The Official Brazil 2014 FIFA World Cup thread

[AZOffaly]

I will defend stats to a point. It is interesting, and useful, to identify patterns around key events and to trace a cause and effect when certain things happen.

We turn the ball over inside our 45, and we are punished 50% of the time. That's a stat.

But what does it mean? How can you solve it? Why are we turning the ball over? Can we do something better?

That's the art of coaching/management.

I've seen reams of stats generated, and I asked the lad who was over the team 'What do you use all those stats for?'. He said 'They're very interesting to see how the game went'. I just nodded and changed the subject. To me, that's stats for stats sake.

[thewobbler]

To be honest AZ, i think most stats are for the sake of stats.

Even given your example above about turnovers inside the 45, if you're watching the game you shouldn't need a statman to tell you that the opposition are killing us on the counter attack. And a statman definitely won't be able to tell you if this is a premeditated tactic by the opposition, or if they just happen to be fitter than us and as a result are unusually good at exploiting our mistakes, or if it's because our full-forwards are making the wrong runs or are just being marked very well, or if there's one particular runner from deep who's causing all those problems (and needs lynched).

The most basic example of this is when people need a summary of clean catches and breaking ball stats, to know which team is dominating midfield. It shouldn't be needed.

[Bingo]

Was out watching a senior club challenge match recently. The opposition who will remain unnamed had a camera in the stand and another guy doing stats who never stopped writing all game. This was much to the amusement of one of the old timers who'd have a pocket full of championship medals. He was talking about this and said in his day you didn't need stats or a DVD to tell you who was or wasn't a coward on the field and that's all you needed to know!

I think I'd rather engage with the stathead than the old timer. You can't have a discussion with someone who argues from authority.

There is a balance somewhere in the middle of the two of them.

Read a good piece recently on Rooney in the world cup and how his workrate and distance covered in the matches was used to point to his importance in the team. The article then reviewed his runs etc  and dismissed it in that his runs where often at a much lower pace than his team mates, he was often running out of postion and therefore running back into position and that his other stats were weaker than other players who covered less distance.

It was a blog but the tagline was that stats can be used to mask anything if only looked at one level.

Di Maria stats were interesting the other night - 51 times he give the ball away. Goals scored 1!

[Brick Tamlin]

They have their place within managing/coaching a team but it has become ridiculous in some quarters.
If used for the right reasons and in the right way then they can definitely be useful.
By analysing previous performances and identifying trends both as a team an as individuals you can then set to work on trying to improve areas of play. Sometimes verbal feedback doesn't work at all, though show a guy an ipad with clips of him constantly getting caught in possession or passing the ball straight to the opposing team in different games and he might soon take notice. If it can improve the performance of a player or team then its useful.

[AZOffaly]

To be honest AZ, i think most stats are for the sake of stats.

Even given your example above about turnovers inside the 45, if you're watching the game you shouldn't need a statman to tell you that the opposition are killing us on the counter attack. And a statman definitely won't be able to tell you if this is a premeditated tactic by the opposition, or if they just happen to be fitter than us and as a result are unusually good at exploiting our mistakes, or if it's because our full-forwards are making the wrong runs or are just being marked very well, or if there's one particular runner from deep who's causing all those problems (and needs lynched).

The most basic example of this is when people need a summary of clean catches and breaking ball stats, to know which team is dominating midfield. It shouldn't be needed.

It's not just about the stat though, it's about what's causing the stat. A stat will show you a problem, and will quantify (as opposed to gut feel) how big the problem is.

The coaching is what you do about it, and how you recognise the cause of it.

Simple example,

Stat : We've lost 20 of 23 kickouts.
Cause : We're shit at midfield and our keeper keeps kicking it out to them
Remedy 1 : Go with a short kickout.

Obviously you won't need a statman to tell you that, but when you get down into less obvious examples it can be useful. I'm just cautious of lads who gather acres of stats for no reason other than to give you a numerical summary of something you already knew.

[deiseach]

There is a balance somewhere in the middle of the two of them.

Of course there is. Every team is looking for an edge. If you can find one nugget among the dross of stats, and see the dross for what it is, you're laughing.

[Billys Boots]

Stats just identify your weaknesses (and strengths) - the 'edge' is in how you coach and plan to address what they are telling you. 

[thewobbler]

To be honest AZ, i think most stats are for the sake of stats.

Even given your example above about turnovers inside the 45, if you're watching the game you shouldn't need a statman to tell you that the opposition are killing us on the counter attack. And a statman definitely won't be able to tell you if this is a premeditated tactic by the opposition, or if they just happen to be fitter than us and as a result are unusually good at exploiting our mistakes, or if it's because our full-forwards are making the wrong runs or are just being marked very well, or if there's one particular runner from deep who's causing all those problems (and needs lynched).

The most basic example of this is when people need a summary of clean catches and breaking ball stats, to know which team is dominating midfield. It shouldn't be needed.

It's not just about the stat though, it's about what's causing the stat. A stat will show you a problem, and will quantify (as opposed to gut feel) how big the problem is.

The coaching is what you do about it, and how you recognise the cause of it.

Simple example,

Stat : We've lost 20 of 23 kickouts.
Cause : We're shit at midfield and our keeper keeps kicking it out to them
Remedy 1 : Go with a short kickout.

Obviously you won't need a statman to tell you that, but when you get down into less obvious examples it can be useful. I'm just cautious of lads who gather acres of stats for no reason other than to give you a numerical summary of something you already knew.

I know we're dealing with a basic example here. But in this scenario, I'd hope that both the keeper and manager wouldn't have to wait to halftime/fulltime to pick up on this.  Lose 3 kickouts in a row, and the keeper really needs to have a plan b, or at least try out a plan b.

[AZOffaly]

Stats just identify your weaknesses (and strengths) - the 'edge' is in how you coach and plan to address what they are telling you.

This is what I am trying to say. Thanks for being concise

[brokencrossbar1]

Bullshit,  stats are over-rated.  Soccer is simple, football is simple, the only stat that I would consider is the team that can do the basics right most often is generally the team that wins.   Know your basics, practice your basics and perfect your basics,  the rest will flow naturally.

[NAG1]

Bullshit,  stats are over-rated.  Soccer is simple, football is simple, the only stat that I would consider is the team that can do the basics right most often is generally the team that wins.   Know your basics, practice your basics and perfect your basics,  the rest will flow naturally.

In a live game situation yes they are over rated but a good manager will be able to use them to shape and tailor his training sessions to pick up on weaknesses and develop patterns and situations etc.

[Walter Cronc]

Another good blog by Tim Vickery!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28121729

[CiKe]

A notable trend in the interwingle over the past 12-18 months, is the number of blogs and articles popping up like that one, where someone tries to turn a game as fluid as soccer, into a statistical study.

I find these things appalling. Death by numbers is bad enough. Death by numbers when accompanied by terrible prose is worse again. Death by numbers with terrible prose and a wholly unsuitable subject matter should be punishable be death.

We don't need 5,000 words, 20 graphs, and two weeks of research to understand that Messi is more gifted than almost anyone else who has played the game. We have two eyes.

That is very true. TBH my principal interest in it was more that, statistically speaking anyway, there is no debate as to whether he or Ronaldo is the better player.

[Kidder81]

Fantastic show of generosity from the Algerian team who have decided to donate their $9 million prize money to Gaza. According to their striker Islam Slimani "they need it more than us."

http://www.diehardsport.com/2014/07/02/algeria-striker-announces-team-will-donate-world-cup-prize-money/

Another false Twitter rumour

[rodney trotter]

France Line Up Lloris (c), Debuchy, Evra, Varane, Sakho, Cabaye, Valbuena, Benzema, Griezmann, Matuidi, Pogba

Germany  Neuer, Lahm, Boateng, Hummels, Höwedes; Schweinsteiger, Khedira; Müller, Kroos, Özil; Klose.

Lahm back in right back position to stop Griezmann probaly