Messi Walks Better Than Most Players Run(fivethirtyeight.com)
fivethirtyeight.com
Messi Walks Better Than Most Players Run
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/messi-walks-better-than-most-players-run/
100 comments
Note that Messi is, at times, criticised for not playing defence which means more effort running back and forth.
He is definitely doing the right thing when attacking but it depends what one optimizes for.
Barcelona have built their team around him for the past 10 years. As their most important attacking asset, he's has the least responsibility to defend.
It doesn't really work like that. Everyone has the responsibility to do their best in the context of the team. If one is more capable he does more, there's no passing responsibility at this level and there is no preferential treatment. Everyone has to do everything in their power to help the team. When Barcelona was in its prime shape and Messi was scoring/helping score more than Barcelona's defence could take on it was ok. When the team does not win and you did not give all, it's a problem isn't it?
Of course this is just a superficial comment and take it with some salt, I have no clue what goes on the pitch, it might also be that he cannot sustain a full 90min and be productive attacking while also doing a degree of defense.
Of course this is just a superficial comment and take it with some salt, I have no clue what goes on the pitch, it might also be that he cannot sustain a full 90min and be productive attacking while also doing a degree of defense.
Worth noting too that he can probably stretch the defense out just because he’s Messi. As a defender you’d be a fool to take your eyes off him.
With his build (short and skinny), he is pretty crappy at defence. He would only waste energy running back and forth without return on investment.
Short yes, so his head game is not that good but he is not skinny, he is quite muscular and strong. Attacking isn’t easy either, he is (was) one of the most fouled players in La Liga and he still scored a ton.
Resting in play is a feature. MJ was doing that all the time. The GOATs know when giving 110% is appropriate, and when 75% would suffice.
"Intensity: Give 100%. 110% is impossible. Only idiots recommend that."
Depends how you define 100%. e.g. over/under-clocking a CPU.
In the sphere of human performance, 100% is all an individual can give. Redefining the scale is pointless.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven
You can overclock a human also with drugs. Just not sustainably.
I wish I could find a link that was just about the data and not Lebron’s reaction to it, but my interpretation of Lebron’s slowness is that he has the same skill.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/111166564
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/111166564
The data is here: https://stats.nba.com/players/speed-distance/?sort=AVG_SPEED...
It's a fun read - you have there James, KD, Harden, AD - basically all the elite players excluding Curry. On top of that, you have factually very fast players s.a Wall, Russ and Lillard. I'll have to take James' view that this is one stupid meaningless stat.
It's a fun read - you have there James, KD, Harden, AD - basically all the elite players excluding Curry. On top of that, you have factually very fast players s.a Wall, Russ and Lillard. I'll have to take James' view that this is one stupid meaningless stat.
Great article, very interesting analysis. I have some friends who absolutely love football and understand the metagame a lot better than me - when you watch it at first you have no idea how complex the various player movements are, making space, finding space, predictions etc.
On a side note, I really wish they would name football by its proper name: football, not soccer. To the billions of people who follow it globally that's the name of the sport.
On a side note, I really wish they would name football by its proper name: football, not soccer. To the billions of people who follow it globally that's the name of the sport.
I think this is true for most sports. I find most sports absolutely boring when I watch em alone, but they become incredibly engaging when you have someone to explain all the intricacies and details to you.
I remember going to a Superbowl party with some coworkers, and one of em absolutely blew me away with their game knowledge. I've never enjoyed a Superbowl party as much as that one. He was making tons of calls and explaining everything in a really friendly and approachable way. It was impossible to not be at the edge of your seat as you watched each play being made.
I'm pretty sure this also extends to eSports, like StarCraft 2. Since I was pretty hooked on the game I watched tons of games and I understood the game pretty well for a few years. A lot of my sports-loving friends were pretty skeptical of the whole "eSports" thing, but they became true believers when I invited em over and gave me play by play explanations of what was going on.
I remember going to a Superbowl party with some coworkers, and one of em absolutely blew me away with their game knowledge. I've never enjoyed a Superbowl party as much as that one. He was making tons of calls and explaining everything in a really friendly and approachable way. It was impossible to not be at the edge of your seat as you watched each play being made.
I'm pretty sure this also extends to eSports, like StarCraft 2. Since I was pretty hooked on the game I watched tons of games and I understood the game pretty well for a few years. A lot of my sports-loving friends were pretty skeptical of the whole "eSports" thing, but they became true believers when I invited em over and gave me play by play explanations of what was going on.
> He was making tons of calls and explaining everything in a really friendly and approachable way. It was impossible to not be at the edge of your seat as you watched each play being made.
I had a similar experience and it's really nice, you realise you miss so much of the actual game if you just follow the ball blindly. That being said it's still enjoyable.
Cheers to all the people who take the time to explain the game like that to others!
I had a similar experience and it's really nice, you realise you miss so much of the actual game if you just follow the ball blindly. That being said it's still enjoyable.
Cheers to all the people who take the time to explain the game like that to others!
There are lots of words that are different in American English, soccer is just one of them. Also not every language refers to it as football. In Japanese they call the game soccer as well.
In Japan it's mixed; people call it "soccer", official organisms call it "football". I have definitely heard both of them used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_Japan#Name
Who you calling an official organism? :)
In Spanish, they call it fútbol, rather than football, and in Chinese, I think it is pronounced something like Zúqiú. Most Southeastern Asian countries don't call it football or a variation thereof. Australians and parts of the British isles call it soccer I believe as well.
Things are named and pronounced differently in different languages.
The fact is, "football" was already taken in the American vocabulary by the time soccer rose to popularity in the US.
Things are named and pronounced differently in different languages.
The fact is, "football" was already taken in the American vocabulary by the time soccer rose to popularity in the US.
No part of the British Isles calls it soccer. The game in its current form [1], and the name "football" [2], were invented there.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football#Establishment_of_mode...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(word)#Etymology
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football#Establishment_of_mode...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(word)#Etymology
In Northern Ireland I've sometimes hear it called soccer to differentiate with Gaelic football, which is just called football by some groups.
"Soccer" is an abbreviation of British origin, and was widely used throughout the British isles until at least the late 1970s.
source: http://ns.umich.edu/Releases/2014/June14/Its-football-not-so...
source: http://ns.umich.edu/Releases/2014/June14/Its-football-not-so...
Isn't the spanish version just Football, but in Spanish?
In a sense. "Fùt" is not a Spanish word, and "bol" means "bowl." They just use the English word for the game, written phonetically in Spanish.
Another name for the sport in Spanish is "balompié", which comes from "balón" (ball) and "pie" (foot), but it's rarely used.
Eh, it might as well be the equivalent of "soccer" (a meaningless made up word), since the Spanish word for neither "foot" nor "ball" are in the name. (In contrast to Chinese's zuqiu which is literally "foot" "ball").
Soccer is short for association football, formed analogously to rugger, which is short for Rugby football.
> and parts of the British isles call it soccer I believe as well.
The UK has a lot of slang. Soccer is a slang term sometimes used in informal settings.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/8rnuyh/older_users_i...
The UK has a lot of slang. Soccer is a slang term sometimes used in informal settings.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/8rnuyh/older_users_i...
- Association Football
- American Football
- Canadian Football
- Gaelic Football
- Aussie Rules Football
- Rugby Union
- Rugby League
There are a lot of (related) sports called football. The English shortened Association to Soccer and the name stuck in The States, Canada and other places. It's just as proper as football.
- American Football
- Canadian Football
- Gaelic Football
- Aussie Rules Football
- Rugby Union
- Rugby League
There are a lot of (related) sports called football. The English shortened Association to Soccer and the name stuck in The States, Canada and other places. It's just as proper as football.
We already have a more popular sport called football. If those billions of people ever imported it, I'm sure they'd give it the wrong name as well.
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-do-some-people-call-foo...
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-do-some-people-call-foo...
Maybe they'd call it "gridder".
The other side of a game like football that makes it so interesting is that the part of the game that involves technique - i.e. the ball kicking part is by its nature very dynamic. Passing, receiving and shooting is going to be comparatively far more unstructured than other technically difficult activities. (consider something like swimming, gymnastics or archery).
As a result, a great deal of the actions you will see will be necessarily improvisory - which makes those moments of rare brilliance all the more amazing. Especially given the stakes often at hand during these moments.
If something like gymnastics is like classical music recitals, then football is like jazz music ensemble
As a result, a great deal of the actions you will see will be necessarily improvisory - which makes those moments of rare brilliance all the more amazing. Especially given the stakes often at hand during these moments.
If something like gymnastics is like classical music recitals, then football is like jazz music ensemble
FiveThirtyEight is an American operation with, I imagine, overwhelmingly American readership. To Americans, the sport is called "soccer". Why be purposefully confusing, given that to just about the entire country, "football" means American football?
My sense is that the other motive to insist on "football" is the perception of American chauvinism. If a different country had their own name for the sport, I don't think you'd see people complain that they were being parochial or ignorant by using it.
The 2014 world cup reached 3.2 billion people. I don't really care if you have a small regional sport with less than 5% of that viewership that just happens to have a name clash, it would be nice to call football by its proper name.
Again, it's petty, but I'm English and it's a pet peeve of mine.
Again, it's petty, but I'm English and it's a pet peeve of mine.
I find this to be a pretty obnoxious point of contention.
Soccer is an English term invented in the 19th century. It spread to a number of Anglosphere countries in a similar manner to all sorts of words from 19th century England. It is currently used in Canada, the US, Ireland[1], South Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc.
The idea that soccer is an "Americanism" simultaneously requires you to believe that (a) that only Americans use the term and (b) that Americans are ignorant of the rest of the world.
The reality, of course, is that these countries are using a term that has existed for over a century and is a borrowed word from England. Each of these countries have a prominent sport containing the word football(various rugby codes, american football, gaelic sports), and therefore it was convenient to retain the term soccer.
This, of course, does not jive very well with lazy anti-Americanism however, which generally seems to be the point of the exercise.
[1] I know, I know.
Soccer is an English term invented in the 19th century. It spread to a number of Anglosphere countries in a similar manner to all sorts of words from 19th century England. It is currently used in Canada, the US, Ireland[1], South Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc.
The idea that soccer is an "Americanism" simultaneously requires you to believe that (a) that only Americans use the term and (b) that Americans are ignorant of the rest of the world.
The reality, of course, is that these countries are using a term that has existed for over a century and is a borrowed word from England. Each of these countries have a prominent sport containing the word football(various rugby codes, american football, gaelic sports), and therefore it was convenient to retain the term soccer.
This, of course, does not jive very well with lazy anti-Americanism however, which generally seems to be the point of the exercise.
[1] I know, I know.
I appreciate your analysis but reject that it's 'lazy anti-americanism'. I've never heard anyone from Ireland use that term, and I've known a lot of people from there and have visited a few times. Same for South Africa, but I have never travelled there.
The core point is that while there are regional differences none of those countries have anywhere near the same level of media influence as America, so yes, it is an Americanism like it or not. And when writing an article literally about Football for an international audience published on the internet then just call it by its name not the regional one used locally. It seems lazy not to.
Anyway it's just a pet peeve of mine (and plenty of others), it doesn't have to be logical.
The core point is that while there are regional differences none of those countries have anywhere near the same level of media influence as America, so yes, it is an Americanism like it or not. And when writing an article literally about Football for an international audience published on the internet then just call it by its name not the regional one used locally. It seems lazy not to.
Anyway it's just a pet peeve of mine (and plenty of others), it doesn't have to be logical.
Take your pick of a prominent Irish or South African news website and go to the Sport section, they will almost always list the sport as "Soccer".
The vast majority of takes on the Internet about the word soccer are lazy anti-Americanism. I accept that it's just a pet peeve for you, but I was addressing the general discourse on the term.
With regards to 538 using the term soccer, it is explicitly an American website. 538 is the number of electors in the US electoral college. The majority of readers are American, therefore it seems reasonable to use the term soccer.
You could argue that they should just use the term football and have the reader infer from context which sport it is, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion if you thought that was an acceptable solution :P
The vast majority of takes on the Internet about the word soccer are lazy anti-Americanism. I accept that it's just a pet peeve for you, but I was addressing the general discourse on the term.
With regards to 538 using the term soccer, it is explicitly an American website. 538 is the number of electors in the US electoral college. The majority of readers are American, therefore it seems reasonable to use the term soccer.
You could argue that they should just use the term football and have the reader infer from context which sport it is, but then we wouldn't be having this discussion if you thought that was an acceptable solution :P
It can hardly be an Americanism when it's used in other countries.
As a Melburnian I take a passing interest every 4 years in the 'Socceroos' but we have our own code that dates back to the 1850s, with influences from the indigenous game of "Marngrook". Footy is footy, soccer is soccer and we find labels such as the 'world game' or 'beautiful game' rather quaint.
Be aware that your language prescriptivism can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism.
As a Melburnian I take a passing interest every 4 years in the 'Socceroos' but we have our own code that dates back to the 1850s, with influences from the indigenous game of "Marngrook". Footy is footy, soccer is soccer and we find labels such as the 'world game' or 'beautiful game' rather quaint.
Be aware that your language prescriptivism can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism.
I'm from South Africa. I think of "soccer" as the normal term; "football" is also common, and always used in formal contexts.
How would we distinguish between the two then? One is almost universally popular here and the other is pretty much ignored entirely. In what universe would what you propose make even the slightest bit of sense?
Your use of the word 'universally' is, IMO, part of the issue.
Your country is not the world or the universe, even if everyday language indicates that. Language use seems to affect subconscious behavior, even if not intended.
Anyway, my point is, you have been manipulated through your language.
Your country is not the world or the universe, even if everyday language indicates that. Language use seems to affect subconscious behavior, even if not intended.
Anyway, my point is, you have been manipulated through your language.
You are absolutely correct, from now on I will call soccer "Chuk-ku" because that's what it's called somewhere else.
But the word "soccer" is an English invention. It's not like Americans just made it up to annoy cranky Brits.
Cranky Brits _think_ that "soccer" is a USA-ism, and so they hate it by analogy with parts of British-English that are eroded by constant exposure to USA media/culture.
Someone in /r/BritishProblems called a zebra crossing a "crosswalk" the other day and as an en-gb native I couldn't help but be scandalised! ;o)
Someone in /r/BritishProblems called a zebra crossing a "crosswalk" the other day and as an en-gb native I couldn't help but be scandalised! ;o)
Why should people in the US care what people elsewhere like to watch or what they call it?
The proper name is "Association football", from which "soccer" was formed.
“Soccer” is closer to being the correct word though, because it’s specific. There’s many types of football, and in Europe we usually use the word to mean “association football” specifically, as opposed to “rugby football”, “Gridiron football”, “Australian rules football” or a number of other games named football.
It was in Oxford, where both Rugby and Association football are commonly played at the university level, that the term soccer came up, as an abbreviation of “association”, in the same vein as rugby football is referred to as rugger — the -er ending is a common form of local slang, and is why Boris Johnson is often referred to as Bozzer.
It was in Oxford, where both Rugby and Association football are commonly played at the university level, that the term soccer came up, as an abbreviation of “association”, in the same vein as rugby football is referred to as rugger — the -er ending is a common form of local slang, and is why Boris Johnson is often referred to as Bozzer.
"Football" is a very specific term, which means "game played with foot (feet)". The fact that some moron called another game "American footbal" when they should have called it "American rugby" does not justify renaming this beautifull game to "soccer".
Whilst I agree that American football bears a greater resemblance to Rugby football; Rugby football, like Association football ("soccer") is another style of football game.
Soccer isn't called that because of American football, the name "soccer" arose in UK where lots of towns have their own style of football game. It obviously caught on as a name in USA because they also have a naming conflict.
I too hate the name soccer, because of what I had inculcated in to me as a child.
Soccer isn't called that because of American football, the name "soccer" arose in UK where lots of towns have their own style of football game. It obviously caught on as a name in USA because they also have a naming conflict.
I too hate the name soccer, because of what I had inculcated in to me as a child.
In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter at all if a country calls it soccer or football. Personally, I like the word soccer more when speaking English. I just never understood why American Football is actually called football...its is more like "handball".
American football is an evolution of rugby, which is properly "rugby football." Rugby football started the "picking up and carrying the ball" thing.
The more interesting question is why rugby football is called football. But I guess, in modern parlance, it often isn't.
The more interesting question is why rugby football is called football. But I guess, in modern parlance, it often isn't.
One theory is that it was a word for sports played on foot as opposed to horseback.
[deleted]
Australians, an ex-English colony who stills technically is under the English monarchy, also calls it soccer. No one is confused. That said, American football is a misnomer and incredibly boring sport.
In most languages, it is not called football, and is also neither a combination of foot and ball.
In most languages, it is not called football, and is also neither a combination of foot and ball.
> Australians, an ex-English colony who stills technically is under the English monarchy.
Australians are under the Australian monarchy, which is not the same monarchy as the UK.
The same monarch, but not the same monarchy.
Australians are under the Australian monarchy, which is not the same monarchy as the UK.
The same monarch, but not the same monarchy.
"Football" is kind of a generic term in Australia depending on where in the country you are when you say "I'm going to the Football tonight" you could be talking about Rugby (Either Rugby League or Rugby Union), AFL (Australian Rules Football), or Soccer (The A-League).
That said local soccer teams tend to call themselves Football clubs use the initials FC. The local soccer team where I live is "Sydney FC".
I will say A-League games are pretty good to go to the atmosphere at live games is a lot better than Rugby League games. The crowd really gets into it. My friend is a season ticket holder and he drags me along to A-League games semi-regularly and even sitting in the members area at the matches is pretty good.
That said local soccer teams tend to call themselves Football clubs use the initials FC. The local soccer team where I live is "Sydney FC".
I will say A-League games are pretty good to go to the atmosphere at live games is a lot better than Rugby League games. The crowd really gets into it. My friend is a season ticket holder and he drags me along to A-League games semi-regularly and even sitting in the members area at the matches is pretty good.
You see this in hockey, also. Good players are very good at slyly getting into position when they're away from the puck. With hockey, if you skate too hard, defending players notice it (you can also hear the skate blades digging in) and will start keeping an eye on you or actively covering you.
Good players also do sneaky things like take a little longer to recover from a hard check and then, when everyone has skated away from them while they're still down on the ice, slowly sneak into a prime scoring position behind the defensive players where they can't be easily seen.
Good players also do sneaky things like take a little longer to recover from a hard check and then, when everyone has skated away from them while they're still down on the ice, slowly sneak into a prime scoring position behind the defensive players where they can't be easily seen.
Waiting behind defensive players wont work in soccer/football... Those players are offside. This means they are not allowed to receive the ball from a team member.
Horizontally behind (in the same zone) is what I was referring to. Picture the play all going to one side of the defensive team's zone, while there are still stragglers on the other (horizontal side).
The best strategy is waiting just before the defensive line and start running before the defensive players can react to the pass (but not before).
It's fairly different from my perspective. If you're skating hard, you're generally in transition, where you're going to be noticed unless you already have a numbers advantage.
In your other example, the defense has already made the mistake by throwing a big check that didn't win the puck. They're out of position, and the rare sneaky opportunity isn't worth sacrificing pressure or risking losing the puck. It's fun when it happens, but not a strong game plan.
In your other example, the defense has already made the mistake by throwing a big check that didn't win the puck. They're out of position, and the rare sneaky opportunity isn't worth sacrificing pressure or risking losing the puck. It's fun when it happens, but not a strong game plan.
My apologies, I see now that I should have been more clear in my description and it wasn't quite clear about where all of this was occurring: I was referring to the defensive team losing track of a player in their own zone after, sometimes long after, the puck has entered the zone.
Some players are just really, really good at "disappearing". I mentioned two of the ways that they do it: just gliding out from behind the net on the weak side (skating very lightly) is one, and hanging back on the weak side after a hard check is another. Of course, there also has to be players that can get the puck to that guy, otherwise, these techniques don't amount to much.
Some players are just really, really good at "disappearing". I mentioned two of the ways that they do it: just gliding out from behind the net on the weak side (skating very lightly) is one, and hanging back on the weak side after a hard check is another. Of course, there also has to be players that can get the puck to that guy, otherwise, these techniques don't amount to much.
Related - LeBron James moves slower than 99% of all rotation players, and has thereby been able to play more minutes in more games than ever without a dropoff in production. http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23384071/lebron-james-pla...
this is interesting, however i'd like to mention that the example given in the video, the concept of creating spacing on the opposite side of the field isnt a foreign one at all in soccer. generally, the ball creates gravity around it sucking in defenders and players, and there will always be a very open player on the opposite side of the field to pass to if an attacker with the ball is in good position to do so or if it makes sense.
messi definitely is one of those players who plays in a smart way where he doesn't need to run too much to tire himself out. however i also believe that there is a lot of value in a fast paced ball movement. the sort of play gets everybody involved in a high energy mental sort of way, whereas messi's relatively low energy, whilst clearly effective, is only effective because messi is such a fantastic/smart dribbler
messi definitely is one of those players who plays in a smart way where he doesn't need to run too much to tire himself out. however i also believe that there is a lot of value in a fast paced ball movement. the sort of play gets everybody involved in a high energy mental sort of way, whereas messi's relatively low energy, whilst clearly effective, is only effective because messi is such a fantastic/smart dribbler
Nice. Notice also how in the recent match of Argentine vs Iceland (their first time playing for the World Cup), the Iceland team decided to play defensively but NOT to mark Messi.
In their famous win against the Argentina of Maradona (Spain 1982), Belgium decided not to put an extra man marking defender on Maradona, while back then it was customary to do this. Now, if they would have lost the game, that decision would have been regarded as utterly stupid, while now it's seen as a brilliancy of the coach.
You should take all of this with a grain of salt.
Messi is doing several things in the referenced video. First, he's staying wide (almost to the touchline) which is drawing the 2 defenders towards him. This increases the open space for attack, but more importantly it betters the overall ratio of attackers to defenders in the active part of the field. He's also intentionally walking. Running, and more so sprinting, causes opposing players to be more aware of you. Walking suggests you aren't actively participating. When the defenders turn their attention to the play, he slowly moves in behind them - this puts him in a more dangerous position (this isn't a great clip to demonstrate this because he ends up having to back up to receive the cross.) Notice also he's positioning himself so he's not substantially closer to one defender than the other - you don't really see the effect of it here - but that will tend to cause both players to cover him. If he can pull two defenders instead of one to cover him, he really doesn't need to do anything else to increase the odds for his team. But space-making isn't the real genius of Messi. His ability and willingness to take on several (or more) players at once, aside from the obvious advantage when he scores in such situations, will draw opposing players to him, opening up the rest of his team for through-passes into dangerous positions where defenders have been pulled out of place.
In the article, I didn't see how they controlled for the team's behaviour in accommodating Messi's position. He is one the teams MVP and it is likely (IMO - I'm speculating) the team will dynamically reposition to accommodate Messi's current position, meaning he's less likely to need to run.
Mapping this to software teams: Messi would be the super-smart rockstar developer who doesn't get bogged down with busy work or bug-fixes. If we compare his rate of shipping software compared to his team-mates (or other more balanced teams), we'd have to control for how the rest of the team clears his way.
Mapping this to software teams: Messi would be the super-smart rockstar developer who doesn't get bogged down with busy work or bug-fixes. If we compare his rate of shipping software compared to his team-mates (or other more balanced teams), we'd have to control for how the rest of the team clears his way.
There was a famous phrase by a hockey player (Gretsky?) - I don't go where the ball is, I go where it is going to.
That was indeed Gretzky, but FYI in hockey it's called a puck.
In 'hockey' there is a ball. In 'ice' hockey it's a puck. (I also realise Gretzky is an ice hockey player, but thought it was an appropriate pedanticism given the discussion of the name of 'football'/'soccer' above :))
when you are playing an offensive position you get to choose how you want to play the game. if your advantage is bursty movements but you don't have as good endurance then it is much better to conserve your energy and not get in a duel where you don't have an advantage.
I love how data analysis and visualization are coming into football commentary, mainly via blogs like this. It makes a huge difference to how I've viewed the game over the years.
Unfortunately, the pundits they choose as TV analysts are typically not well versed in stats and probability, and often all you get from them is the experience of having played.
There was a thing about expected goals recently, where the TV expert dismissed it. I think it's a sensible thing to look at.
Unfortunately, the pundits they choose as TV analysts are typically not well versed in stats and probability, and often all you get from them is the experience of having played.
There was a thing about expected goals recently, where the TV expert dismissed it. I think it's a sensible thing to look at.
I just wish data were more availabile. Given that football/soccer is a continuous game (as opposed to the discreet stop/start of American football or baseball), gathering data requires a bit of labor so most of the data products are expensive.
Mourinho analysis on RT is fantastic. His depth of perception and clarity are nothing like what I heard before and in 10 minutes or less create a new understanding of a game. Clearly, for him spaces and space creation are the tools of his trade.
Unless I'm misinterpreting the chart (which starts at 5 miles btw) it does not even support the claim made in the title. There are plenty of players who run more and indeed contributed more goals+assists per 90 minutes.
Messi is obviously one of the best players ever, but his stats are inflated by playing in one of the dominant club teams. His stats for the national team while still very good are not that much better.
Messi is obviously one of the best players ever, but his stats are inflated by playing in one of the dominant club teams. His stats for the national team while still very good are not that much better.
Somebody saw this and didn't give any credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/89aruc/lio...
There's an incredible, predictable phenomenon in sports that the best player on the team gets the most criticism. I've seen awful teams with one superstar, and the popular opinion of why they lose is that the superstar isn't doing enough or, God forbid, isn't superman/woman and has weaknesses. It's never that the other 4 / 10 / 21 / etc people on the field who are terrible.
Then the superstar retires, memory of the absurd criticism is obscured by a haze of nostalgia, and they become examples of perfection which the next generation of superstars can't possibly live up to.
Messi is arguably the best ever. If he's not good enough for you, if he's not perfect enough for you, you're going to be disappointed with life and the human beings in it.
Then the superstar retires, memory of the absurd criticism is obscured by a haze of nostalgia, and they become examples of perfection which the next generation of superstars can't possibly live up to.
Messi is arguably the best ever. If he's not good enough for you, if he's not perfect enough for you, you're going to be disappointed with life and the human beings in it.
I think Ovechkin is a great example of this as well. He has the burst for when he needs it, but a lot of the time he is nonchalantly positioning himself perfectly.
How do they get continuous player and ball tracking data? Are their sensors? Seems like all major American sport franchises (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA) would love to have this data. Though not sure how I feel about it. I am purest (big baseball fan) and a lot of these technology additions deteriorate the essence of the game.
> Seems like all major American sport franchises (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA) would love to have this data
The NFL and NBA already have it, as do college (American) football teams, AFAIK. I don't know about American baseball, but I do know that they track things like the rotational velocity of pitches and, very trendy now, the 'launch angle' of a batted ball (I suppose the movement of baseball players, other than the efficiency of fielders responding to a ball, is neither interesting nor unpredictable).
Here's an article about that data as applied to Lebron James, who apparently is very efficient with his movement like Messi.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17333058
I wonder why all sports don't put sensors in balls to eliminate judgment calls by referees, but perhaps either it's not worth the expense, it won't bring in more fans, or like self-driving cars, the computer errors will seem egregious to fans.
The NFL and NBA already have it, as do college (American) football teams, AFAIK. I don't know about American baseball, but I do know that they track things like the rotational velocity of pitches and, very trendy now, the 'launch angle' of a batted ball (I suppose the movement of baseball players, other than the efficiency of fielders responding to a ball, is neither interesting nor unpredictable).
Here's an article about that data as applied to Lebron James, who apparently is very efficient with his movement like Messi.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17333058
I wonder why all sports don't put sensors in balls to eliminate judgment calls by referees, but perhaps either it's not worth the expense, it won't bring in more fans, or like self-driving cars, the computer errors will seem egregious to fans.
But the balls (baseball, footballs, etc) and players are not wearing sensors. This is done using cameras, not data directly sourced from the players and balls.
There are real-time sensors in the balls. Players are tracked with cameras and ,I think, also sensors in their shoes. We read about a systems developed by a German uni in an event processing class (they generated millions of events per minute) but I cannot recall the name right now.
I'm not sure if they're tracking it from the ball or the shoes. I don't think they have sensors in their shoes.
This could be from offline analysis of the video.
This could be from offline analysis of the video.
Players usually wear their own shoes, so I doubt they have sensors.
Love this article. Messi is the sensational player and dissecting his genius looks interesting
Interesting article, according to this wouldn't Coutinho be the better team player contributing most overall? Messi doesn't do much defense, so naturally he stands around more in the front and FC Barcelona built everything around that.
The one time I saw Wayne Gretsky play live (ice hockey) I noticed he played in a very similar manner. Floating most of the time but turning on the jets when an opportunity presented.
Just like James Harden. If you have superior technical capabilities you know when to rest, when to slow the game down, how to orchestrate a successful dribble and wait for your colleagues to get into position. Most coaches understand that, fans often not so.
Somewhat related, did anyone analyze the probability that the best team wins the tournament in soccer?
>Can we say Messi gets a lot of his space by not chasing the play? Yes, that’s precisely what our research shows.” Bornn said. “Is he doing it deliberately? To answer that, you’d probably have to ask the man himself.”
I will give my own experience, as a TERRIBLE sport player at any sport you can name on earth, and one of the worst soccer players you could met.
Still, eventually I was selected for many street plays (were players are more brutal, being the most nerd is a huge disadvantage, and most are very "serios" in the game).
WORST, in the streets of Colombia we play "mini soccer"/futsal. Is even more fast paced, the space is limited, and not much time to be idle, and the damm ball is heavier and HURT MUCH MUCH MORE. The goalkeeper is the more insane/brave of all. Is so fast that we don't play for time (like soccer) but up to # of scores (ie: "The game is to the first to score 12")
----
> Is he doing it deliberately?
Totally. Just the fact he walks much more and move tell it.
In my case, I do it to be usefull as bad player, I become a "strategic hindrance".
