Lies, damned lies and statistics
Footballers are a funny lot. They walk the walk, talk the talk and generally ooze confidence, yet can instantly be reduced to quivering wrecks should they forget to touch the top of the tunnel on their way out or misplace their lucky undercrackers.
Fans are just as bad. If I find a penny on the street, it goes into my back pocket and stays there until my next trip to Loftus Road, where I am convinced it will be the difference between three points and none. If we lose, it is dismissed as a bad penny.
Of course it's all rubbish but then, according to a new book, so are the things we take for granted, like an in-form striker or your team being more likely to concede a goal just after you've scored one.
The book, 'Myths and facts about Football', aims to dispel these and other long-held beliefs about the beautiful game, with the aid of mathematical and psychological research into hundreds of matches.
But it's not all about killing the romance. The same process is also used to provide us with strange truths we might previously have dismissed as claptrap.
For instance, did you know that players who celebrate goals with their team-mates rather than running away from them will see their side achieve better results? Or that if a keeper stands still when facing a penalty, he is more likely to save it than if he dives? (Even if he doesn't believe it himself).
Professor Peter Ayton, a psychologist at London's City University, and one of the book's contributors, insists it could prove a useful tool for players, managers and TV pundits alike.
He told BBC Sport: "I'm not saying we've got all the answers but this is the way to find out what the real truth is. Pundits and commentators all have opinions but if you can back something up with data, then why not use it?"
So let's take a look at the evidence. In the book it states that a striker has more chance of scoring from the spot if he smacks it in the middle of the goal.
Prof Ayton said: "A study by two Israeli academics of 286 penalties found balls go down the centre much more than the goalkeepers' behaviour would indicate, leaving the middle of the goal vulnerable.
"Despite the findings, goalkeepers said they were still more likely to dive because if they stood in the middle it would look as if they weren't having a go, risking the wrath of fans and team-mates alike."
And what about the commonly-held belief that strikers have purple patches - the more games they score in the better chance they have of finding the net in the next match?
Prof Ayton recalled a study of mid 80s basketball in the USA which formed the basis of his investigation. "Every newspaper report would refer to the 'Hot Hand' at some point - the theory that within a game players get periods where things go for them and they score from practically every shot they go for.
"The study found this was just chance, as random as tossing a coin. We called ours the 'Hot Foot Fallacy' and after analysing the top 12 scorers in the Premiership between 1994-96 (including Alan Shearer and Eric Cantona) we found there was no evidence strikers were more likely to score if they had scored in their previous game."
But doesn't a run of goals breed confidence? And surely your team-mates are more likely to set you up if they know you've been banging them in?
"Both of these theories are very plausible," Professor Ayton conceded. "But Jimmy Greaves used to say he felt relief when he'd scored a goal and you could hypothesise that strikers may become complacent having scored because the pressure has been taken off them."
Other findings in the book show that in two-legged cup ties, the side playing the second leg at home have a clear advantage, but in a penalty shoot-out the order has no bearing on the outcome.
Another myth that can be exploded is the notion that teams run a greater risk of conceding a goal after scoring. Prof Ayton said: "We analysed hundreds of games where the final score was 1-1 and found this wasn't the case.
"We also found less than 10% of teams who are 1-0 down at half-time go on to win. Pundits will sit there in the interval telling us there's all to play for and it could go either way, but they could tell the viewers a lot more if they crunched up the data.
"But then we're just a bunch of nerdy academics and Arsene Wenger is not going to call me up to ask me if I can pass on any tips."
And what of the good professor himself? A quick look at his website reveals he plays for a team called the Psychology All-Stars. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that dressing room.
"Yes, I hadn't thought of it like that!" he said. "I've always considered us to be just another out-of-shape, overweight Sunday team, but come to think of it the post-match analysis is very extensive and often goes late on into the night."
And does this psychological approach work?
"We have won cup tournaments but now, due to the decline in our ability to organise ourselves, no longer participate in a regular league. But we are about to go on a tour of Spain where we hope to prove to the Europeans the value of a scientific approach to the game."
And if that doesn't work, they could always try chucking tea cups.
I am a journalist with BBC Sport, dealing with the more offbeat stories doing the rounds. I am a QPR fan - and also quite fond of football. If our new-found wealth brings success I'll be happy to tell anyone exactly where I was when we were sh... rubbish - row J seat 139.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~42~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
I'm a little disappointed by some of the analyses used in this.
Why did they only examine 1-1 draws to see if you are more likely to concede after scoring? A good way to cut sample size. Instead look at the 5 minutes prior to a goal being scored and examine the likelihood of the other team scoring in that period. If a 5 minute period prior to a goal being scored is more likely to have a goal from the other team in it then the theory holds.
As for players on scoring runs, this needs to be examined in a different way. There are a lot of different psychological profiles that can be separated out. Goalscoring is a drug, its an unbelievable high, it is simply not possible for this to not have strong links to differences in peoples psychologies.
Some players do play better after scoring, analysis of players who score multiple goals in a match will show that some players have a much higher probability of scoring again, should they score one goal in a match. That is to say they often go on to score several goals having got one under their belt.
As for specific examples, i believe michael owen shows a very very strong tendancy to go on both goal scoring sprees and goal scoring droughts, certainly during his liverpool career this was true.
By examining other tendancies like players having a favourite team they like scoring against, such as les ferdinand v everton, several psychological profiles can be established, from players who really do take each game as it comes, to those who need a confidence booster and who experience large peaks and troughs.
By lumping everyone together they lose a whole bunch of interesting data.
Complain about this comment
Stats are well and good, but it's the modern day love affair with science and being able to "nail things down" that breeds a belief in the findings and the resulting interpretations.
Statistics can be construed in contradicting ways.
The fact is if for instance a team takes the lead the other team no longer has to try not to conceed a goal, they are better served in trying to level the game straight away.
It's our instinct that we should trust and our eyes not the statisticians.
Complain about this comment
Good article Chris
I would be interested to know if the book goes any way into dispelling the myths in the game concerning particular teams' or players' reputations. I'm sure crunching the figures would help this. Although I imagine if you work in the press you arent going to get given many interviews if you write a piece telling everyone that Steven Gerrard's pass completion rate was lower than that of Phil Neville's last season when everyone knows (surely) that Gerrard is one of the best passers of the ball England have.
I do like a good stat!
Complain about this comment
Englandcomeon
if you dont use science to nail things down do you just put it down to magic or witchcraft? Just kidding.
Some of the stats we get in games such as how far a player has run seem pretty pointless really. Surely if you're reading the game well you'll be far more selective in the choices you make on the pitch so theres less need to expend so much energy.
Complain about this comment
Yes, why only study 1-1 draws? this surely leaves out so many other variables and seems a bit lazy really.
Complain about this comment
"everyone knows (surely) that Gerrard is one of the best passers of the ball England have"
Really - I'd love to see some stats on that. I know Liverpool fans and commentators think that but in my experience, Gerrard has a bit of a scattergun approach and many of his passes are overhit.
Complain about this comment
incredibleBillFarkin;
Re-read the post your criticising, don't you think that perhaps the bracketed (surely) indicates a touch of irony in the post?
He was making the point subtly, as opposed to your own "sledgehammer to crack a nut" style response.
Complain about this comment
Well, I have to say some rather strange assumptions have been made here.
Firstly, regarding strikers scoring more when in form: looking at whether they score in consecutive games tells you nothing. A successful scoring sequence is one that extends over a whole series of games. But even looking at series of games will only tell you that when a striker is scoring regularly he is finding the net with frequency and when he isn't, he isn't!
Secondly, penalties: I know of a Dutch study which clearly showed that the greatest chance of success was obtained when hitting the ball hard and low into the bottom corner. And let's face it, if large numbers of penalty takers started hitting the ball down the middle, goalkeepers would soon cotton on. The bottom corner penalty has the best chance WHETHER OR NOT the goalie dives.
As for the lone/collective goal celebration - surely this is a symptom and not a cause!
The problem is, that there is as much mythology attached to statistics as to anything else. They very often don't prove anything more than the preconceptions of those drawing the conclusions.
Complain about this comment
"form is temporary class is permanent"
I know this was more of a quote from one of the great managers rather than a myth but it gets used quite a lot. Does it now just stand as an excuse for an underperforming or overperforming side? There cant be any way of quantifying this surely ie class v form.
Complain about this comment
This is interesting stuff.. But remember:
"Statistics are like mini-skirts. They give you good ideas, but hide the most important thing."
Complain about this comment
I too find problems with the way they went about gathering some of their stats, particularly using 1-1 draws to determine whether there is a greater risk of conceding right after scoring.
