Busby and Ferguson
Sralex has now surpassed Sir Matt as the longest-serving Man U manager. Who's better? I think it's a non-comparable which may seem like a copout. Clearly Ferguson has racked up more silverware. Busby's achievement, though, really can't be measured. It transcends fitba or even sport. To have the fortitude to put his life back together after Munich is a colossal achievement, to build the team he did is beyond that. Non Man U fans probably think this is maudlin blather. They may be right but I think that what many do not appreciate is how great was the team that died. These were all young men - "Busby babes" - that Busby would have regarded as second, third...etc sons. I regret that I didn't see that team but my dad did and he was the finest judge of fitba that I've ever met: his judgment - they were the best he ever saw. The best that I've ever seen were his 60s teams. I used to think it was just nostalgia but you can now get videos of matches from the 60s and they were great: that group of players would have been just as exceptional now.
Having said that I'm equally in awe of what Sralex has done. Here's the link between the two men: they were/are both passionate about fitba as an expression of creativity. While they both understood the need for defense and the darker arts theirs was/is a commitment to winning with style. Ferguson's teams have all played wonderful stuff as well as winning stuff. I wonder if we'll see their like again. They both come from an era of Scottish fitba that may have passed. The scots produced a succession of unique players way above their population size, players of vision, passion, skill and toughness. Crerand, Young, Baxter, Johnston, Dalglish and many others of not quite that calibre but still distinct, like Archie and Tommy Gemmill, Morgan,McNeil, Ure. That production line seems, alas, to have petered out.
But I digress and there's no shortage of similar passion in nations large and small, from Italy, Brazil, Spain, Argentina to Croatia, Holland, Greece.
A lot of fans instintively loathe Man U but I ask all to metaphorically tip their hats to two great football men who between them provided almot 50 years of some truly grat football.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Something Sure is Fishy Here
Another baseball no-hitter. More pure gold for sports journalists - who, apparently, must take reverse-statistics knowledge test before becoming eligible for employment. Similar to the spate of traffic pedestrian deaths in Toronto in early 2010 the likely underlying statistical "law" is the Poisson distribution under which, to simplify a bit, random events can "come in bunches". However, as in all statistics, the Poisson only applies to "independent" events. So what kinds of factors might make no-hitters dependent in some fashion? Everything that goes into a no-hitter, inter alia, the relative skills of the pitcher and hitters, their health, the size of the ballpark, whether the second baseman has had the curse taken off his glove by sacrificing a rooster... The likelihood that some combination of which would follow some non-independent distribution is very remote. In other words, the default presumption of the Poisson is highly likely. This won't stop sports journalists from speculating endlessly on the literally infinite set of factors that putatively are "causing" the spate of no-hitters. In contrast, the increase in home runs that occurred in what we now know to be an era of rampant steroid use is explainable by the application of orthodox statistical methods without elaborate explanations of non-independence of random events.
Which brings us to Tiger Woods. Previously I have argued that Woods has been so dominant because he's been so much better than everyone else - hence he's almost always made the cut and then been in contention for the 4th round - not because of some supernatural "clutch" ability. A posible non-independent factor would have been that he "psyched" the field which I take to be highly implausible. I think that I'm correct in saying that he's now equalled his worst span between majors; if he fails to win the PGA he's in new territory. The big factor going forward, of course, is; has the relative gulf between him and the field shrunk? If he fails and the drought continues this will lead to an orgy of speculation as to its causes. Once again, by Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is preferred and my money is on him having a longer drought simply because he's gone back a little (minor cause) and the field has gotten (significantly) better.
The tendency of sports journalists to ignore statistics and to dwell on "stories" is part of a much larger and more disturbing apect of modern media and its influence on public policy. Longo distingusihes between those who "tell stories" and those who "know how to count". Take a look, for example, of most winners of the Pullitzer, e.g. Friedman, Halberstam, Hersh, etc.. or someone like Gladwell, or Homer-Dixon or Florida (or before their vogue, Magazine, Reich). These are all superb witers, no doubt but their modus operandi is the same. String together a bunch of "telling anecdotes" and character sketches with "insightful" analogies and, hey presto, you have some overaching narrative. They never stop to count, i.e. do these various things add up and can they be checked?