I play defense most of time, because lack of qualities for offense but also, because I play strategy because my body have not time to act fast :)
I always look at the play, and just move to where the ball must come in. Most player get in a hurry when get the ball and try hard to be liberated from the burden -and is true for "professionals" look at plays long enough and it become obvious.
So this mean a) pass it fast, or b) run like hell and pass it fast. So, I get into position and suddenly I was always in the most inconvenient of the places for the opposite team. (this was the fact I get selected: People start to note that I ruin a lot of plays!)
Rarely I'm able to get the ball, and is easy to overcome me with dribbles.
However, disrupt the flow is more than enough.
Even when other players let me alone with the goalkeeper, I just move to cover the largest angles in the field, to obstruct them.
This work most of time. I force them to fire, or try to get around me, that disrupt the flow and allow to lost control or to the goalkeeper to do his play - In mini soccer, the goalkeeper is more offensive-.
Now, because most latin-america players play from young age -mean street soccer- I suspect you quickly get a sense of movement/space faster (mini soccer mean many more plays mean many more experience).
And if you have talent, like Messi, apply the same idea and now know how take over the ball?
You have the key to victory.
I will give my own experience, as a TERRIBLE sport player at any sport you can name on earth, and one of the worst soccer players you could met.
Still, eventually I was selected for many street plays (were players are more brutal, being the most nerd is a huge disadvantage, and most are very "serios" in the game).
WORST, in the streets of Colombia we play "mini soccer"/futsal. Is even more fast paced, the space is limited, and not much time to be idle, and the damm ball is heavier and HURT MUCH MUCH MORE. The goalkeeper is the more insane/brave of all. Is so fast that we don't play for time (like soccer) but up to # of scores (ie: "The game is to the first to score 12")
----
> Is he doing it deliberately?
Totally. Just the fact he walks much more and move tell it.
In my case, I do it to be usefull as bad player, I become a "strategic hindrance".
I play defense most of time, because lack of qualities for offense but also, because I play strategy because my body have not time to act fast :)
I always look at the play, and just move to where the ball must come in. Most player get in a hurry when get the ball and try hard to be liberated from the burden -and is true for "professionals" look at plays long enough and it become obvious.
So this mean a) pass it fast, or b) run like hell and pass it fast. So, I get into position and suddenly I was always in the most inconvenient of the places for the opposite team. (this was the fact I get selected: People start to note that I ruin a lot of plays!)
Rarely I'm able to get the ball, and is easy to overcome me with dribbles.
However, disrupt the flow is more than enough.
Even when other players let me alone with the goalkeeper, I just move to cover the largest angles in the field, to obstruct them.
This work most of time. I force them to fire, or try to get around me, that disrupt the flow and allow to lost control or to the goalkeeper to do his play - In mini soccer, the goalkeeper is more offensive-.
Now, because most latin-america players play from young age -mean street soccer- I suspect you quickly get a sense of movement/space faster (mini soccer mean many more plays mean many more experience).
And if you have talent, like Messi, apply the same idea and now know how take over the ball?
You have the key to victory.
Oh man, what a nothing article. Wide players staying wide to stretch the defence - revolutionary!
Sarcastically revolutionary, because everyone does this, every game. We all know it, we all see it on every team across every league.
Oh wait, no, sorry: the complete opposite of that. This guy exhibits extreme outlier behaviour while also being one of the most successful players in the game. Maybe there's something worth analysing in terms of why that might be. You know, like the research referenced in this article.
Oh wait, no, sorry: the complete opposite of that. This guy exhibits extreme outlier behaviour while also being one of the most successful players in the game. Maybe there's something worth analysing in terms of why that might be. You know, like the research referenced in this article.
A lot of effort in sports and business is wasted by correcting from incorrect predictions. What Messi is good at is predicting where and when to be to maximize the probability of a successful outcome.
Watching him play is a curiosity as well, unlike a lot of other players who make their decision to pass or continue after their first move, Messi almost always continues to the second move when he has the ball.
He probably turns it over at a higher rate than most, but his touches typically occur in those previously mentioned high probability positions on the field, meaning that when he's not turning it over, he's putting shots on goal.
Since the cost of a turnover really isn't that high given the rate of change of possession in the game, he seems to be acting optimally.
Edit and addendum:
The guy who's always out fundraising might look like he's doing a lot of work, but it's very likely that the guy who only does the roadshow when the P_success is high will outperform the jackrabbit.