-analysing" football and we hadn't our club probably wouldn't even exist any more.

 

[Armchair Expert]

Of course you can. What do you think led from the old "pint at the pub at half time" players to the Ronaldos and Bales of today?

Years and years of analysis, science, testing, theories, etc. If every other team had spent the last 50 years "over-analysing" football and we hadn't our club probably wouldn't even exist any more.

The difference comes about through evolution - both in terms of the sport and in the conditioning of players and playing conditions. I'd go so far as to say a form of natural evolution in line with wider evolution in society.

EDIT: one of the biggest contributing factors has been the immense levels of commercialisation and branding in sport; not simply over indulgent and self gratifying hyper analysis. There's millions of contributing factors and actually what I tried to say is that the evolution of football and sport in general is just a microcosm of the development or processes of change affecting society at large.

Football owes its development to a broader range of factors than a few blokes with clipboards.

 

[Jordinho]

Raymond Verheijen has stood by his comments that David Moyes is a football dinosaur – but only when it comes to his pre-season preparation.

The Dutch coach, who was part of Gary Speed’s Wales set-up, said on twitter that the Manchester United manager’s approach to the start of the season was prehistoric.

Robin van Persie, Wayne Rooney and Danny Welbeck have all picked up minor injuries during the Red Devils’ fixtures around the globe and Verheijen believes Moyes must change his methods.

“Nobody can deny that Moyes is a good manager,” he told Kelly and Quinn. “I’m not questioning Moyes from an overall perspective, I’m questioning a certain element within his approach and that’s planning and preparation within pre-season.

“I made several comments about it because there is a pattern. If you look at the effects of pre-season, not just with Van Persie, but with Rooney, Welbeck and several other Man United players, the same thing happened at Everton. Over-training and injuries as a pattern is clearly there.”

But Verheijen added that his comments were not a personal attack on the new Old Trafford boss and were intended to help the Scot.

“Overall Moyes must be a good manager because the facts are there for everyone to see,” he continued. “What he did with Everton is incredible, he deserves a lot of respect for that.

“What I’m trying to make clear is that, within his good approach, there are areas to improve.

“If you are an Everton manager and, for seven out of the last nine years, you have a big injury crisis in pre-season then you have to identify the problem.”

http://talksport.com/sports-news/football/premier-league/130726/exclusive-raymond-verheijen-manchester-united-manager-david-moyes-must-c-2024

Sports science is a field that has been vastly neglected within football and especially in England. Twenty or even ten years ago pre season would consist of 90% running for most teams. Play your best XI and start every game at 100 mph. Might work well in pub football, but not if you want to compete at the top end of the PL. You have to consider how to get the most from your players over a whole season. Cyclists are way ahead in this area. Their season is planned out in advance, when to train hard and when to rest, in order to achieve optimum fitness when it matters. They know exactly how long they can ride in the 'red zone' in races without suffering any after effects. Wenger's methods probably prolonged the careers of their back 5 by several years. It's what you eat, how much you train, how hard you train, getting enough rest etc.

 

[scaramanga]

The difference comes about through evolution - both in terms of the sport and in the conditioning of players and playing conditions. I'd go so far as to say a form of natural evolution in line with wider evolution in society.

EDIT: one of the biggest contributing factors has been the immense levels of commercialisation and branding in sport; not simply over indulgent and self gratifying hyper analysis. There's millions of contributing factors and actually what I tried to say is that the evolution of football and sport in general is just a microcosm of the development or processes of change affecting society at large.

Football owes its development to a broader range of factors than a few blokes with clipboards.

The commercialisation may have paid for the blokes with the clipboards, but without them there couldn't have been improvement. Not just guys analysing stats, but fitness, diet, morale, tactics, opponents, etc.

Of course, it could all just be dismissed as "over-analysing"....

 

[Armchair Expert]

The commercialisation may have paid for the blokes with the clipboards, but without them there couldn't have been improvement. Not just guys analysing stats, but fitness, diet, morale, tactics, opponents, etc.

Of course, it could all just be dismissed as "over-analysing"....

I think you're the one who tends/intends to miss the point. Commercialisation has created competition, and hence newer and newer boots, more prize money etc. It didn't created the chap with the clip board per se, he's always been there. They we're there back in the day, they were called Darwin and Faraday, so what? Yu seem to been implying that football morphed into the product we have to day from the old pub players back in the 50's. It was a gradual progression, subject to the same forces as the rest of society.

It wasn't simply due to someone waking up in the 50's and discovering the magic of stats and analysis. But still, don't let sensible discussion get in the way of petulant dismissal of various view points.

That's my last contribution to the topic anyway as I find the whole discussion a non starter as it is. All you have to do is watch games of football and drew your own conclusions about the progress of a team or the respective merits of managers. I don't subscribe to have to wade through months of analysis to know whether the West Ham game was a debacle, for example. I'll judge that for myself.

EDIT: I also completely disagree with the initial post from BoL, just to relate this back to the initial topic somewhat.

 

[Bullet]

Getting back on topic, the original post from BOL and the post from Gutterboy do not tally.

BOL says we choose which point in games to go for the jugular, the rest of the time we are just tiring them out.
GB says once we are winning 2-0 we can take our foot off the gas.

BOL's idea makes sense in some ways i.e. tire the other team out, then go for it once cracks appear. I can agree with that. But that doesn't tally with other points he was making about choosing which entire games to go for it. I do understand the point that a team can't maintain peak performance for an entire season. Maybe his post was poorly worded in a couple of areas because in some ways it makes sense, but overall it doesn't quite stack up.

As others have implied, it is fine to rest in some periods of some games as a tactic either when we are winning or purely to wear them out for a bit, but then you must leave yourself enough time to score, which we don't. And I don't see us really upping the tempo very often. The best way to conserve energy is to play as a unit, harrass them, score and then relax.

In fact the best way to conserve energy is to rotate players, but AVB has played Dembele, Paulinho and Vertonghen until they are knackered already and it isn't even winter yet, when he had good (better) options on the bench or let go... strange way of going about things if you are a sports science freak. Plenty of signs these players are knackered and not performing, but still he wheels them out.