Can analysis of opponents work on a game by game basis?

Like many I love Marcelo Bielsa, a man consumed by football who has an insatiable appetite for detail, and at 63, is still as passionate as ever.

In his press briefing yesterday he gave an overview of how he prepares for games, breaking video of the opponent down into clips to prepare his players for the match. It split my timeline between people in awe of this level of detailed work, and those who said it was standard work nowadays at the top clubs.

Most of the celebrated managers of recent years have been known for the level of detailed preparation they do. They know every combination of attacking move their opponents play, the strengths and weaknesses of each player and much, much, more.

My question is: does this actually translate to the playing field?

There may well be lots of minor tactical adjustments going on in every game that the average fan, like me, doesn't spot. But sometimes I think that we overestimate the role of the coach in on field decisions, and underestimate the player.

In general I think most managers could be placed on a spectrum from proactive to reactive. The more reactive a manager the more likely they are to prepare specific game plans for opponents.

However, I also think a manager probably alters where they fit on this spectrum depending on the resources they have at their disposal and the density of their fixture list.

If you are Pep Guardiola, with a 9-0 first leg lead, you probably spend less time preparing your players for the second leg against Burton Albion than you do for the next league game. Part of managing is concentrating your resources on the most valuable fixtures.

Measuring impact

A famous saying, attributed to Mike Tyson,  is that "everybody has a plan until they get hit in the mouth". If I am coaching a full back up against Arjen Robben and stress that you don't let him cut inside, providing countless hours of him doing it to the best fullbacks in the world, what am I really telling him to do? I don't believe for a second an analyst would do that, but there has to be good communication between the player (as the learner) and the analyst as the teacher.

The player needs to let the analyst know the type of information they can translate into on pitch changes.

The analyst needs a good relationship with the coaching staff to ensure the information they are passing along has an impact. I have done a lot of reading up on how people learn, and it is incredibly complex, if football club video analysts can take instructions from managers, translate it into learning materials and those materials have an immediate impact on pitch level actions then they are remarkably skilled at what they do.

There is also a question about how much an individual can learn? A good team can play 45-60 times in a season. Sometimes twice a week. How much can an individual adapt their game within 3 days?

If the knowledge gleamed from countless hours of video study is condensed down into a few easily enacted, and well practiced, adjustments to the players or teams normal game than I can see it being of value. Any more complex than that and I would think there are a lot of footballers nodding and smiling but not taking in any information.

How might we measure it:
Probably the best way is comparing what the preparation advice was against what happened.
Did the opponent play like we thought they would?
If they did and we didn't disrupt is it because of superior opposition, players not taking on our advice or us not explaining it well enough.
If they didn't play like we expected is that because we disrupted their plan A?
There are so many unknowns you can only really get an overall impression by looking at how many chances you created and conceded and how they came about.

Team or individual analysis?

In individual sports, like tennis, then analysis of the individual opponent is probably more valuable. They can spot that the player returns 2% worse off wide serves and ruthlessly target that over a 2 hour match with 60 plus chances to exploit it. In football you may only get one or two opportunities in 90 minutes to get at their fullback who is poor at tackling off his left foot. Instead team weaknesses should be targeted, like pressing a team whose defenders aren't comfortable under pressure.

Can we tell if proactive or reactive managers are better?

Quick answer, no. Because there is no such thing as a purely proactive or reactive manager. Every manager prepares for games, the detail in that preparation will vary but that is probably a quirk of personality. There will always be a trade off, perhaps managers that spend less time on reactive preparation spend longer on proactive coaching, like attacking patterns.

Longer answer.

I was a huge fan of the work David Moyes did at Everton. I'd say he was a prudent, reactive manager at that time. The team shape was similar regardless of opponent. The differences tended to be subtle, like the depth between the defensive lines, and that was triggered by the relative strength of the opponent. Whether it was successful was open to debate as our away record against top teams was poor.

And that will always be the question with reactive management. When the team loses you can question if "playing your normal game" would have been a better idea.

Likewise a proactive manager is often accused of tactical naivety. They didn't prepare enough for the opponent.

Everton went from Moyes to Martinez who I would describe as a positive reactive manager in that he would often change his team to attack the opponents weakness rather than to counter their strengths. Most famously with Lukaku out wide to terrify small fullbacks. But it also lead to some awful performances such as terrifyingly high line up against Suarez, Sturridge and Sterling.

Another logical issue is that when two reactive managers come up against each other how do they know how the opponent will play? If you have started a 6ft 3 right back to counter their normal powerful left sided attacker, and he simply switches wings then what happens to the plan?

Whenever I've heard pundits or ex-pros talking about how much help this type of pre-game preparation it has varied massively. And I think it always will. Some players like to be pumped up before games, some to sit quietly. Some like every detail about what to expect, some are happy to trust their instincts on the pitch. And honestly I don't know if there is a way of accurately measuring whether any approach is better than any other.