Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Goalimpact - LFC Scouting


Cij
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just my own views Woolster. When you check the players in which the usual reliable sources have confirmed we hold an interest, they all have a high GI rating. I can't state as a fact LFC use Goalimpact specifically but there is too much of a correlation for the club not to be employing a very similar algorithm. It is definitely much closer to the truth than the simplistic term 'Moneyball'. 

 

Your point on Swansea makes sense as Llorente and Narsingh are both signings who chime with this sort of approach.

 

 

Our Director of Research, Ian Graham, was behind a player ranking system called the Castrol Index, which they used to bring out for World Cups and Euros a few years back. Tbh, it was so so, but he's got a Phd in physics and I think he's more than capable of creating a plus minus model.

 

Swansea have hired this guy  https://qz.com/197901/the-worlds-most-popular-sport-is-terrible-at-statistics/ although not confirmed when, rumour is it was after the season started, so post Llorente.

 

I think most clubs though would not pay the wages to hire guys like these,  so would be surprised if more than a few clubs are capable of it

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was it who said football is a simple game overcomplicated by people who should know better....or words to that effect....

The man who also said

 

“The scheme we brought into operation was based on the fact that Harrower was essentially a good footballer, but for a forward was not the best of attacking players. We therefore brought him in at a position which was shown as inside left in the programme, alongside Alan A’Court (or occasionally alongside John Morrissey because we sometimes interchanged the position of the two wings) […] He would have the function of lying much further back than is usual for an inside forward, thus drawing his opposing half-back out of place and from this position playing either Tommy Leishman or Johnny Wheeler with the ball as they moved forward […]Thus was born at Anfield the plan which we referred to as 3-3-4” (Shankly, 2012).

The man who looked to Hungary and Belgium for tactical innovation

 

A man who understood the importance of nutrition in sport.

 

"When I took a physiotherapy course before I became a manager, I learned some valuable things. Notably about the heart, the intake of food for an athlete and particularly the timing of meals before a match. I put this into use. When I came to Liverpool, I stopped the system of players having a big meal on the night before a game. I adopted the pattern of taking them away on Friday night, timing the journey to reach the hotel about 10 pm, where the players had tea, toast and honey and then straight to bed.

 

On the day of the match, three hours before the kick-off, they could have a steak or chicken or poached eggs. They did not have a cooked breakfast as well. It was simple diet and and the word "simple" came into most of my football thinking in training and playing as well. I ate the same sort of food all my life and I've always been a fitness fanatic. The food players had before a match is to preserve their strength, not build it up. Players find what suits them best by trial and error. If their demand fell within the limits I laid down, that was all right. I also expected them to eat properly when they were not at the club, not to eat stupid things when they were out of control. Most of them did that but I invariably knew when any of them had stepped off the rails in any way. In any case, it usually told on their performance."

You reckon that he would dismiss information because of a throw away line about simplicity.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a simple game on the pitch though , or should be. Pass and move was the Liverpool groove.

Problem comes when you have simple players.

Has it ever been a simple game on the pitch really though?

 

It's always been about tactical innovation and reinvention.

 

The false nine wasn't a Guardiola invention, Roma and utd used variations of it in the last decade (sparingly granted) and it was being used as far back as the 1930's. The combination game from the 1800's, Gegenpressing, WM, Catenaccio, total football the list goes on.

 

Even 442 has a million and one subtle variations.

 

Thats without getting into individual player positions like the inside forward, sweeper, liberos, trequartistas, registas, halfbacks.

 

Unless it's 11 balding hungover men chasing a ball on a potatoe patch i don't think it can ever be described as simple.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the best teams had/have certain things in common, a great attitude, work rate, a bit of a swagger and some bollocks. We struggle at times to do the simple things, move the ball quicker, overlap use better movement when attacking. A second saved moving the ball can make a huge difference in the attacking players run and the defensive players time to react. All simple stuff as you know. Defensively getting goal side of an attacker, jockeying by a full back stopping crosses coming in.

Obviously tactics have evolved but the on the pitch the basics should be simple enough for top players. Sadly they're not. Hence simple players. You can only teach a player so much, common sense cannot be taught.

 

For instance Moreno ( easy to pick his faults ) but he rarely stops a cross coming in, sits too far off or dives in, decent fullbacks know how to jockey a player, or show him on to his weaker foot.

Lucas in midfield and Can and Henderson infuriate me, taking 3 touches to simply move the ball to a player on the touch line. Looks good but slows the whole attack down, just move the ball quicker.

Don't get me started on players passing the ball to the feet of players running wide in space.

 

Going for a lie down. All this Rinus Michels stuff drains me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it ever been a simple game on the pitch really though?

 

It's always been about tactical innovation and reinvention.

 

The false nine wasn't a Guardiola invention, Roma and utd used variations of it in the last decade (sparingly granted) and it was being used as far back as the 1930's. The combination game from the 1800's, Gegenpressing, WM, Catenaccio, total football the list goes on.

 

Even 442 has a million and one subtle variations.

 

Thats without getting into individual player positions like the inside forward, sweeper, liberos, trequartistas, registas, halfbacks.

 

Unless it's 11 balding hungover men chasing a ball on a potatoe patch i don't think it can ever be described as simple.

I think you've describe quite simple systems when used by less simple and more clever players.

There are many reasons why certain managers have more success and favour certain types of players but game intelligence is right up there. Probably explains the influx of overseas players a bit better too as there aren't too many British players who have that intelligence,in fact,as others have said,it is probably a major factor in why Klopp hasn't quite got to the level he personally wants just yet. While the not too bright British analysts are continually harping on about speed,strength,athleticism,etc,they fail to realise that this can only take you so far. Chelsea need the Hazards of this world and City need the David Silvas while we too function better with a fit and sharp Philippe Coutinho. When we were mega successful we had some very smart players directing the on field instruction while now we still struggle,but have improved a lot in recent times. Systems are great IF you have the right players to use them correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coutinho doesn't strike me as being particularly smart or blessed with game intelligence. Just because he's skilful, we shouldn't make the mistake of blessing him with attributes he doesn't have. The players we do have who are blessed with game intelligence are cursed with actually being English.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man who also said

 

 

The man who looked to Hungary and Belgium for tactical innovation

 

A man who understood the importance of nutrition in sport.

 

 

You reckon that he would dismiss information because of a throw away line about simplicity.

All fair points but i could imagine him calling this goal impact shite for what it is...shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this system, Mario Gotze is the number one player, yet in reality he's been bombed out by Bayern and is only on the fringes of the Dortmund team.

 

I was initially excited when we were linked with him, but I feel he's one of these players who's not actually as good as he seems. 

 

Maybe Klopp could get the best out of him if he came here, but my gut feeling is that he'd flop over here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All fair points but i could imagine him calling this goal impact shite for what it is...shite.

Why is having more information shite?

 

We like to pretend we're real supporters and above all this analytics 'shite' but you can guarentee that when we're linked to a player we'll all go and look at his goals scored, assists pass accuracy, how many they conceded or we'll talk about a teams defensive weaknesses in terms of how many goals conceded and where those goals are coming from.

 

This for example

 

Read about Dahoud the other day that in his 15 matches so far this season he has only an 80% pass accuracy...averages a mere 1.6 shots a game, has 1 goal and 2 assists and averages 0.5 aerial duels won per game.

 

Not exactly impressive numbers them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is having more information shite?

 

We like to pretend we're real supporters and above all this analytics 'shite' but you can guarentee that when we're linked to a player we'll all go and look at his goals scored, assists pass accuracy, how many they conceded or we'll talk about a teams defensive weaknesses in terms of how many goals conceded and where those goals are coming from.

 

This for example

 

 

I don't mind direct stats as a guide - stats that tell you how good a player has been at shooting, winning headers/tackles etc. These are a decent guide (not without flaws of course) but once you start getting into the world of this goal impact stuff then you are in my book over complicating things for the sake of it....

 

Didn't (if i am wrong i have misread it and apologise) these goal impact stats have Lucas as one of our 'best' players?

 

My eyes tell me this isn't true - some geeks formula can't make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't mind direct stats as a guide - stats that tell you how good a player has been at shooting, winning headers/tackles etc. These are a decent guide (not without flaws of course) but once you start getting into the world of this goal impact stuff then you are in my book over complicating things for the sake of it....

 

Didn't (if i am wrong i have misread it and apologise) these goal impact stats have Lucas as one of our 'best' players?

 

My eyes tell me this isn't true - some geeks formula can't make it true.

Maybe we've been talking at cross purposes because the impression I got was that analytics was bad generally (it certainly seems to be the prevalent opinion amongst supporters in the UK) as opposed to a random list we know very little about.

 

Alot of the analytics in football is about refining the high level data to make it more meaningful.

 

You mentioned pass completetion for example, it's a nice figure to put on a splashy graphic but ultimately what does it tell us.

 

If we had two players one with a pass completion of 80% and one with a pass completion of 100% people would say the one with 100% performed better but at that level it doesn't tell you the type of passes, the distance, what they led too etc.

 

It could be that the guy with 80% made more key passes over longer distances that led to goalscoring chances or led to assists and goals than the player with 100% who never made a pass longer than 5 yards.

 

Thats wherebthe benefit is in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we've been talking at cross purposes because the impression I got was that analytics was bad generally (it certainly seems to be the prevalent opinion amongst supporters in the UK) as opposed to a random list we know very little about.

 

Alot of the analytics in football is about refining the high level data to make it more meaningful.

 

You mentioned pass completetion for example, it's a nice figure to put on a splashy graphic but ultimately what does it tell us.

 

If we had two players one with a pass completion of 80% and one with a pass completion of 100% people would say the one with 100% performed better but at that level it doesn't tell you the type of passes, the distance, what they led too etc.

 

It could be that the guy with 80% made more key passes over longer distances that led to goalscoring chances or led to assists and goals than the player with 100% who never made a pass longer than 5 yards.

 

Thats wherebthe benefit is in my opinion.

all depends on the job player is doing i suppose.

 

if you are asking a player to play in a role where his job is to win it and give it to the nearest red shirt then that is what you look at 'stats' wise....take kante for example, he is there to pretty much do that for chelsea and he does it better than anyone - nobody needs goal impact to see that.

 

if you are looking for a player who when he gets it his job is to make penetrating passes then you look at that.

 

just not a fan of fancy formulas to do that - every player has a job and to me you buy them on how good they are at that job.

 

i am old fashioned in that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind direct stats as a guide - stats that tell you how good a player has been at shooting, winning headers/tackles etc. These are a decent guide (not without flaws of course) but once you start getting into the world of this goal impact stuff then you are in my book over complicating things for the sake of it....

 

Didn't (if i am wrong i have misread it and apologise) these goal impact stats have Lucas as one of our 'best' players?

 

My eyes tell me this isn't true - some geeks formula can't make it true.

 

There are a lot of problems with those raw counting type stats though, as Cardie mentions. For example:

 

Are they meaningful? eg do they actually correlate with scoring goals, stopping goals and winning games

Are they repeatable? do players repeat it season after season, if so there is a skill to it and can be used to predict the future, if not then its just random noise

Are they affected by team styles and strength? A midfielder for Bournemouth probably has very different stats to a midfielder from West Brom, a defender from Chelsea probably has very different stats to one from Sunderland.

This kind of leads to the next one, have they been adjusted? If you are comparing a defender from Chelsea with one from Sunderland, then possession makes a big difference, the Sundelrand player will have a lot more chance to pad up their stats with tackles headers and clearances, so should the stat be adjusted by possession for instance?

Are they affected by the match situation? The score has a massive effect on some of these stats, so which teams have spent more time losing/winning, or even more time losing/winning than what would be expected of them.

 

Another issue is what happens in an actual game. In the 90 minutes, the ball is actually in play only for around 55 minutes, and for some of that time, neither team has possession of the ball, that means on average, a player is only in possession/control of the ball for around 2 minutes of the match, and that is when they are contributing to those counting stats (of course there are some defensive stats that are counted too, but they won't add much time to this ). 2 minutes for all their passes, their shots, their dribbles. What are they doing for the other 50-53 minutes that the ball is in play, their movement off the ball to take a defender out of position, their pressing to cut out passing lanes, their coverage of the overlapping fullback, their ability to stop the winger crossing the ball in, how well do they combine with team mates, and even their mentality. And what about those minutes when the ball is out of play but they are marking on corners/free kicks etc? Most of those things can't be counted, and a lot of those things we might not even notice because there is a lot going on and we tend to follow the ball when we watch a game, so the eye test also fails.

 

So this model takes a step back and looks at that first question, what is meaningful, and the answer is goals. It essentially looks at the goal difference when that player is on the pitch over their entire (measurable) history and compares to when they are off the pitch, and it compares it to when their team mates are on and off the pitch, and compares to when ex team mates who are now at different teams are on and off the pitch. So the theory is, it picks up those things about a player that aren't counted, it picks up those things that aren't seen, it picks up the intangibles. If a striker scores a lot of goals he seems great, but what if his team concede even more goals when he is on the pitch, then he is actually having a detrimental effect (imagine replacing Firmino in this team with Defoe), and this will account for that.

 

Its not without its issues, for one its really fucking complex. The guy updates this model only monthly because it takes his computer 2-3 weeks running constantly to calculate the scores for all players in world football that he can measure.

 

If anyone is interested, there is a great, but long article by the guy who wrote Moneyball about the basketball "no stats all-star" which explains why the stats, and the eyes, don't see everything. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html

 

For my last point, I'll say its having this knowledge is probably why you've been relegated in Xpert11, and I am safe in midtable mediocrity, despite your lucky late equaliser...

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

857 games spanning 18 years... from 2nd Division to European Champion... Five League Titles, 2 FA Cups, 2 UEFA Cups... a true gentleman and wonderful ambassador for the club. Sometimes the word 'Legend' just isn't enough. Ian Callaghan talks to TLW.

 

Click here to view the article

I think his game intelligence comes from that skill. He's certainly a level ahead of most of our other players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...