From a science point of view it doesn't make sense, why study matches that only offer 1 chance of proving the theory right? If it ends 1-1 then cleary your already at 50% of the time its not true because nobody scored after the equaliser. In fact using 1-1 games seems about as useless as using 0-0.
I did like the bit about players celebrating together have more success. When I watch football I'm always looking to see the reactions of the other players, especially other goal getters, when someone other them themself has scored. I think it really shows who is in it for the team, and who is in it for personal glory.
Complain about this comment
You can prove anything with statistics.
53% of people know that
Complain about this comment
' Another myth that can be exploded is the notion that teams run a greater risk of conceding a goal after scoring. Prof Ayton said "We analysed hundreds of games where the final score was 1-1 and found this wasn't the case". '
Am I missing something? If they analysed 100 games that finished 1-1 then surely in each match one team conceded a goal after scoring one themselves. Any other sequence of events can't surely lead to a 1-1 result!!!
This has undermined my faith in Prof Ayton entirely.
Also, if a goal keeper stands in the middle of the goal because of the stats saying most shots go down the middle then the trend will start to change because people will learn that this goalkeeper simply stands still.
Complain about this comment
chrisp2412
Suggest you stop wearing mini-skirts, then.
Complain about this comment
"Goalscoring is a drug, its an unbelievable high, it is simply not possible for this to not have strong links to differences in peoples psychologies.
Some players do play better after scoring, analysis of players who score multiple goals in a match will show that some players have a much higher probability of scoring again, should they score one goal in a match. That is to say they often go on to score several goals having got one under their belt."
Got any empirical evidence for this? Thought not.
Roll a die 500 times. They'll be times when you get several sixes in a row, and other times where you don't get a six in 20 or 30 throws. That doesn't mean that rolling one six means you're more likely to get another six. It's just that the laws of probability will mean that sometimes they'll all come in groups, and other times they'll be more spread out. The same happens with goals.
Complain about this comment
"Really - I'd love to see some stats on that. I know Liverpool fans and commentators think that but in my experience, Gerrard has a bit of a scattergun approach and many of his passes are overhit"
Absolutely. There was an example in the Liverpool vs. PSV game recently. Top passer on the pitch? Jamie Carragher. 100% of his 40+ passes found a teammate. Somebody like Gerrard tries a lot of "glory balls", many of which will not come off.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear,
ViscaCatalunya, your analogy of the die roll is absolutely fine, but there's one very very important difference between the die and the goal scorer - the die has no knowledge of the previous outcomes of the event. Discrete probability theory if anyone wants to take a look. The goal scorer however knows exactly what happened the last time he took a shot and that can clearly have a bearing on the result of his next shot - either positive or negative (as can hundreds of other external factors). The die results are 100% based on probability theory, striker's goal scoring patterns are goverened by infinitely more complex sets of parameters.
Complain about this comment
Pass completion rate - can someone tell me exactly what that is meant to prove about the ability of a footballer?
I know one thing, if Gerrard has a pass completion rate of 40% because, to quote, he tries a lot of 'glory balls' then I'll take that every day over a player with a pass completion rate of 90% who never puts the ball more than 10 yards sideways.
Guess what boys and girls.........'glory balls' that come off equals goals and last time I checked putting the ball in the back of the net was still the way you won football matches.
Good players in any sports know what the 'percentage' plays are but the greatest are the ones who instinctively know when to do something different.
Complain about this comment
AlricDark
when the glory ball doesnt come off you lose possession. if thats happening 60% (not sure where your 40% comes from) of the time thats a lot of possession to give away. short simple passing more often than not retains possession. more possession you have (as liverpool are starting to find this season) the greater chance you have of putting the ball into an area to create a chance on goal or equally stop your opponent getting a chance to score.
Complain about this comment
When it comes to whacking the penalty right down the middle, I think this applies more to penalty shoot-outs rather than those taken during normal play. There will always be players who don't normally take penalties who are more likely just to close their eyes and hope. It seems to me that if the goalie stays in the middle, he's likely to save 2 of the penalties; also, there is the cheeky chappie who tries to do that feint little dink into the net, and if the goalie stays standing, the ball would drop gently into his arms.
So, all in all, at penalty shoot-outs, stand still, but with experienced takers like Ronaldo, dive.
Actually, here's a thought; what of the goalie were not to stand in the middle, to invite the taker to go for a larger gap to his side. Would this cause psychological turmoil for the kicker, making him more likely to shoot wide?
Complain about this comment
The report doesn't say players don't score in bursts, it says that the length of the bursts are not predictable.
Could any of the doubters provide any basis for their disgreements?
Complain about this comment
MOYESYSIDE
my 40% was just an indicative figure to provide a contrast. I don't know what Gerrard's true pass completion rate is.
I can't agree entirely that more possession means more chances, or even for that matter it stops your opponent getting more chances to score. Take Arsenal for example - probably the best passing team in the EPL, but this season they've already come a cropper a couple of times against teams that are prepared to give them tons of possession but crowd them out when it gets into the danger areas. I' ve seen England play on numerous occassions where they've had plenty more ball than their opponents, but created nothing in attack and been undone by pace and flair in defence. It's entirely about what you do with the ball when you have it and also your ability to adjust your tactics to exploit the weaknesses of the team you are playing. The long ball over the top makes perfect sense if you have speed upfront against less quick defenders. If they react to that by sitting deeper, then the space opens up infront of them for a shorter passing game through them.
Some teams play one way and play that way brilliantly. Other teams are flexible and can change formations and style of play at will during a game as the match situation dictates. I think all I'm really saying is that personally I'm glad it isn't a stats based game as yet and still a sport where individual brilliance can undo brilliant teamwork at a stroke and vice versa.
Complain about this comment
Im a football loving Brit in New York, a country that is obseesed with sports statistics. In baseball a pitcher does not pitch against a batter who has an above average of hitting, they let someone else pitch, this is a proven method of by-passing the best hitters. There are thousands of stats for everysport in the US. If football was broken down in stats just like in the US, im am positive that it would only benefit teams.
Example, Frank Lampard may pass the ball to Joe Cole X ammount of times every game, get a stat for this and there is an answer to stopping it.
Complain about this comment
Really funny stuff. Imagine if the pundits were reduced to spouting facts and all opinion was dismissed as being factually incorrect.
e.g. "I really fancy England's chances in the upcoming tounament-"
"Hate to cut you off there Wrighty but according to the statistics you'll prove a turgid and uninspiring addition to an otherwise fantastic spectacle. And I surely don't need to point out that it's a mathematical impossibility that you can win on penalties."
"You're right Alan. I guess deep down I always knew Scotland were superior and the facts have bourne it out yet again. I'll go back to Gladiators now. Bye!"
Complain about this comment
In regards to why only 1-1 draws were used in examining whether a team that has scored is more likely to concede, I would assume it's based on consistency.
It means that every time you are analysing the same situation, namely a team that has just broken the deadlock. While you could (and probably should) analyse other results, they would have to be looked at seperately. Then you could look at each set of data and see whether there is an overall trend.
For instance, I'd be quite interested to see if there is any correlation betwen the number of goals scored and the chance of a consolation goal being conceded. That's another line of enquiry entirely though.
Complain about this comment
The article is a good one insofar as it provides a perfect example of when to use the Mark Twain quote:
'He was using the evidence like a drunk uses a lampost; for support instead of illumination'
This guy needs a couple of semesters of statistical methods: a sample size of 12 in one 'study', a clear sample bias (just 1-1 games) in another?
And suggesting pundits should explain at half time (1-0 at half time) that they may as well turn over and watch Corrie?
... the Nobel prize for Economics beckons
...but fair play, the Psychology All-Stars post match analysis gag is worthy of Monty Python (and indeed similar)
Complain about this comment
While I do agree with the penalty theory (smashing it down the middle), 286 penalties is way too small a pool of data to draw a conclusion from. Also, were these penalties that were studied already taken or taken on a training pitch specifically for being studied. If the latter is the case then you can't really compare that to 'real' penalties.
And with the 'more likely to concede after scoring' issue, you are more vulnerable straight after scoring if your attitude isn't right. If you're not concentrating in any part of a game you are more likely to concede and this happens when players are still celebrating the goal they just scored.
They say there's lies, damned lies and statistics. While I do find this study rather interesting I don't feel that the conclusions are necessarily accurate. As I've already mentioned the data isn't big enough and just because x happens after y has occurred it doesn't mean x happened because of y.
Complain about this comment
This is of real interest to me, because I quite often bang on (without scientific backup or psychological training) about the psychology of football, especially in the Premier League. Because it is not just football; how often do you watch a snooker player, in an important game, fluff easy shots and suddenly, when the game is in the bag, not put a single ball awry?
