• Participation within this 'World Football' is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC"

Status
Not open for further replies.


In response to the idea that "moneyball" doesn't work in footy, I would argue it does work and has worked for many clubs. It's just getting in players who aren't rated because they have unconventional skillsets or are missing a key attribute, be it pace, size, whatever. Fellaini could be an example of a moneyball signing. In fact many of Moyes' signings were.

I think the term moneyball is a pretty stupid name for the philosophy of having good scouting and being able to sign good players for less than market value, which most every club tries to do. This FSG lot are just hilariously awful at it.
 
davek said:
It is a systemic problem. It's not a way of operating that's had success in the PL. The mindset here is for one person who controls all aspects of the playing side of the club. Even at a huge organisation like United that's been true - despite the undoubted power CEO's like Kenyon and Gill had. A manager has to be seen as the guvnor over here by players and supporters or they're not fully respected. That's our culture and I dont see it changing anytime soon. When a bump in the road arrives any sense that the manager isn't the architect of their own destiny increases doubts amongst players/supporters that they can hack it. It's a very corrosive environment for managers.

My biggest doubt about Klopp remains, however, that his type of game is not all that in an English setting. The game in this country has never been short of perspiration. Doing what Klopp is asking Liverpool players to do, effort wise, is minimum over here. It's what we've always been good at. Playing the game at pace and lots of energy is our game. He may spend, and get in good finishers especially, and climb the table a bit. Personally though I dont see him having the savvy to make Liverpool a title challenging team. His game is way too open. They'll be punished repeatedy. And it'll take years to assemble a squad anywhere near the quality of the one he had at Dortmund.
Click to expand...

Well there is that, but slowly the model of Director of Football is changing in this country. Southampton are a good example of this as in many ways are West Brom. You've got the obvious question of "who watches the watcher" though and ensures the person taking the decisions is up to scratch. I do take your point though, and you see with Chelsea now the stupidity of what sacking managers does. Even their best ever manager and title winner is being pushed out of a job after a bad first 8 games.

I think Liverpool's problem is two fold. 1 they are neither a DOF model club nor are they a traditional club that hands the manager power. They are caught between two schools which causes all sorts of problems with accountability. Secondly the model they are pursuing (analytics) is not suited to the complexities of a game like football. You get proper football people, your Howard Kendalls, or Alex Fergusons (or Shankly's) they didn't need to see graphs on % pass rates, or shots on target. You get a feel for a player by watching them. The best had the most nuanced feel for the game.

Baseball (or say cricket) are very simple games. You can apply simple measurement techniques. The "How many not how" question stands out. How many home runs do you hit? However the "how" question in football is imperative. If a defender wins 100% header but just heads it out for a throw every time is he a world class defender? Is a 90% pass rate but passing backwards better than a 70% pass rate in the opposition half. In truth statistics are very limited in football.

They have built their whole system on a model where the statistics are irrelevant. I do a lot of work with statistics but also understand their limitations.

As for Klopp I just think his approach is as you say more of the same in England. In many ways the exact problem of English teams (national and club) is their obsession with running and pressure. The old adage that a centre forward who mis controls a ball, chases the centre half to the corner and tackles him into the stand gets a roaring ovation, the lad who controls the ball as it's knocked up to him is considered lazy is the essence of British football. Klopp has given it a trendy name Gegenpressing but essentially he falls into all the worst excesses of English football. The fact he arbitrarily quotes 120km a match appears to give it a sheet that the self appointed experts on the Kop fall for hook line and sinker (they still think quoting a few numbers makes them sound clever and can undo a flawed approach).

He is certainly a cut above Moyes and Allardyce in terms of his presentation and arrogance. He is quite slick and almost sociopathic in his demeanour. Unfortunately when you are dealing with your average footballer that confidence goes a long way and was probably what held Moyes back at United. He wasn't a big enough bellend to pipe Ferdinand down.

However while his demeanour is more polished and he isn't riddled with self doubt his message and philosophy is basically Moyes/Allardyce/Sherwood. It was interesting to see the distance covered stats on MNF for a new manager come in. The biggest 3 jumpers were his, Sherwoods and Mike Carvers at Newcastle. That's the general standard of manager that tell their players to run about more.

Neville tried to raise these points but Carragher (who I actually normally rate) wasn't having it, the heresy of denouncing a 0-0 draw was not going to be allowed any hearing. He didn't grasp what Neville was saying. No team has ever won the league by making pressing the central focus of the team. And in a league where you play more games with no winter break players would struggle to cope with the demands. Klopp is going to have to have a lot more than just gegenpressing to succeed.

In the end just asking players to run gives them an excuse. You can get any group of players to run 120km in a game and the results will improve a bit. Will you win trophies by having that as the central focus? I doubt it.

I think with Klopp I see the 3 things coming together to hold him back. The continued confusion over the transfers. Klopps tactical deficiencies and trying to use a baseball inspired numbers based in a more complex game that doesn't lend itself to it.

Fortunately for us it will lead to some amusing times ahead as the realisation slowly starts to sink in for Kopites. The emperor will slowly lose his clothes and we can sit back and laugh as it sinks in. Pass me the popcorn.
 

zirc said:
In response to the idea that "moneyball" doesn't work in footy, I would argue it does work and has worked for many clubs. It's just getting in players who aren't rated because they have unconventional skillsets or are missing a key attribute, be it pace, size, whatever. Fellaini could be an example of a moneyball signing. In fact many of Moyes' signings were.

I think the term moneyball is a pretty stupid name for the philosophy of having good scouting and being able to sign good players for less than market value, which most every club tries to do. This FSG lot are just hilariously awful at it.
Click to expand...

Is Moneyball about trying to make profits on players by signing potential and selling for a profit when potential is realised? Or is it about making money by winning stuff? I can really understand how it's supposed to benefit anyone but the owners.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top