Purists or pragmatists, and does it even mean anything?
One of the things I didn't appreciate about football analytics articles was the amount of work that would be involved for a short article.
This one was going to be a post where I looked at the variation in key metrics (pass volume, shot volume etc) to see if I could classify teams as purists (similar statistics regardless of opponent) or pragmatic (wide variety of outcomes depending on opponent).
Then I realised that wouldn't be particularly insightful as you wouldn't see the reasoning behind these approaches. Guardiola and Warnock don't change their approach but is that because they are purists?
Likewise the middle tier of teams would probably dominate possession against the bottom tier and be dominated against the top tier. That may not actually be due to a change in tactical approach but simply be because of ability.
Mourninho teams would probably dominate in 90% of games but have special tactical plans for key opponents in key games. So what would I be showing?
Perhaps I could look at the formation played? Again this probably doesn't show me much. At Everton Moyes almost always played 4-4-1-1 but it was very different away to Arsenal than at home to Bolton with defensive lines and pressing differences making the actual formation less important.
At best I might show what we probably instinctively know, richest teams keep the same approach against all but their direct opponents. Some managers "take on" the bigger teams whilst some bunker in, but both usually lose. Some managers keep a similar formation, others will add a defender, some will change the role of a player so that the normal number 10 instead crowds the deep play maker of the opponents.
It is that tactical variety that makes football hard to give definitive "this works" answers to, and it is why football is endlessly fascinating.
These tactical approaches will also have a huge impact on player statistics. Certainly when stats first became available I think I underestimated this.
Put Jorginho into Cardiff's team playing Warnock's tactics and he won't be averaging 120 passes a game anymore. But if Warnock had Jorginho would he change his tactics? Would that then make him a pragmatic manager now?
It is really easy to end up writing long articles with lots of diagrams and models that end up not showing anything that conclusions can be drawn from? But again I'm not sure that matters, I enjoy reading them, these are personal blogs not research projects.
This week I'll be writing articles on how I think clubs (particularly lower league clubs) should approach building capacity in their clubs for long term success. This comes after seeing my local League 2 club throw away an unexpected windfall on a failed promotion bid and 4 managerial changes.
This one was going to be a post where I looked at the variation in key metrics (pass volume, shot volume etc) to see if I could classify teams as purists (similar statistics regardless of opponent) or pragmatic (wide variety of outcomes depending on opponent).
Then I realised that wouldn't be particularly insightful as you wouldn't see the reasoning behind these approaches. Guardiola and Warnock don't change their approach but is that because they are purists?
Likewise the middle tier of teams would probably dominate possession against the bottom tier and be dominated against the top tier. That may not actually be due to a change in tactical approach but simply be because of ability.
Mourninho teams would probably dominate in 90% of games but have special tactical plans for key opponents in key games. So what would I be showing?
Perhaps I could look at the formation played? Again this probably doesn't show me much. At Everton Moyes almost always played 4-4-1-1 but it was very different away to Arsenal than at home to Bolton with defensive lines and pressing differences making the actual formation less important.
At best I might show what we probably instinctively know, richest teams keep the same approach against all but their direct opponents. Some managers "take on" the bigger teams whilst some bunker in, but both usually lose. Some managers keep a similar formation, others will add a defender, some will change the role of a player so that the normal number 10 instead crowds the deep play maker of the opponents.
It is that tactical variety that makes football hard to give definitive "this works" answers to, and it is why football is endlessly fascinating.
These tactical approaches will also have a huge impact on player statistics. Certainly when stats first became available I think I underestimated this.
Put Jorginho into Cardiff's team playing Warnock's tactics and he won't be averaging 120 passes a game anymore. But if Warnock had Jorginho would he change his tactics? Would that then make him a pragmatic manager now?
It is really easy to end up writing long articles with lots of diagrams and models that end up not showing anything that conclusions can be drawn from? But again I'm not sure that matters, I enjoy reading them, these are personal blogs not research projects.
This week I'll be writing articles on how I think clubs (particularly lower league clubs) should approach building capacity in their clubs for long term success. This comes after seeing my local League 2 club throw away an unexpected windfall on a failed promotion bid and 4 managerial changes.
Comments
Post a Comment