It's occurred to me recently that there's a connection with Foucault and post-modernism. One of the great positive aspects of the Enlightenment and "mechanistic" thinking is that it forces us to count and to check. There is, indeed, an underlying assumption - something is conserved (i.e. you can add up to a checkable whole which is not greater or less than the sum of its parts), mass, energy, populations, etc.. Pushed to the limit a Foucauldian or any other thoroughgoing relativist could say that these conservation principles are just culturally-determined assumptions and its true that the only rebuttal is a Johnsonian kick in the pants but that's a breathtaking denial of modernity. Which, is exactly the point. As long as deconstructers can pick away at intellectual nits with great vituosity they don't have to defend the untenable "whole" worldview that lies at the base of their hermeneutical methods.
Finally, while the World Cup produced a worthy winner and a final that I enjoyed (what were the Dutch to do after seeing a very clean German team get dismembered? - such hypocrisy, everyone who's played at any level knows that you have rough up more skilled teams if you're interested in winning and what a slap in the face to the WC to assume Holland didn't) there's an annoying "buzz" in English punditry sbout completing passes. This is "counting" that's spurious statistics. What's important isn't that Iniesta completes 87.8765% of his passes but that some of them split the defence. My favorite, Sneijder, almost decided the final with one pass - the one that released Robben to have Casillas make a save with his foot. (Btw notwithstanding Casillas being a great goalie Robben did poorly on that chance: van Nistelrooy would have buried it 99.9% of the time.) My guess, e.g., is that over his career Ryan Giggs has a fairly poor completion % - because he attempted so many difficult passes, which when they come off produce a high probability of a goal. The larger lesson; counting without insight is just as bad as stories without counting.
Another baseball no-hitter. More pure gold for sports journalists - who, apparently, must take reverse-statistics knowledge test before becoming eligible for employment. Similar to the spate of traffic pedestrian deaths in Toronto in early 2010 the likely underlying statistical "law" is the Poisson distribution under which, to simplify a bit, random events can "come in bunches". However, as in all statistics, the Poisson only applies to "independent" events. So what kinds of factors might make no-hitters dependent in some fashion? Everything that goes into a no-hitter, inter alia, the relative skills of the pitcher and hitters, their health, the size of the ballpark, whether the second baseman has had the curse taken off his glove by sacrificing a rooster... The likelihood that some combination of which would follow some non-independent distribution is very remote. In other words, the default presumption of the Poisson is highly likely. This won't stop sports journalists from speculating endlessly on the literally infinite set of factors that putatively are "causing" the spate of no-hitters. In contrast, the increase in home runs that occurred in what we now know to be an era of rampant steroid use is explainable by the application of orthodox statistical methods without elaborate explanations of non-independence of random events.
Which brings us to Tiger Woods. Previously I have argued that Woods has been so dominant because he's been so much better than everyone else - hence he's almost always made the cut and then been in contention for the 4th round - not because of some supernatural "clutch" ability. A posible non-independent factor would have been that he "psyched" the field which I take to be highly implausible. I think that I'm correct in saying that he's now equalled his worst span between majors; if he fails to win the PGA he's in new territory. The big factor going forward, of course, is; has the relative gulf between him and the field shrunk? If he fails and the drought continues this will lead to an orgy of speculation as to its causes. Once again, by Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is preferred and my money is on him having a longer drought simply because he's gone back a little (minor cause) and the field has gotten (significantly) better.
The tendency of sports journalists to ignore statistics and to dwell on "stories" is part of a much larger and more disturbing apect of modern media and its influence on public policy. Longo distingusihes between those who "tell stories" and those who "know how to count". Take a look, for example, of most winners of the Pullitzer, e.g. Friedman, Halberstam, Hersh, etc.. or someone like Gladwell, or Homer-Dixon or Florida (or before their vogue, Magazine, Reich). These are all superb witers, no doubt but their modus operandi is the same. String together a bunch of "telling anecdotes" and character sketches with "insightful" analogies and, hey presto, you have some overaching narrative. They never stop to count, i.e. do these various things add up and can they be checked?
It's occurred to me recently that there's a connection with Foucault and post-modernism. One of the great positive aspects of the Enlightenment and "mechanistic" thinking is that it forces us to count and to check. There is, indeed, an underlying assumption - something is conserved (i.e. you can add up to a checkable whole which is not greater or less than the sum of its parts), mass, energy, populations, etc.. Pushed to the limit a Foucauldian or any other thoroughgoing relativist could say that these conservation principles are just culturally-determined assumptions and its true that the only rebuttal is a Johnsonian kick in the pants but that's a breathtaking denial of modernity. Which, is exactly the point. As long as deconstructers can pick away at intellectual nits with great vituosity they don't have to defend the untenable "whole" worldview that lies at the base of their hermeneutical methods.
Finally, while the World Cup produced a worthy winner and a final that I enjoyed (what were the Dutch to do after seeing a very clean German team get dismembered? - such hypocrisy, everyone who's played at any level knows that you have rough up more skilled teams if you're interested in winning and what a slap in the face to the WC to assume Holland didn't) there's an annoying "buzz" in English punditry sbout completing passes. This is "counting" that's spurious statistics. What's important isn't that Iniesta completes 87.8765% of his passes but that some of them split the defence. My favorite, Sneijder, almost decided the final with one pass - the one that released Robben to have Casillas make a save with his foot. (Btw notwithstanding Casillas being a great goalie Robben did poorly on that chance: van Nistelrooy would have buried it 99.9% of the time.) My guess, e.g., is that over his career Ryan Giggs has a fairly poor completion % - because he attempted so many difficult passes, which when they come off produce a high probability of a goal. The larger lesson; counting without insight is just as bad as stories without counting.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Germany ruthlessly thrash Spain 0-1 with width and patience
The BBC pundits definitely watch a different match. Until Spain scored you would think that Germany, not managing any actual attempts at goal (except one from 25 yards right at Casillas) but always threatening, had Spain right where they wanted them. Whereas in the match I saw, Spain were completely dominant, should have scored at least two and Germany were poor, giving the ball away countless times. Guess what, when Germany had to catch up they looked just as hapless at the back as England and Argentina and more devoid of any way to get through Spain's defence. Yes Kloos drew a fine save from Casillas but if you cross enough times you'll get chances by random. In contrast Argentina until the 70th minute varied their attacks and were unlucky not to score. (Admittedly Germany only had 20 minutes to catch up.) As I said in the last post Germany are a fine team but lack a class player. Not Ozil. Not Schweinsteiger. Correction. They do have one but he's injured (Ballack).
Speaking of injuries I'm afraid Torres may never be quite the same again. He's lost a yard, like Kaka. A very clear example was when he beat Freidrich (F) with a characteristically lovely changed of direction and pace but F was able to recover and knock the ball away. Last year Neuer would have been tested and most likely failed. When he recovers his confidence he'll still score, like Owen, but I fear that he'll never be a magician again.
I don't mean to dump on Germany which is a very fine team with an admirable head coach that plays very good football. I really enjoyed the match which was remarkably clean and a credit to both sides. I'm just taking issue with the English pundits.
The BBC pundits definitely watch a different match. Until Spain scored you would think that Germany, not managing any actual attempts at goal (except one from 25 yards right at Casillas) but always threatening, had Spain right where they wanted them. Whereas in the match I saw, Spain were completely dominant, should have scored at least two and Germany were poor, giving the ball away countless times. Guess what, when Germany had to catch up they looked just as hapless at the back as England and Argentina and more devoid of any way to get through Spain's defence. Yes Kloos drew a fine save from Casillas but if you cross enough times you'll get chances by random. In contrast Argentina until the 70th minute varied their attacks and were unlucky not to score. (Admittedly Germany only had 20 minutes to catch up.) As I said in the last post Germany are a fine team but lack a class player. Not Ozil. Not Schweinsteiger. Correction. They do have one but he's injured (Ballack).
Speaking of injuries I'm afraid Torres may never be quite the same again. He's lost a yard, like Kaka. A very clear example was when he beat Freidrich (F) with a characteristically lovely changed of direction and pace but F was able to recover and knock the ball away. Last year Neuer would have been tested and most likely failed. When he recovers his confidence he'll still score, like Owen, but I fear that he'll never be a magician again.
I don't mean to dump on Germany which is a very fine team with an admirable head coach that plays very good football. I really enjoyed the match which was remarkably clean and a credit to both sides. I'm just taking issue with the English pundits.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
On to the semis
Capello and his team don’t look so bad now, do they? The Argie “wizards” also went down to Germany 4-0. Incidentally, am I the only one who has the sense that the paid pundits watch something completely different? On the beeb I read that Argentina showed no likelihood of breaking down the Germans: for 70 minutes, until Germany made it 2-0, against the run of play and due to a strange defensive breakdown, Argentina controlled the game, had a goal disallowed for offside and created 6-7 decent chances. Schweinsteiger was adequate not brilliant: he did well on the 3rd goal but only because Higuain was back defending and made a pathetic attempt at a tackle. The invincible Brazilians went down to a better Dutch team (and rest assured, despite his characteristic honesty in claiming responsibility, it was not Carlos Dunga’s fault). (Interesting how Brazil lost its composure when it fell behind: I feel this was a bit of payback for their fluky win over a much better Argentina in the 2008 Copa America.) In all of the gnashing of teeth that always accompanies England’s exit from the World Cup finals no-one among the many paid pundits ever says that there are a lot of sighs of relief. No-one ever looks forward to playing England, as “bad” as the teams are. Just as no-one looks forward to playing Germany. Why? In basketball it’s called the “press”. When you play either team you’re in for 90 minutes of relentless physical press. Germany have proven to be much more disciplined at it and – let this be said – produce, position-for-position – slightly better players. Capello turned around the discipline but he just didn’t have the quality that we thought he had. For the future? For Euro? Probably not enough quality but England will qualify if the FA does indeed stick with Fabio and may go far (only to fall short, likely). Four years out it depends on whether new talent arrives.
Which brings us to Germany and the other three teams left standing. Germany lacks a Der Kaiser (Beckenbauer) or Mattheus. Can they win on overall team strength? (They have no top-bracket players equivalent to the incomparable der Kaiser or Mattheus.) It says here “no”. Uruguay (Forlan), Spain (David Villa) and Holland (Sneijder) each have a genuine top-bracket player who’s come good at the right time. Since all four have strong supporting casts (especially Spain) it’s going to come down to which of these provides that extra bit of quality needed to win. My money’s now on Sneijder. He was the main reason that Inter did the triple and he’s continued to play at that level. He has what Matt Busby called “vision” and he has it more than anyone else right now. Fortune is running with him, too – witness his only headed goal for Holland. Very pleased to see Forlan step into the limelight. United fans were all wrong about him. I think I said at the time (i.e. when he played for the Reds) how he reminds me of Law. Not as fast – and not quite as good – but he too has Vision and goalscoring instincts. The rest of the team are not quite there, though, compared to Holland and, plus the Sneijder factor, I’d be surprised if he gets into the Final. Germany could get past Spain – who may not be physical enough – but if they do Holland will reverse 1974 in the Final, which would be nice.
A number of stars have not performed but Rooney was a disaster. How can someone that good lose it so badly? Here’s a theory. It was mainly the marriage of huge expectations and the jabuliya plus a bit of cussedness. The center of Rooney’s game has always been his stellar ballstriking. He’s a human textbook. His technique for the classic instep kick, I mean. And not just technique. He has great balance and the ability to adjust to wherever the ball is. Even when the other parts of his game have been off in the past, which happens, football at EPL level is so fast that the margins for error are very small, he’s always been able to terrorize keepers with his shot. No-one, plainly, can hit the jabuliya full with the instep so this is not just Rooney’s problem. Paradoxically, his perfect technique makes it harder for him to make the small adjustments needed to get it on target with enough speed and control. (Incidentally the ball is unstable because of its touted “most perfect roundness” – like when golf balls were smooth, at a threshold velocity (which varies according to atmospheric conditions) the airflow around the ball becomes turbulent or “chaotic” and its flight is completely unpredictable. I suspect this is a case of marketing geniuses prevailing over the technicians, who surely must have known that the ball’s flight is unstable. I will be interesting to see if the authorities persist with it. I’ve heard that the Bundesliga used it this past season which may account for a lot of the German success - they’re just more familiar with its idiosyncracies – notice how hard it is control.) With his “rock of Gibraltar” gone, for the first time in his life Rooney lost confidence. Just at a time when the Nation was looking to him for magic. No-one wonder he looked scared. Not just his shots at goal but his pass weightings, which are normally superb, were all off. For once in his life he may even have had that emotion known to us lesser beings – please don’t let the ball come to me! Imagine yourself in Rooney’s shoes feeling a loss of that which had always been “there” for you at a time when all of England was looking to you. Rooney is mentally tough but that’s too much.
Which brings me to the last little bit, which is not so sympathetic. I think he gave up. It was his mental defence against losing the certainties in his life. He would have started to buy into the rubbish about Capello in the media and no doubt sowed by some of the disaffected in the camp, most notably, Terry (who, to his disgrace, did not give of his best against Germany). He would have used this to say to himself “Wayne, you’re being wrongly used by the f—g disciplinarian Itie; when England lose he’ll be gone and it’ll be back to someone who worships you.” Depending on what happens with the ball and with Wayne I think that this can be overcome (but Terry has to go). Plainly Capello was getting more out of Rooney by treating him as an adult in the qualifying run. Wayne will get over his funk – he loves the game, it’s at the center of his being.
Capello and his team don’t look so bad now, do they? The Argie “wizards” also went down to Germany 4-0. Incidentally, am I the only one who has the sense that the paid pundits watch something completely different? On the beeb I read that Argentina showed no likelihood of breaking down the Germans: for 70 minutes, until Germany made it 2-0, against the run of play and due to a strange defensive breakdown, Argentina controlled the game, had a goal disallowed for offside and created 6-7 decent chances. Schweinsteiger was adequate not brilliant: he did well on the 3rd goal but only because Higuain was back defending and made a pathetic attempt at a tackle. The invincible Brazilians went down to a better Dutch team (and rest assured, despite his characteristic honesty in claiming responsibility, it was not Carlos Dunga’s fault). (Interesting how Brazil lost its composure when it fell behind: I feel this was a bit of payback for their fluky win over a much better Argentina in the 2008 Copa America.) In all of the gnashing of teeth that always accompanies England’s exit from the World Cup finals no-one among the many paid pundits ever says that there are a lot of sighs of relief. No-one ever looks forward to playing England, as “bad” as the teams are. Just as no-one looks forward to playing Germany. Why? In basketball it’s called the “press”. When you play either team you’re in for 90 minutes of relentless physical press. Germany have proven to be much more disciplined at it and – let this be said – produce, position-for-position – slightly better players. Capello turned around the discipline but he just didn’t have the quality that we thought he had. For the future? For Euro? Probably not enough quality but England will qualify if the FA does indeed stick with Fabio and may go far (only to fall short, likely). Four years out it depends on whether new talent arrives.
Which brings us to Germany and the other three teams left standing. Germany lacks a Der Kaiser (Beckenbauer) or Mattheus. Can they win on overall team strength? (They have no top-bracket players equivalent to the incomparable der Kaiser or Mattheus.) It says here “no”. Uruguay (Forlan), Spain (David Villa) and Holland (Sneijder) each have a genuine top-bracket player who’s come good at the right time. Since all four have strong supporting casts (especially Spain) it’s going to come down to which of these provides that extra bit of quality needed to win. My money’s now on Sneijder. He was the main reason that Inter did the triple and he’s continued to play at that level. He has what Matt Busby called “vision” and he has it more than anyone else right now. Fortune is running with him, too – witness his only headed goal for Holland. Very pleased to see Forlan step into the limelight. United fans were all wrong about him. I think I said at the time (i.e. when he played for the Reds) how he reminds me of Law. Not as fast – and not quite as good – but he too has Vision and goalscoring instincts. The rest of the team are not quite there, though, compared to Holland and, plus the Sneijder factor, I’d be surprised if he gets into the Final. Germany could get past Spain – who may not be physical enough – but if they do Holland will reverse 1974 in the Final, which would be nice.
A number of stars have not performed but Rooney was a disaster. How can someone that good lose it so badly? Here’s a theory. It was mainly the marriage of huge expectations and the jabuliya plus a bit of cussedness. The center of Rooney’s game has always been his stellar ballstriking. He’s a human textbook. His technique for the classic instep kick, I mean. And not just technique. He has great balance and the ability to adjust to wherever the ball is. Even when the other parts of his game have been off in the past, which happens, football at EPL level is so fast that the margins for error are very small, he’s always been able to terrorize keepers with his shot. No-one, plainly, can hit the jabuliya full with the instep so this is not just Rooney’s problem. Paradoxically, his perfect technique makes it harder for him to make the small adjustments needed to get it on target with enough speed and control. (Incidentally the ball is unstable because of its touted “most perfect roundness” – like when golf balls were smooth, at a threshold velocity (which varies according to atmospheric conditions) the airflow around the ball becomes turbulent or “chaotic” and its flight is completely unpredictable. I suspect this is a case of marketing geniuses prevailing over the technicians, who surely must have known that the ball’s flight is unstable. I will be interesting to see if the authorities persist with it. I’ve heard that the Bundesliga used it this past season which may account for a lot of the German success - they’re just more familiar with its idiosyncracies – notice how hard it is control.) With his “rock of Gibraltar” gone, for the first time in his life Rooney lost confidence. Just at a time when the Nation was looking to him for magic. No-one wonder he looked scared. Not just his shots at goal but his pass weightings, which are normally superb, were all off. For once in his life he may even have had that emotion known to us lesser beings – please don’t let the ball come to me! Imagine yourself in Rooney’s shoes feeling a loss of that which had always been “there” for you at a time when all of England was looking to you. Rooney is mentally tough but that’s too much.
Which brings me to the last little bit, which is not so sympathetic. I think he gave up. It was his mental defence against losing the certainties in his life. He would have started to buy into the rubbish about Capello in the media and no doubt sowed by some of the disaffected in the camp, most notably, Terry (who, to his disgrace, did not give of his best against Germany). He would have used this to say to himself “Wayne, you’re being wrongly used by the f—g disciplinarian Itie; when England lose he’ll be gone and it’ll be back to someone who worships you.” Depending on what happens with the ball and with Wayne I think that this can be overcome (but Terry has to go). Plainly Capello was getting more out of Rooney by treating him as an adult in the qualifying run. Wayne will get over his funk – he loves the game, it’s at the center of his being.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Post Mortem (Again)
While I do not believe, despite the media pundits, that the German team is any better than England (they were the beneficiaries of karma and with luck we’ve heard the end of their incessant whining about Geoff Hurst’s 2nd goal in 1966) it is clear that Capello does not have the magic needed to transmute lead into gold. We were foolish to think he did. He is a top class manager. If England cannot win with Capello they cannot win, period. And they cannot win. The Moore-Charlton equivalency holds. I’d let myself think that Rooney is an elite player: he has proven that he isn’t, he was flat-out awful. I still like the lad and that think he’ll bounce back for the Reds but Charlton equivalent he ain’t. Similarly, Lampard + Gerrard does not equal Bobby Moore. Gerrard has definitely gone back; I hope it’s not permanent but I fear that it is. On top of this, England fielded a poor defence. Terry has also gone back: he played very badly vs Germany. Upson simply doesn’t belong at this level although he showed great heart by scoring. Johnson is marginal. Cole is the only truly international class defender among them now. The others (Defoe, Barry, Milner, Cole, Heskey) are adequate if there were the M-C equivalency. SWP isn’t good enough nor Crouch, despite his goalscoring stats. James was ok as it turned out. Finally, all of the rabbiting on about formation is irrelevant claptrap.
While I do not believe, despite the media pundits, that the German team is any better than England (they were the beneficiaries of karma and with luck we’ve heard the end of their incessant whining about Geoff Hurst’s 2nd goal in 1966) it is clear that Capello does not have the magic needed to transmute lead into gold. We were foolish to think he did. He is a top class manager. If England cannot win with Capello they cannot win, period. And they cannot win. The Moore-Charlton equivalency holds. I’d let myself think that Rooney is an elite player: he has proven that he isn’t, he was flat-out awful. I still like the lad and that think he’ll bounce back for the Reds but Charlton equivalent he ain’t. Similarly, Lampard + Gerrard does not equal Bobby Moore. Gerrard has definitely gone back; I hope it’s not permanent but I fear that it is. On top of this, England fielded a poor defence. Terry has also gone back: he played very badly vs Germany. Upson simply doesn’t belong at this level although he showed great heart by scoring. Johnson is marginal. Cole is the only truly international class defender among them now. The others (Defoe, Barry, Milner, Cole, Heskey) are adequate if there were the M-C equivalency. SWP isn’t good enough nor Crouch, despite his goalscoring stats. James was ok as it turned out. Finally, all of the rabbiting on about formation is irrelevant claptrap.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Goal scoring in the World Cup Finals
I decided to look at whether the 2002 ball had any impact on goal scoring. I think that the answer is "no" subject to a caveat. Here's the post-war record.
matches goals goals/match
2006 64 146 2.28
2002 64 160 2.50
1998 64 171 2.67
1994 52 139 2.67
1990 52 114 2.19
1986 52 132 2.54
1982 54 148 2.74
1978 38 102 2.68
1974 38 97 2.55
1970 32 95 2.97
1966 32 83 2.59
1962 32 87 2.72
1958 35 126 3.60
1954 26 140 5.38
1950 24 95 3.96
Avg 2.94
The caveat is that the matches between the "big" countries may have more goals. The averages are brought up by the persistence of blow-out matches against outclassed teams.
I decided to look at whether the 2002 ball had any impact on goal scoring. I think that the answer is "no" subject to a caveat. Here's the post-war record.
matches goals goals/match
2006 64 146 2.28
2002 64 160 2.50
1998 64 171 2.67
1994 52 139 2.67
1990 52 114 2.19
1986 52 132 2.54
1982 54 148 2.74
1978 38 102 2.68
1974 38 97 2.55
1970 32 95 2.97
1966 32 83 2.59
1962 32 87 2.72
1958 35 126 3.60
1954 26 140 5.38
1950 24 95 3.96
Avg 2.94
The caveat is that the matches between the "big" countries may have more goals. The averages are brought up by the persistence of blow-out matches against outclassed teams.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
It Begins
The players are having trouble adjusting to the new ball as they did when previous new balls were introduced. Surely they can't make them any lighter? Goalies can now kick from their hands the entire length of the pitch. Watch for a goalie scoring. The main effect so far seems to be on heading: they can't keep their headers down. It also looks like the ball swerves a bit in flight throwing off their timing on all headers not just at goal. Watch how they're needing 2-3 touches to get the ball under control and how many overhit passes. Plus they're hitting free kicks high. The way it's going no-one will use their instep any more - they'll all be inside of the foot putting a "draw" spin on the ball. The dangerous shots seems to be low ones. Besides Green's gaffe - which was not due to the ball - the Slovenian goal was badly handled after skipping off the turf. The irony with Green's howler was he'd jus shown perfect techique for low shots on a tougher, longer pot shot by Altidore a few minutes earlier. He just failed to "square up".
England's going to be ok. They created enough oportunities to win handily. If they keep getting outside the fullbacks inside the 18 yard line someone's going to connect with the crosses. I was disappointed that Lennon didn't take a few more runs at his fullback. He had 3-4 chances similar to the one when he pulled it back from the byline close to the 6 yard box - the most dangerous play in soccer. Algeria and Slovenia are not in England's league.
Argentina has been the class so far. Nice header by Heinze - notice that he actually had to stoop and that helped him keep it under the bar. Argentina played some great on the ground stuff with Messi much in evidence. One last harp (for now) about the ball - even Messi had trouble a number of times getting it under control. Also - take note inveterate Heskey critics - he fluffed a couple of point-blank chances.
The players are having trouble adjusting to the new ball as they did when previous new balls were introduced. Surely they can't make them any lighter? Goalies can now kick from their hands the entire length of the pitch. Watch for a goalie scoring. The main effect so far seems to be on heading: they can't keep their headers down. It also looks like the ball swerves a bit in flight throwing off their timing on all headers not just at goal. Watch how they're needing 2-3 touches to get the ball under control and how many overhit passes. Plus they're hitting free kicks high. The way it's going no-one will use their instep any more - they'll all be inside of the foot putting a "draw" spin on the ball. The dangerous shots seems to be low ones. Besides Green's gaffe - which was not due to the ball - the Slovenian goal was badly handled after skipping off the turf. The irony with Green's howler was he'd jus shown perfect techique for low shots on a tougher, longer pot shot by Altidore a few minutes earlier. He just failed to "square up".
England's going to be ok. They created enough oportunities to win handily. If they keep getting outside the fullbacks inside the 18 yard line someone's going to connect with the crosses. I was disappointed that Lennon didn't take a few more runs at his fullback. He had 3-4 chances similar to the one when he pulled it back from the byline close to the 6 yard box - the most dangerous play in soccer. Algeria and Slovenia are not in England's league.
Argentina has been the class so far. Nice header by Heinze - notice that he actually had to stoop and that helped him keep it under the bar. Argentina played some great on the ground stuff with Messi much in evidence. One last harp (for now) about the ball - even Messi had trouble a number of times getting it under control. Also - take note inveterate Heskey critics - he fluffed a couple of point-blank chances.
Monday, June 07, 2010
2010 World Cup Begins
FIFA has introduced a new ball as it did in 2002. Perhaps it did in 2006 and I missed it. Be that as it may, I was thrilled to see an interview with Gordon Banks on the Beeb site. They were asking him about England's goalies situation but he also ventured into territory that I think will have set some teeth on edge in the circle of panjandarums. Which is to say that he talked about how the ball has changed. He noted how light it is, next to impossible to catch and moves about erratically.
This inspired me to check if goalscoring has been boosted, since anecdotally this seems to be the case. Just going back over past World Cups, however, this is not borne out statistically. I will report on this more fully in a future blog.
I have no doubt, however, that there are more long-range goals than before the new lighter balls were made standard and, likewise, more long passes.
Some players have complained about the new ball, Others like it. Lampard, for one, likes the movement that it creates. Look for some embarassing goals. Just hope it doesn't spoil things.
FIFA has introduced a new ball as it did in 2002. Perhaps it did in 2006 and I missed it. Be that as it may, I was thrilled to see an interview with Gordon Banks on the Beeb site. They were asking him about England's goalies situation but he also ventured into territory that I think will have set some teeth on edge in the circle of panjandarums. Which is to say that he talked about how the ball has changed. He noted how light it is, next to impossible to catch and moves about erratically.
This inspired me to check if goalscoring has been boosted, since anecdotally this seems to be the case. Just going back over past World Cups, however, this is not borne out statistically. I will report on this more fully in a future blog.
I have no doubt, however, that there are more long-range goals than before the new lighter balls were made standard and, likewise, more long passes.
Some players have complained about the new ball, Others like it. Lampard, for one, likes the movement that it creates. Look for some embarassing goals. Just hope it doesn't spoil things.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)