Tag Archives: Bayern Munich

Can Extreme Possession be Detrimental to Success?

Pep and Mourinho

First lets rewind to the 28th of May 2011. Barcalona have just swept aside Manchester United 3-1 to win the Uefa Champions League. It’s domination. 68% ball possession, to go with 22 shots to United’s 4. Xavi completed almost double the amount of passes all of United’s central midfielders did combined and the quartet of he, Andres Iniesta, Sergio Busquets and Lionel Messi out passed the entire United team themselves. It’s Barcelona’s second Champions League crown in three years, to go with Spain’s World Cup triumph in 2010, and people from all places are once again praising the success of heavy possession football.

Forward the clock 11 months and Barcelona are in the Champions League semi final, their fourth out of four under Pep Guardiola. This time their dominance on the ball is even greater, obtaining the obscene figures of 79% possession in the first leg and 82% in the second leg. Only this time the result is not an emphatic victory. Chelsea win 3-2 on aggregate to go to Munich where they would win their first ever Champions League. A month later Guardiola would manage his last game for the club. Barca’s period as the standout best club in the world is effectively over.

The result was seen as a huge shock but we’ve seen an increasing number of instances since where sides with huge chunks of the ball have effectively been shut down by sides sitting deep and often ripped apart by fast breaks during the rare moments they don’t have the ball. First we had Bayern Munich’s destruction of Barcelona in the 2013 Champions League semi finals where despite a having much less of the ball they were the dominant force. The following April a changed Bayern under Guardiola were destroyed in a similar manner by Real Madrid in both legs, and in between Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea brought Liverpool’s 11 game winning streak to an abrupt end despite having less than a quarter of the possession. And in the World Cup Lois Van Gaal’s Netherlands, without the injured Kevin Strootman and with a back line that lacked the pedigree of some other teams, found solace in a counter attacking system led by the speed of Arjen Robben. The Netherlands’ three best performances in Brazil where the three times their possession was lowest.

But are such occurrences just infrequent results that will always come up when hundreds of matches are played per season? Where they just acts of chance in a sport where upsets occur far more frequently than most at almost 50% of the time? Or are they all examples of a recent trend of possession, an in particular extreme levels of possession, actually being detrimental to a sides chance of success?

Well, possession is certainly not a hindrance in a simple sense. In the Premier League, La Liga and the Bundesliga over the last three seasons there is still a reasonably strong correlation between amount of possession and the number of points a team gets in a single season. Bar Atletico Madrid twice, no team has got more than 65 points with under 50% possession, though Atletico did win the title in the second of those instances with 90 points.

Possession-points correlation

However, can we confidently say that sides are having success because of possession? Or could it just be the case that better sides naturally achieve higher possession figures? Certainly you’d expect sides at the top of the table playing sides at the bottom of the table to dominate the ball. The better sides tend to have players who are naturally better at retaining possession due to superior use of space, ball control and passing. On top of this better sides usually have higher aspirations and need for a win, meaning they need to be constantly pushing forward with the ball. Whereas on the other hand, lower sides may be happy playing for a point, therefore willing to concede possession, with concentration on defence with the hope of the occasional break.

This is even true at the elite level, albeit it at a lesser extent. In the last three Champions League knockout rounds, sides winning have averaged 52.3% of the ball compared to 47.7 for the sides suffering a defeat. However, it is when we start to look at extreme levels of possession, where we see that possession can actually be detrimental to success, and that sides are becoming increasingly equipped at conceding possession and generating success.

Extreme possession at the elite level

As someone who has watched the champions league the last three seasons and developed into something of a possession sceptic, I wanted to divulge into whether possession superiority was beneficial or in fact detrimental. Specifically I wanted to look at whether possession can be a hindrance in extreme cases against opposition of a similar level. I didn’t want to look at marginal cases of possession superiority, as I don’t think small cases are either relevant to the pattens of the game or show any proof to which team is better at ball retention. And I wanted to compare sides of similar pedigree in order to eliminate the cases where possession superiority is the result of a large quality gap, or where a tactical decision to surrender possession is extremely unlikely to come off, due mainly to the talent gap on the field.

As my want to look into the matter has mainly developed from watching the Champions League in recent season, that seemed the obvious place to start. I decided to cull the group stages just because you still get large mismatches in the preliminary stages. (No offence intended to Viktoria Pizen, but their destruction at the Alianz Arena last season isn’t really that relevant as to whether extreme possession is a positive or negative for Bayern against Dortmund, Madrid or Chelsea.) I also set the parameters for extreme possession to be any instance a side achieved 65% or more.

From the 2012 Champions League semi finals onwards (where Chelsea beat Barcelona) there have been 18 instances where a side has achieved > 65% possession. In that time 5 have been won, 6 drawn and 7 lost.

To see if this was a trend that was consistent I decided to look at more matches so broadened the boundaries to any clash between top four sides in Europe’s to five leagues from the 2012/13 season onwards as well. For the current season I used matches between last seasons’s top four. I found 21 instances of extreme possession in league football, with 5 draws and 8 wins either way. Interestingly the results in different leagues are revealing. In the Premier League, Serie A and Ligue 1 there were only five instances, 3 of which were won by teams who’d severely surrendered possession. In the Bundesliga there had been 8 cases, we’ll call it the Bayern effect, with the > 65% team achieving 4 wins, 2 draws and 2 losses. La Liga also had 8 games, we’ll call it the Barca effect, but the arguable superior opposition (apologies to Jens Keller) caused 3 wins and 3 losses.

In total this left 39 games where there was a huge case of possession superiority, 11 of which were drawn, 13 won by the side with superior possession, and 15 won by the side without. So while the results don’t absolutely show that possession is a clear hindrance, they do show it’s not necessarily a positive either. We’ll have to divulge deeper.

Analysing shot data

Anyone familiar with football analytics will know that shot data is regarded as the best indicator of performance. Quantity of shots are one of the most repeatable statistics in the sport and, along with other factors such as the location of shots, are currently seen as the best indicator of future goals. As a result the number of shots a team takes, where they’re from and whether or not they’re on target are a great indicator of how many goals they’re going to score and the same applies for shots they concede being a measure of potential goals against.

In the 39 games were a team had > 65% possession the side who had dominated possession heavily outshot those who didn’t and in total had 645 shots at an average of 16.54 per game. Conversely they suffered only 335 at 8.82 per game. In other words, the side who dominated possession had a total shot ratio, the ratio of their shots to the total of shots in the game, (TSR) of 0.65, compared to a TSR of 0.35 for the sides that surrendered possession. To put things into perspective, Man City won the premier league last year with a TSR of 0.65 and Cardiff finished bottom with a TSR of 0.38. This is severe disparity. Yet the huge gap in shot quantity isn’t represented to the same extent when it comes to goals. The side with superior possession outscored the one which surrendered by a total of 67-50, which while significant, isn’t to the same extent that the gap in shot quantity was. A total goals ratio calculated the same way TSR is gives the superior possession side a ratio of 0.57 and the team which surrendered the ball a ratio of 0.43.

This can usually either be because of two things. First, the sides with the ball could simply have been unlucky. Or, their shot quality could be significantly poorer. We have to look more specifically at the respective shots that were taken. For all the 39 games I did my own shot location data recording, based somewhat on the excellent work of Colin Trainor and Michael Caley. I created three zones, primary locations, secondary locations and marginal locations. Primary would be all shots inline with the six yard box and inside the area, secondary shots would be shots in the box from wide positions and inline with the six yard box from deeper positions. Marginal shots would be all others, from deeper positions and poorer angles. It wasn’t particularly detailed, but would give a decent indication of where sides were taking their shots.

Somewhat surprisingly for me, the teams with less possession weren’t shooting from significantly better positions. My theory was that teams without the ball sitting deep would mean the side having the ball not being able to penetrate the edge of the box as much, therefore not being able to shoot as regularly from prime positions and requiring more hopeful shots from range. The sides with 35% or less averaged 38.81% of their shots from prime zones, compared to 35.19% for teams whoch had at least 65%. Possession sides had a slightly larger proportion of secondary shots but also had a similarly larger proportion of marginal shots. Sides with less possession shot from reasonably better positions, but the locations themselves were likely not significant enough to warrant such a contrast in the efficiency of the different extremes shots.

A deep wall of defenders, however, doesn’t only prevent a team getting into the box, it also tends to make shot quality from the same position worse. So far data relating to the location of defenders relative to on the ball actions hasn’t come about, so having lots of men behind the ball doesn’t effect ExpGoal calculations and the like, but the presence of nearby defenders and ones in line with the shot and goal are obviously going to make shot quality worse. Shots are more likely to be blocked and shots are more likely to be put off target due to less of a clear sight at goal the chance of a defender potentially intervening if a shot isn’t take quickly.

In the 39 games, the teams with greater position had 34.73% of their shots blocked, compared to just 21.79% for the teams which mostly played without the ball. The scatter graph below shows there is a correlation, albeit it quite a weak one, between amount of possession and the proportion of shots which are blocked.

Possession-blocked shots

Of course, a greater proportion of shots being blocked also means a smaller proportion of shots being on target. There is a inverse trend between amount of possession and the proportion of shots on target. The average proportion of shots on target of 30.54 in instances of extreme possession rises to 41.11 for the sides who have had less than 35% of the ball.

Possession-SoT

Indeed the TSR of 0.65 for the team with superior possession falls to 0.58 as a total shots on target ratio (TSoR) and vice-versa a change of TSR from 0.35 to a TSoR of 0.42 for the sides with less possession, which very closely matches the total goals ratios of 0.57 and 0.43 respectively. When you bare in mind that the teams which conceded possession where marginally shooting from better positions then it suddenly shows that they’re not being more clinical with their on target shots, or benefiting from a lucky PDO (the addition of a teams scoring percentage and save percentage) in a similar way, but are instead simply able to get a greater degree of their shots on goal due to the benefits of less crowded opposition thirds, which in itself derives from having less of the ball than the opposition.

The final thing I wanted to look at with regards to shots is the effect speed of attack has on the likelihood of a shot being converted. Colin Trainor discovered that speed of attack is very important when it comes to shot conversion rates and could potentially be even more important than shot locations. He discovered that the quickest attacks had the best conversion rates despite not having the highest proportion of shots in prime locations. While I don’t have speed of attack data at hand, it’s somewhat safe to assume that the side who spent considerably less time with the ball will have had faster attacks. Possession superiority usually leads to territorial superiority, meaning the side without the ball tend to shoot a lot more from counter attacks. In his research Colin also discovered that there is a strong negative correlation between speed of attacks and the average number of touches prior to a shot.

What all this tells us is that despite possession usually helping raw shot generation it doesn’t have the same help in scoring goals. This could be just a random trend, but looking at matches over the last 30 months, and nearly 1,000 shots in total it wouldn’t seem so, especially when there are legitimate explanations for such a trend, such as the location of shots, the number of defenders in close proximity and the speed of attacks. Indeed, when we only look at shots on target, there is almost no disparity between conversion rates.

Conclusions

With Bayern Munich and Barcelona sitting comfortably atop of arguably two of the three best leagues in the world at the moment it would be ridiculous to suggest possession football is dead. In most cases superior teams will dominate the ball and as a result the most successful sides will usually be among the sides who have the best possession figures. However what we can argue is that at the elite level extreme figures of possession have shown minimum signs of being a benefit and that certain factors have shown it to in fact be detrimental.

Higher levels of possession can help you shoot more, that we’ve seen, but it’s also much harder to get said shots on target. Arguably a high possession figure means a side has to do more in terms of overall shot generation than their opponent to counter act the better quality of shooting they concede due to suffering faster attacks, with less men behind the ball from slightly better positions.

Possession football may not be dead but equally conceding possession has never been more alive. Ever since Chelsea spent the best part of an hour with ten men, one proper centre back and just three defenders against the best side of this generation; conceded just once and scored twice with a fifth of the possession of their opponents, the world has seen that it’s not only possible to win doggedly despite rarely seeing the ball but also that it’s possible to destroy opponents with fast counters the way Bayern, Real Madrid and Holland have in the last couple of years. Top sides are more willing to concede the ball and hit sides on the break. People who use the term park the bus in a disparaging manner could be in for a painful few years as world football evolves and more and more sides become happy to use the tactic to their advantage.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Arsenal Admirable, but Punished by Ruthless Bayern

Arsenal created excitement and showed resilience tonight, but mistakes proved costly.  

Image
Thomas Müller pounces on a late Arsenal lapse to all but seal the tie in its first leg. © Guardian

It may sound a weird time to say it – Arsenal lost a home game 2-0 and are on the brink of going out at the earliest knockout round in the Champions League for the fourth year in a row – but that was an Arsenal performance I could feel proud of as a fan.  Arsenal showed character, matched Bayern München at times and showed resolve in defence in what must have been an exhausting game both physically and mentally.  But they missed opportunities, made individual errors and against the best side in the world, you can rarely afford to do that and leave unscathed.

Arsenal flew out of the box impressively early doors.  Arsenal would like to think they play a style which isn’t too dissimilar to a Pep Guardiola side; eager for possession and at times slow build up through a great number of short passes.  They themselves have fallen victim to early pressing by teams this season, mainly v Borruisa Dortmund at home, Southampton away and, most recently, Liverpool.  For sides which are so used to having the ball and the opposition defending deep against them that they can often be unsettled by a sudden lack of time on the ball.  Dortmund showed in the final last year and even in a league defeat against Bayern in November, that they can still be unsettled by such tactics, especially early on.  Ironically I predicted Bayern would be the side to fly out of the blocks and potentially catch Arsenal out, but it was the opposite and Arsenal attacked Bayern at pace and harassed them on the ball.  The rabbit out of the hat Yaya Sanago provided energy and pace upfront which Olivier Giourd hasn’t shown since the early months of the season and Arsenal should have had an early lead but not for Manuel Neuer saving Mesut Özil’s penalty.  Pretty much the whole mainstream media is waiting eagerly for any trip up Özil makes at the moment, but it’s worth remembering it was his wonderful turn which earned the penalty in the first place, so in that respect he did no harm, merely no good.

Maybe the failure to convert the penalty deflated the energy in the stadium a bit, but Arsenal’s early pressure gradually deflated and Bayern grew into the game.  The last year has shown, including the Champions League final, that despite sides occasionally being able to dominate Bayern through early pressing, it’s not sustainable over 90 minutes, and Bayern will inevitably get a stranglehold on the game.  Such is the physical effect such tactics have on sides, they duly tire and Bayern are too good on the ball for sides to be able to dominate them without full energy.

Then came the second mistake of the night.  Toni Kroos – who bossed the game all night – played a lovely chipped through ball through to Arjen Robben who was clobbered down by Wojciech Szczesny.  A straight red and Arsenal were down to ten men against the best side in the world who thrive on keeping the ball.  It was never going to be an even game after that.

To their credit, Arsenal fought hard.  Great sides have been humiliated by recent Bayern München teams, and with ten men Arsenal did well just to prevent a rout.  They kept their defensive shape, were resilient but they just couldn’t keep the ball on the rare times they got it, and with so much pressure from such high quality players goals were always going to come.  Arsenal’s left wing was a particular area of persistent threat from Bayern and Özil, who seemed to be occupying a deep left midfield role in the second half, looked exhausted after covering nearly 12km trying to keep up with Robben, Lahm and Rafinha.  Tomorrow morning he’ll be slated for being lazy.

If they’d managed to keep it to one-nil, they could have traveled to Munich with hope, knowing a 2-1 win would see them through to the next ground.  However, Laurent Koscielny – who, coincidently, was immense for 88 minutes – was drawn forward and upon returning Arsenal’s back line was disturbed and Thomas Müller, self proclaimed ruler of space, was there to pounce.  A clever run from the Bayern veteran Cladio Pizzaro drew Per Mertesacker away from the danger area, and Müller rarely misses out from inside the box.  For a player of his size and technical quality, he’s a stunningly good header of a football.

In the end it was a night of missed chances and costly lapses.  Even Kroos’ stunning opener, hit like a curved snipper bullet into the top corner, was notable for the amount of space he found himself in on the edge of the box.  For Kroos these are strange times.  Despite featuring in every Bayern game up until mid January rumours about his future persist, as contract talks have stalled.  Those in the know in German football reckon it’s purely political, Kroos wants to earn what the best senior players are earning.  After a performance like tonight, he might just get it.  Bayern showed they can be a remarkably ruthless team when they need to be and they were tonight.  For Arsenal a 2-0 loss was not the disaster some of the papers will make it out to be tomorrow morning, but there will be a sense of regret because of the chance there was to prevent it, or even pull of something special.

It’s not all doom and gloom though.  Arsenal put in an admirable performance – a few brief moments aside – and showed an improved display to what we’ve seen in the last month.  Besides, an early exit in the Champions League could, like it did last season, lead to stronger performances domestically.  Maybe this could be the catalyst to Arsenal going on to win their first domestic silverware in nine years.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Do statistics have a role in football?

The growth of football statistics have revolutionised the way many people think about football, but not everyone is convinced.  

Image

Do stats like these help us derive who the better player is, or are they just meaningless numbers which show nothing watching them can’t?

In the early parts of last spring, about a year ago, I came across a site named “Whoscored” via a forum discussion on just how good Gareth Bale was.  On Gillette Soccer Saturday, Jeff Stelling had claimed he was as good as Cristiano Ronaldo, which naturally led to discussions on the merits of the statement.  At this point one of the doubters brought up a diagram which showed a far less renowned player named Theo Walcott, playing in a similar wide offensive role to Bale, had a greater number of career goals and assists, despite playing a fewer amount of total games, showing that Bale perhaps wasn’t obviously much better than the top players in the league.  This naturally drew contempt from others, who laughed off the meaning of “stats” and the meaning they have in evaluating a players overall quality.

One person did, however, point out that Walcott wasn’t even statistically superior to Bale.  Obviously despite being similar positionally Bale and Walcott’s roles weren’t identical.  Walcott is a far more direct player and doesn’t get that involved in Arsenal build up play, being more the icing on the cake to a move.  Whereas Bale was the focal point at Spurs, where most moves came through him, and he also offered far more defensively.  The second poster pointed this out by claiming that in nearly all other areas Bale was statistically superior to Walcott, sighting whoscored.com as the source.

For those who don’t know, Whoscored is a football site centred around statistics.  They provide a great service for finding out results, fixtures and live scores all around the globe but their major quirk is the in-depth statistical analysis they provide for the major European leagues.  For each match everything a player does is recorded and at the end they’re given a statistical rating based on their performance.

Upon first looking at the site I was intrigued.  In-depth statistics had never really been covered in the mainstream media and I didn’t really know what to think of what I was looking at.  Due to being a major follower of cricket, where raw statistics play huge roles in how players are rated and matters of selection, I was well equipped with the idea of carefully using statistics to analyse a sport.  I also, however, new that such data could be misused by people in arguments and articles.  What I found most remarkable, however, was that despite following football for nearly a decade, most of the stats were like a different language to me.  I simply hadn’t been exposed to them before.

Arguably because of this, many football fans are incredibly skeptical of the role statistics can play in football.  They’re a relatively new innovation that reflect the technological age we live in and are something people from certain eras have never experienced.  Certainly the idea that a 17 year old kid in London could get a detailed statistical report of all games in leagues such as the Bundesliga or Ligue 1 moments after the full time whistle was blown would’ve seemed unthinkable not so long ago.  One would think that it’s something we should enjoy and encourage.  People can now look at football in greater depth and have another dimension to how they analyse and follow the game.  Since finding Whoscored last year my understanding of football statistics have skyrocketed and it’s completely changed my understanding of football and how I experience the game.  Not everyone sees it the same way, however.

For many people football isn’t something which can be read through a spreadsheet, graph or chart, it’s something that needs to be watched and experienced.  A great attacking player’s contribution can’t be quantified into a few dribbles, key passes and a shot from a prime area.  Pub debates about who the best midfielder in the country is aren’t about who can read the most impressive stats off their smartphone, it’s about forming your own opinions based on what you see with your own eyes.

They’re partly right of course.  Statistics used without the right context, or presented badly, are close to meaningless.  Using pass competition rates  on their own as the way to decide who the best passer in the Premier League is foolish.  Laurent Koscienly clearly isn’t the best passer in the premier league.  But as a part of a whole greater range of stats, such as key passes, successful long balls, successful through balls and where the passes are made can give you a great idea of whether or not a player is a top notch passer or not.  Furthermore, even the stat on its own isn’t useless.  The top four for pass completion rate for this season are all Arsenal players, all of whom play centrally and primarily defensively, which speaks volumes about how Arsenal like to control the ball on the edge of the opposition half, liking to distribute the ball carefully out wide and are willing to be patient before seeking the ambitious ball.

They’re not perfect, no, but neither are human judgements.  Humans can be swayed by personal preferences, stereotypes, conventional opinion and more which computers and databases are devoid of.  Most humans would probably tell you the growling in your face Mathieu Flamini makes more tackles than the graceful Spanish passer Mikel Arteta.  They’d be wrong (Arteta makes twice the tackles per game Flamini does).

Statistical ratings systems certainly create interesting results.  Whoscored ranked Santiago Cazorla as the 3rd best player in the premier league last season, ahead of the likes of Robin Van Persie, Juan Mata and Eden Hazzard.  Meanwhile, Michael Carrick a PFA player of the year nominee – Cazorla wasn’t – was ranked 62.  Stop, I hear you cry.  That’s a perfect example of statistics being flawed and not appreciating the role Carrick plays.  Well, it’s worth noting Mikel Arteta played a very similar role for Arsenal last year, and he was ranked 14th.  One could argue Carrick was the more impressive since he did it for a tittle winning side, but it’s also worth noting that players ratings for each match get a boost if the game is won; Arteta’s rating would’ve been even more superior to Carrick’s had the sides respective results been reversed.  I’m not trying to diminish the role Carrick played in United’s title win last season, but perhaps he wasn’t the best holding midfielder in the league and his nomination was simply a case of people only really noticing a good holding midfielder in a title wining side (I’ve previously written about this before).  That’s a basic human error and flaw which a statistical rating doesn’t have.

Another interesting result is just how far in front of everyone else Frank Ribery has been in the Bundesliga in the last season and a half.  His Ballon D’or case was a peculiar one, mostly because people were unsure how to really mount his case.  Most centred around the need for a Bayern player to be involved, although a large proportion felt that any of a large group of Bayern players had just as worthy a case.  Ribery certainly didn’t standout like Messi or Ronaldo and was neither as incredible on the eye or in basic statistics as his two rivals.  Yet for the period in question Whoscored had him as by far the standout for Bayern and not far behind Ronaldo and Messi.  Statsbomb, a site created by someone who has worked in football betting since 2006, also revealed interesting statistical results for the Ballon D’or nominees.  Messi and Ronaldo dominated goal scoring and shooting stats, but Ribery dominated nearly everything else; passing, dribbling, defensive contribution and was arguably more influential in the overall performance of Bayern Munich.  In a side which won everything, that’s no mean feat.  His Ballon D’or case was certainly a strong one, perhaps more so than most would’ve imagined.

There are still those who resist the influence of statistics like this.  I myself have little problem with that.  Football is not only a highly competitive game of which lots of statistical commodities can be derived from, it’s also an art and form of entertainment, arguably more importantly so. What of the negative narrative that many have towards the development of football statistics?  That I have a problem with.  Football statistics aren’t yet thrown at people.  If you want to seek them you can, if it’s not for you, you can easily avoid them without having to go out of your way.  I did it myself blissfully for years.

There’s also no reason why both can’t live in a happy harmony.  I love the things we can find through good use of statistics.  They not only provide a measure of quality, but also how players play and how certain people are unique.  We can look into three great Arsenal midfielders but see they’re all incredibly different.  We can look into the fascination of Frank Ribery’s role and how he and Cristiano Ronaldo, despite playing in the same position, have incredibly different roles and output.  That doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy Barney Ronay describing the phenomenon that is Thomas Müller, in a truly unique and vivid style that no array of graphs, charts and tables could ever do.  I rarely watch a football match without following it live on Whoscored, but conversely, I’d never follow a match online like that and not bother to watch it if I could.

Of course, like in most similar circumstances the best solution is an effective medium.  Analysis not simply being a few tables and numbers, but also not being as airy fairy as a few creative adjectives, metaphors and cliches – with perhaps more extreme versions of each for the hardcore fans.  Statistics have provided groundbreaking analysis of professional sport, and it’s a major shame that articles like this represent the views of so many.  It’s a fascinating football world we now live in and it should be nurtured and encouraged, not diminished and putdown.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized