Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Swindon were responsible for decades of English hoofball!  (Read 1096 times)
Audrey's Bellend


+5/-41
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480




Ignore
« on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 04:19:14 »

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-one-mans-bad-math-helped-ruin-decades-of-english-soccer/
Logged
Batch
Thingie


+22/-14
Offline Offline

Posts: 33881





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 07:36:25 »

I'd never heard that one before.

their analysis of why it's wrong sounds like Williams coaching manual!
Logged
A Gent Orange


+0/-0
Online Online

Posts: 1560



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 07:52:57 »

Reep wasn't a Town fan, he was only based nearby due to being in the RAF. He spent most of his life in Plymouth.

Yes, his conclusions were wrong (largely due to his biases - if you call your article 'All This Talk of Pattern-Weaving Is Bunk' you might not be wholly neutral) but his work is hugely significant as were his methods. Note how much work he did with the Royal Statisical Society, he was a pioneer.  His data was largely okay - even if he did watch the great Brazil side 1970 and claim that their goals came from just a few passes.

He also lead to some very good sides (Cullis's Wolves as well as Wimbledon) but yes, some of it was taken a bit far and his conclusions have been proven to be wrong, especially in the modern game.
« Last Edit: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 09:29:08 by A Gent Orange » Logged
dogs


+0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 631




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 08:53:29 »

"Passing for the sake of passing can be disastrous.

Can't argue with that.
Logged
pauld


+30/-18
Offline Offline

Posts: 16776





Ignore
« Reply #4 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 12:06:23 »

There's a really good discussion of Reep's flaws (and how his methods, if not his conclusions, did help lay the ground for some genuinely useful work in football analysis) in Inverting the Pyramid. Great book, some in-depth background on how tactics/systems have evolved in the game, and some background on some of Reg's favourite formations - never mind your new-fangled 4-4-2's bring back the good old 2-3-5!
Logged
Nemo
Shit Bacon


+9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 12016





Ignore
« Reply #5 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 12:11:55 »

There's a really good discussion of Reep's flaws (and how his methods, if not his conclusions, did help lay the ground for some genuinely useful work in football analysis) in Inverting the Pyramid. Great book, some in-depth background on how tactics/systems have evolved in the game, and some background on some of Reg's favourite formations - never mind your new-fangled 4-4-2's bring back the good old 2-3-5!

I think we tried the 2-3-5 under Donkey's management at Worldnet one year. Would be fair to say nobody quite understood what was going on.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia


+11/-77
Offline Offline

Posts: 27966





Ignore
« Reply #6 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 12:24:27 »

 When I first started, we used to play the WM formation....the 62/63 side being the classic exponenet.

 Full backs....John Trollope on the left, Terry Wollen/ Owen Dawson on the right. Ken McPherson/Maurice Owen at centre half.

 Wing halves....Keith Morgan and Bobby Woodruff.  Inside forwards, Cliff Jackson and Ernie Hunt with Roger Smart for cover.

 2 wingers. Mike Summerbee and Arnold Darcy, with the 17 year old Don getting some matches.  Jack Smith at centre forward.

 In today's money 3-2-2-3
Logged
Tails


+9/-7
Offline Offline

Posts: 7753


Git facked




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 12:56:21 »

Nothing beats the Malpas / Byrne formation of 4-3.5-2.5
Logged

RobertT


+8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 5276




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 18:30:15 »

The problem with the use of stats, or any analysis in football, seems to be that everyone moves to the perceived norm.  Pretty much removing any influence it may have on changing a teams performance over a long period of time.

As an example, Leicester attempted to use a different approach last season than the norm, going against all the data.  The net outcome was probably a bit better than hoped for, but it shows how choosing an approach completely different (and getting it right) can be effective.  I'd like to see some stats on that.

Another example was us under Ardiles and then Spurs shows what happens over time.  few teams knew how to combat our approach, and the same got glowing praise at Spurs to begin with.  As soon as teams focused on countering the "new", rather than focusing on their "norm" they nullified the new threat.  This, in my view, is how new formations become the norm - like the 4-2-3-1 is now, or maybe we'll see 3-4-3 start to take off.  It seems to happen more now, maybe because of the stats showing new approaches and their effectiveness?  But even back to 2-3-5 days, you see new formations begin to takeover because they countered the existing norm and created something new that the others couldn't handle.

The same happened for us 2 seasons ago - however it took a very short period of time for the effective counter to be deployed.  You often hear since then of team adapting their game when playing us.  They go back to the norm outside of that (for this level).

I'll disagree until the cows come home that's all about the players, like Redknapp may argue.  Barcelona did not, at the outset, have a team of players so much more gifted than all other teams - they just practiced a very specific new approach, and against teams of equal ability were sufficiently different to enable them to take a leap.  The fact that they had decent quality players meant it took a longer than normal time for teams to counter them, and their own league allowed them to hone that approach against lesser teams (not saying the Spanish league is poor, just that the norm in that country gave them the freedom).  They are a little less effective now, and have adapted themselves with their front 3 now.  For now, most other teams have tried to counter them rather than completely replicate them

I think Ferguson was good at this - his Man Utd teams would change each season, even if only slightly.

Redknapp comes down on players side mainly because his success has always followed chucking a load of new players together.  I think he's a short term success person, and changing your personnel can have a similar impact, but the whole approach of a team can be much more effective - you just need to be so far ahead of everyone or keep adapting to stay ahead of them.
Logged
donkey
Cheers!


+13/-8
Offline Offline

Posts: 5531


He headed a football.




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 18:40:49 »

I think we tried the 2-3-5 under Donkey's management at Worldnet one year. Would be fair to say nobody quite understood what was going on.

With what I had to work with...hell's teeth.😉
Logged

donkey tells the truth

I headed the ball.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeee-aaaaaaaawwwwwww
A Gent Orange


+0/-0
Online Online

Posts: 1560



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #10 on: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 20:07:26 »

Agree with much of what you say there Robert, particularly on the evolution of systems, although too much is made of formations which are just the notation and are frequently misinterpreted.

What is interesting on data (in my limited understanding) is that it shows how little data a season provides. 40 games isn't really many when you are talking about rare events such as goals. So for Leicester the data largely seemed to show a team far out performing their stats on shots, conversion rates, chance creation and saves. Hence they have now regressed to the mean.

Could it be luck? Confidence? Clearly it isn't that easy to replicate as it isn't working this season - and probably won't again.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: