How the spreadsheet-wielding geeks are taking over football

The statistical revolution comes to the pitch.

You are invited to read this free preview of the upcoming New Statesman, out today. To purchase the full magazine - with our signature mix of opinion, longreads and arts coverage, plus columns by Helen Lewis on Japan, Will Self on Claire Balding, and a major report from Turkey by Helena Drysdale - please visit our subscription page.

 

 

The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know About Football Is Wrong
Chris Anderson and David Sally
Viking, £12.99, 384pp

Almost exactly a decade ago, the American writer Michael Lewis published a book called Moneyball. It told the story of Billy Beane, the general manager of an unfashionable baseball team, the Oakland A’s, who was using new statistics to evaluate baseball players and strategies. From this unpromising material, Lewis crafted a bestseller that has sold more than a million copies.

Books hardly ever change anything but this one did. Moneyball changed baseball and almost all ball games from basketball to cricket but it also affected worlds beyond sport. Ken Mehlman, Republican campaign manager in the US presidential election of 2004, instructed his staff to read it, because he realised that it wasn’t just a sports book. It was also a perfect case study of how crunching numbers can give you an edge. That made it a book for our era of “Big Data”, in which the amount of data on earth more than doubles every two years and the only mystery is how to use all these confusing numbers.

Football, or “soccer” was always the most hidebound sport and it held out longest against the numbers revolution. But now, as Chris Anderson and David Sally write in their engaging and stimulating book The Numbers Game, “The datafication of life has started to infiltrate football.” That is quite a change. In football, people always did what they did because they had always done it that way. Clubs were historically run by autocratic managers who had left school at 16 to become players and didn’t hold with book-learning. However, unseen by most fans, something profound is happening inside the sport.

Like Moneyball, The Numbers Game reaches us from the US, which is rapidly becoming a soccer society. Anderson, originally from Germany, played semi-professional soccer before becoming a professor of government at Cornell. His neighbour Sally, once a baseball pitcher at Harvard, is a behavioural economist at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. Watching soccer on television together, they grew interested in the game’s relative lack of numbers and analytics.

That absence had struck the first pioneer of numbers in football, Wing Commander Charles Reep. Not a fighter pilot but an accountant in the RAF’s Bomber Command, Reep made what is probably the first known attempt to log “match data”.

In 1950, at a Swindon Town game, he logged 147 attacks by Swindon in the second half. Extrapolating from this small sample, Reep calculated that 99.29 per cent of attacks in football failed. He continued to offer his services as an analyst to clubs into his late nineties but, as Anderson and Sally show, he was on a wild goose chase. Reep assumed that there was only one correct way to play football and, naturally, he thought he had found it. Boot the ball long, said the wing commander – put it near the opposition’s goal and you will win.

In reality, Anderson and Sally write, “There is no winning formula. There is no right answer to football.” Different strokes suit different teams. To quote the great Liverpool manager Bob Paisley: “It’s not about the long ball or the short ball; it’s about the right ball.” (The best managers of the past, including Paisley, intuited many of the findings now emerging from the numbers.)

In the mid-1990s, the spread of computers reignited the data revolution. Companies such as Opta and Prozone began collecting stats on football matches. Suddenly, clubs knew how many passes each player had completed, how many tackles he had made and how many kilometres he had run.

As soon as data becomes available in any industry, some people will use it – but they often use it wrongly. As the American baseball analyst-turned-master psephologist Nate Silver says of the new Big Data: “Most of the data is just noise, as most of the universe is filled with empty space.” Alex Ferguson, Manchester United’s manager, discovered this after he sold his defender Jaap Stam in 2001 because Stam’s number of tackles was decreasing. Ferguson thought Stam was in decline. Stam went on to play several more years for big clubs.

It turned out that tackles were a poor measure of a defender’s worth: they were just noise. We now know that great defenders such as the Italian Paolo Maldini barely tackle. Maldini stopped attacks from happening by positioning himself to close holes. Yet, as Anderson and Sally point out, that kind of negative event – the attack that doesn’t happen, the dog that doesn’t bark – is often hard to spot in match data. Football statistics tend to focus on things that do happen and, above all, on goals that do get scored.

As the data revolution progresses, more and more clubs are finding clever ways to use numbers. Each season, the number of sceptics declines – in part because many people in the game have now read Moneyball or at least seen the 2011 Hollywood movie starring Brad Pitt as Beane.

Not all the traditionalists are going quietly into the night. Some are now scheming to defend their turf against spreadsheet-wielding geeks. But others are learning not to believe their own eyes. As Beane told me: “The idea that I trust my eyes more than the stats – I don’t buy that, because I’ve seen magicians pull rabbits out of hats and I just know that rabbit’s not in there.”

The data revolution keeps stumbling on new truths. At Manchester City, for instance, the analysts finally persuaded the club’s then manager, Roberto Mancini, that the most dangerous corner kick is the inswinger, the ball that swings towards goal. Mancini had long argued (strictly from intuition) that outswingers were best. Eventually he capitulated and, in the 2011-2012 season, when City won the English title, they scored 15 goals from corners, the most in the Premier League. The decisive goal, Vincent Kompany’s header against Manchester United, came from an in swinging corner.

The most powerful figure in English football remains the manager and the statistical revolution has progressed fastest at clubs where the manager believes in data. Probably the leaders in this field in England today are Arsenal’s Arsène Wenger (an economics graduate and gifted mathematician), West Ham’s Sam Allardyce (not a gifted mathematician) and Manchester United’s incoming manager, David Moyes.

In March, I visited Moyes’s then club, Everton, and one of his data analysts told me, “In terms of managers, he is probably as into it [data] as any.” Moyes would often march into the analysts’ offices firing out questions: how efficient were Everton’s next opponents at scoring from crosses? What types of passes did their midfielders make? In which areas of the field did Tottenham’s superstar Gareth Bale usually receive the ball?

For managers such as Moyes, data isn’t everything. It is one tool among many. It gives you an edge and, since you could employ perhaps 30 statisticians for the £1.5m that the average player in the Premier League earns, it’s an edge you can afford. Still, as Anderson and Sally caution: “The data cannot do the manager’s job.” Interpreting data is an art more than a science.

In 2004, the data told Wenger that an unknown French teenager, Mathieu Flamini, was running an astonishing 14 kilometres a game. By itself, that number wasn’t enough. Did Flamini run in the right direction? Wenger went to watch him, decided he did and signed him for peanuts.

Even more cheaply than hiring another statistician, a cunning manager could pop into a bookshop and splash £12.99 on The Numbers Game. The book contains several fascinating examples of statistics that could help club chairmen, managers or fans. Perhaps the book’s most remarkable finding is that football is a “weakest-link game” – although it’s nice to have great players in your team, it’s more important not to have rubbish players. Games are typically decided not by the Wayne Rooneys but by oafs such as Zurab Khizanishvili, a defender whose blunders in a play-off in 2011 arguably cost Reading promotion to the Premier League.

Anderson and Sally crunch some of the new data on individual players to estimate that upgrading your weakest link typically improves your team more than buying a new superstar would. Despite this, managers, being human and wanting to please fans and journalists, usually prefer the superstar.

The book overturns several other tenets of football thinking. For instance, the old saying that you’re most likely to concede a goal straight after scoring turns out to be nonsense. According to the stats, that’s when you’re least likely to concede.

The numbers also show the outsize role of chance in football. In one study of 43,000 matches, the underdog won 45.2 per cent. Favourites win much less often in football than in other ball games.

That is chiefly because goals in football are so scarce: you can attack all match but if the opposition nicks one lucky goal, you can lose. Then the media and fans provide a post hoc rationalisation for your defeat, even though it was dumb luck.

The Numbers Game also shows that sacking the manager – football’s equivalent of the human sacrifice – is usually pointless. Typically, the manager is sacked when the team hits its lowest point. Yet any statistician can predict what will happen after you hit your lowest point: performance will improve, because of the statistical phenomenon known as regression to the mean. Anderson and Sally explain: “An extraordinary period of poor performance is just that: extraordinary. It will auto-correct as players return from injury, shots stop hitting the post or fortune shines her light on you once more.”

Sunderland briefly improved this spring under their new manager, Paolo Di Canio, not because fascism works but because of regression to the mean.

There is an excellent final chapter predicting how football’s data revolution will progress. The authors forecast, for instance, that the historic undervaluation of goalkeepers and defenders – who command lower average salaries and transfer fees than strikers – is likely to end.

That’s because stats show that keeping a “clean sheet” helps a team more than scoring lots of goals does. And, as data evolves, we will find ways to value the almost invisible contributions that defenders such as Maldini make. Anderson and Sally believe that football data will increasingly focus on the geometry of the game off the ball – which is crucial, as the average player has the ball for only 53 seconds a game.

They also predict that the biggest innovations will come from poorer clubs, football’s equivalents of the Oakland A’s: “The strong do not need to innovate; it is the weak who must adapt or die.” Rich clubs such as Chelsea can succeed simply by buying great players. As the authors admit: “Analytics will help you win, but so will money.”

Moneyball was the Communist Manifesto of the data revolution, in sport and beyond. The Numbers Game isn’t as groundbreaking as its authors proclaim. Its subtitle – “Why Everything You Know About Football Is Wrong” – is an unnecessary overstatement. Nonetheless, the book is a valuable addition to the scarce literature at a time when pioneers inside football are only just starting to work out which stats matter, while people outside the game still scarcely know that anything is changing.

The Numbers Game is energetically and cleanly written and is free of academic jargon, though it is occasionally guilty of faux-poetic overwriting: “Each side possesses a light side, seeking the goal, and a dark side, hoping to divert it. And at the centre of that collision between the positive and the negative, the yin and the yang, is the ball” – and so on.

The authors have done their homework and I have only one sad correction to make: Nick Broad isn’t a performance scientist with Paris Saint-Germain any more. He was killed in a car crash in January, aged 38.

Simon Kuper is co-author of “Soccernomics” (HarperSport, £8.99) and a columnist with the Financial Times

An aerial view of the Hackney Marshes football pitches in London. Photograph: Getty Images

This article first appeared in the 10 June 2013 issue of the New Statesman, G0

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The UK press’s timid reaction to Brexit is in marked contrast to the satire unleashed on Trump

For the BBC, it seems, to question leaving the EU is to be unpatriotic.

Faced with arguably their biggest political-cum-constitutional ­crisis in half a century, the press on either side of the pond has reacted very differently. Confronting a president who, unlike many predecessors, does not merely covertly dislike the press but rages against its supposed mendacity as a purveyor of “fake news”, the fourth estate in the US has had a pretty successful first 150-odd days of the Trump era. The Washington Post has recovered its Watergate mojo – the bloodhound tenacity that brought down Richard Nixon. The Post’s investigations into links between the Kremlin and Donald Trump’s associates and appointees have yielded the scalp of the former security adviser Michael Flynn and led to Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from all inquiries into Trump-Russia contacts. Few imagine the story will end there.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has cast off its image as “the grey lady” and come out in sharper colours. Commenting on the James Comey memo in an editorial, the Times raised the possibility that Trump was trying to “obstruct justice”, and called on Washington lawmakers to “uphold the constitution”. Trump’s denunciations of the Times as “failing” have acted as commercial “rocket fuel” for the paper, according to its CEO, Mark Thompson: it gained an “astonishing” 308,000 net digital news subscriptions in the first quarter of 2017.

US-based broadcast organisations such as CNN and ABC, once considered slick or bland, have reacted to Trump’s bullying in forthright style. Political satire is thriving, led by Saturday Night Live, with its devastating impersonations of the president by Alec Baldwin and of his press secretary Sean Spicer by the brilliant Melissa McCarthy.

British press reaction to Brexit – an epic constitutional, political and economic mess-up that probably includes a mind-bogglingly destructive self-ejection from a single market and customs union that took decades to construct, a move pushed through by a far-right faction of the Tory party – has been much more muted. The situation is complicated by the cheerleading for Brexit by most of the British tabloids and the Daily Telegraph. There are stirrings of resistance, but even after an election in which Theresa May spectacularly failed to secure a mandate for her hard Brexit, there is a sense, though the criticism of her has been intense, of the media pussy-footing around a government in disarray – not properly interrogating those who still seem to promise that, in relation to Europe, we can have our cake and eat it.

This is especially the case with the BBC, a state broadcaster that proudly proclaims its independence from the government of the day, protected by the famous “arm’s-length” principle. In the case of Brexit, the BBC invoked its concept of “balance” to give equal airtime and weight to Leavers and Remainers. Fair enough, you might say, but according to the economist Simon Wren-Lewis, it ignored a “near-unanimous view among economists that Brexit would hurt the UK economy in the longer term”.

A similar view of “balance” in the past led the BBC to equate views of ­non-scientific climate contrarians, often linked to the fossil-fuel lobby, with those of leading climate scientists. Many BBC Remainer insiders still feel incensed by what they regard as BBC betrayal over Brexit. Although the referendum of 23 June 2016 said nothing about leaving the single market or the customs union, the Today presenter Justin Webb, in a recent interview with Stuart Rose, put it like this: “Staying in the single market, staying in the customs union – [Leave voters would say] you might as well not be leaving. That fundamental position is a matter of democracy.” For the BBC, it seems, to question Brexit is somehow to be unpatriotic.

You might think that an independent, pro-democratic press would question the attempted use of the arcane and archaic “royal prerogative” to enable the ­bypassing of parliament when it came to triggering Article 50, signalling the UK’s departure from the EU. But when the campaigner Gina Miller’s challenge to the government was upheld by the high court, the three ruling judges were attacked on the front page of the Daily Mail as “enemies of the people”. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he would rather have “newspapers without a government” than “a government without newspapers”. It’s a fair guess he wasn’t thinking of newspapers that would brand the judiciary as “enemies of the people”.

It does seem significant that the United States has a written constitution, encapsulating the separation and balance of powers, and explicitly designed by the Founding Fathers to protect the young republic against tyranny. When James Madison drafted the First Amendment he was clear that freedom of the press should be guaranteed to a much higher degree in the republic than it had been in the colonising power, where for centuries, after all, British monarchs and prime ministers have had no qualms about censoring an unruly media.

By contrast, the United Kingdom remains a hybrid of monarchy and democracy, with no explicit protection of press freedom other than the one provided by the common law. The national impulse to bend the knee before the sovereign, to obey and not question authority, remains strangely powerful in Britain, the land of Henry VIII as well as of George Orwell. That the United Kingdom has slipped 11 places in the World Press Freedom Index in the past four years, down to 40th, has rightly occasioned outrage. Yet, even more awkwardly, the United States is three places lower still, at 43rd. Freedom of the press may not be doing quite as well as we imagine in either country.

Harry Eyres is the author of Horace and Me: Life Lessons from an Ancient Poet (2013)

This article first appeared in the 20 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The new world disorder