I am firmly convinced that the the so called "top four" who have occupied the top positions in the premier league for so long, do so, for a large part, for psychological reasons. There seems to be an attitude problem for other teams to play the top four, and usually the top team wins. That is not to ignore the fact that the top four hive off most of the money in the game, are able to buy the best players and therefore have more skill available to them than others. But psychology stilll plays a huge part! Who would think that Manchester Utd could go to Southend and lose? Not Man Utd players which is why they were in the wrong frame of mind!
Why would Arsenal go through a whole season without losing, and the following season, when they lose one match, other defeats quickly follow. Because in the unbeaten season, for as long as the winning streak goes on the players become much more confidant and EXPECT to win.
How can Roy Keane take a team in freefall from the Championship and get them promoted to the Premier League, with the same players, without adding something other than better organisation to their game.
I would like to see more of these studies and for them to be brought to much wider discussion to see if we could break the stanglehold some teams have on the game.
Complain about this comment
i think they should do a study on the psychology of new boots. i suppose this doesnt mean much to professional footballers, given they probably have a new pair each game or something (!), but as a kid I remember new boots heavily effecting my performance. Or did I just think they did? also, I think they should do a lab study on how the knot in the laces effects the ball trajectory...I mean surely it would make a difference if the knot was covered with the boot tag or not, or if it was a huge double knot etc... well, i would be interested in the results anyway!
as for penalties, have they done any studies where they ask players their approach to the spot (eg. like whether they know before they even place the ball where they are going to put it etc) and analyse success rates? I guess there wouldnt be an effective measure for this really, too easy to lie, and you would have to separate the penalty preparation time and micro decisions into some distinct phases...Im definitely thinking about this too much! lol!
by the way, ive clocked where your blog headline is from (Dore Programme). The guys who wrote the paper has just taught me for a year.
Complain about this comment
But if every footballer reads it, won't it nullify everything?
Complain about this comment
It has been shown categorically that 78.4% of statistics are completely made up.
Complain about this comment
This guy is a professor? I think it shows several methodological flaws, most of which have been highlighted already.
This person may know his pyschology, but he doesn't yet understand football.
Complain about this comment
So if both player and goal keeper take note of the fact that most penalties go down the center, what would happen then?
NOTHING, because they woiuld both be aware of the fact and aware that the other is aware of the fact.
Complain about this comment
All very nice, but just reading the reactions to the blog, you can see that people still don't believe it and hold their own theories true!
Complain about this comment
Here'a stat!90% of all deaths take place on a bed.
Complain about this comment
'A striker has more chance of scoring from the spot if he smacks it in the middle of the goal.' Ron Atkinson said this about 10 or so years ago. He said he'd been watching penalities and a lot of the time the ball went down the middle, so the keeper should just stand still. It was one of the occasions when he used to be alongside the main commentator (possibly on ITV with Brian Moore) on televised matches, chipping in with his opinions. Often his views were a bit radical and sometimes they would just be met with silence from the main commentator. Then again, he made it interesting.
Complain about this comment
This is a typical example of pseudo-science, the kind psychologists regularly churn out.
"Did you know that players who celebrate goals with their team-mates rather than running away from them will see their side achieve better results?"
Is that so, really? How exactly was this extremely spurious causal relationship established? I'm guessing through viewing goal celebrations, and then cross-checking these with team results.
The positive correlation between winning games and celebrating with your team mates may well be there, but does this suggest a cause? NO! Of course it doesn't! It doesn't even suggest that celebrating goals together will help create *better* results from your team!
If I were to venture into this debate, I would put forward the following hypothesis. Since football is a team game requiring multiple actors involved in a collective activity to score a goal, the teams more likely celebrate goals together are also the teams more likely to be more effective *players* of the game - i.e. more accustomed to working together and not as individuals.
This would explain why celebrations in succesful teams occur more frequnetly as collective rather than individual activities, because these teams create goals TOGETHER! Hence we see Arsenal players jumping on each other every week, Liverpool's Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres embracing after pretty much every Liverpool game, and Christiano Ronaldo being jumped on by his fellow teammates after scoring one of his typically magnificent individual goals.
Anything to do with the celebrations themselves? No - who would be celebrating if the goals weren't created in the FIRST PLACE?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS