| Welcome to Soccer Futbol Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| How Football Has Changed; Statistical Overview 1958-2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 17 2011, 12:55 PM (1,028 Views) | |
| Gregoriak | Mar 17 2011, 12:55 PM Post #1 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The following are the results conducted by the German Sport Academy of Cologne. The scientists were asked by German football magazine “11 Freunde” to analyze 19 German World Cup games from 1958, 1966, 1970, 1974, 1982, 1986 and 1990 and to compare them with those of 2002 to 2010 (for which the data was already available). Of the 1958 World Cup, the only German game that was reviewed was the third place game against France (3-6). The game was rather meaningless to Germany and was played by a B-selection. Since the nature of that game was not really competitive, in my opinion it skewes the 1958 results quite a bit. The researchers focused on the pace of the games, which of course is one of the Modernists’ most beloved-arguments to underline the superiority of the modern game. The pace was measured in meters per second. To obtain that figure for the older games, the scientists measured the net playing time which they put into relation to the distance the ball covered. The German World Cup teams with the highest average pace were as follows: Pace 1974 2.60 meters/per second 2010 2.60 m/s 1966 2.40 m/s 2002 2.25 m/s 1986 2.10 m/s 1990 1.95 m/s 1982 1.90 m/s 2006 1.85 m/s 1958 1.80 m/s 1970 1.75 m/s Other results the study revealed were: Number of actions inside penalty box 1958 62 penalty box actions per game 1970 50 act./g 1982 49 act./g 1990 41 act./g 1966 39 act./g 2006 36 act./g 2002 35 act./g 2010 33 act./g 1986 27 act./g 1974 18 act./g Other things the researchers analysed was whether the attacks were staged predominantly over the flanks or through the middle. Results: avg. 1958-1990 11% attacks over the left flank avg. 2002-2010 15% attacks over the left flank --------------------------------------------------------- avg. 1958-1990 15% attacks over the right flank avg. 2002-2010 21% attacks over the right flank --------------------------------------------------------- avg. 1958-1990 74% attacks through the middle avg. 2002-2010 63% attacks through the middle Number of times a player was fouled: Avg. 1958-1990 1.71 times Avg. 2002-2010 0.88 times Average time a player spent from receiving the ball to passing it: Avg. 1958-1990 4.64 seconds Avg. 2002-2010 4.04 seconds Since this issue of “11 Freunde” had Günter Netzer on the cover together with the headline “Was Netzer really that good?” and because Netzer only played a few minutes at the 1974 World Cup... ![]() ![]() … the scientists also analysed one game of the 1972 European Championships, Germany’s 3-1 victory at Wembley against England. The results were (with a specific eye on Netzer): Pace of the game (Germany): 2.9 meters/second Pace of the game (England): 1.64 meters/second Netzer had 99 actions on the ball (more than anyone else) Netzer passed the ball 64 times successfully (more than anyone else) Netzer had the most offensive actions (88) Netzer tackled two times Netzer attempted a dribbling 10 times (compared to 7 times Mesut Özil 2010 vs. England) |
![]() |
|
| Nkono | Mar 17 2011, 06:01 PM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The researchers focused on the pace of the games, which of course is one of the Modernists’ most beloved-arguments to underline the superiority of the modern game. The pace was measured in meters per second. To obtain that figure for the older games, the scientists measured the net playing time which they put into relation to the distance the ball covered. If I understannd you correctly then this is how far the ball traveled per game as measured in meters per second. Would that really be an accurate measure of how fast a team is playing? Instead of quick one-twos a club could hit long balls forward and cover much more ground per second. And is playing fast necessarily a good thing? Obviously that is not something which can be looked at through statistics. Playing quick one and two touch football is always pleasing to my personal tastes but quickly kicking long balls forward for example is not. |
![]() |
|
| gaviota | Mar 17 2011, 10:41 PM Post #3 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am not really one into statistics but the most significant ones you have given us are those involving Netzer and how many times he touched the ball and what he did with it once he had the ball. An excellent player for sure who was superb at Euro 72. And it appears he really was the man through which went many of West Germany's attacks then. But I am in agreement with nkono in wondering how much the "pace of the game" statistic really reveals about how a game was playd? It is worth considering and bringing this up makes for a good discussion, but I join nkono in wondering whether it really is a significant statistic? |
| CHAMP13NS | |
![]() |
|
| Johnbuildr | Mar 18 2011, 05:20 AM Post #4 |
|
Advanced member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Gotta love the Deutsche mind. And nobody loves statistics more than them. (And basbeball fans, I suppose.) But Nkono makes a great point. How is "pace" even defined and how does it relate to the rate of ball speed? Merely kicking the ball long distances back and forth would apparently raise that statistic to its highest level, but would mean nothing in relationship to the quality or effectiveness of the play. Maybe there is more to it, but it is nearly impossible to say from observing only the statistical results. |
|
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum | |
![]() |
|
| Mr. Pither | Mar 18 2011, 09:40 AM Post #5 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What I found interesting from the various statistics was the numbe rof times a player was fouled pe rmatch. It has gone down since 2002 and that I think is a good sign. Nobody likes matches constantly stoppe dbecause of fouls. The sport is cleaner now than it used to be in terms of fouls committed. Players like Claudio Gentile of Italy in the early 80s would not be able to play now as they did then. Gregoriak, I do think it would be enlightening to read more on how the "pace" was measured in this study you cited. |
|
P-I-T-H-E-R ...as in Brotherhood, but with PI instead of the BRO and no HOOD | |
![]() |
|
| Simon | Mar 19 2011, 01:28 PM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which surprises me in itself, as a lot of what these days would be regarded as fouls were not even whistled in the old days, so I would have expected the foul count to be higher these days. As for the issue of pace, I think the other points already made are valid ones, but equally the findings are logical in some ways. For example, you would probably expect two of the 'slowest' years to be 1958 (back in the old days!) and 1970 (in the Mexican heat), and that's borne out by the stats. But then 1986 is 5th on the chart, so... |
![]() |
|
| raconteur | Mar 19 2011, 07:22 PM Post #7 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As for the issue of pace, I think the other points already made are valid ones, but equally the findings are logical in some ways. For example, you would probably expect two of the 'slowest' years to be 1958 (back in the old days!) and 1970 (in the Mexican heat), and that's borne out by the stats. But then 1986 is 5th on the chart, so... Yes the fact 1986 in Mexico was so high in the "pace" category was very surprising to me. I definitely expected it to be somewhere closer to the speed of the 1970 World Cup. You watch some of the 1970 World Cup games and you will see players practically walking on the field. I am not surprised 1974, however, was so high on the list. I have a few old tapes from that tournament and I really enjoyed watching the speed of play in that tourney from teams like West Germany, Netherlands and Poland. |
![]() |
|
| Gregoriak | Mar 20 2011, 06:42 AM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What I find spectacular about the results is that the 1974 World Cup team played at the same pace as the 2010 World Cup team. I am not claiming that a high pace is a prerequisite for good football, but the mere fact that both teams played at the same pace despite a time difference of 36 years surely astounds. Similarly astounding is that the 1974 team outpaced the 2006 team by 0.75 seconds (both were played at home in Germany and thus a better comparable). Considering that the arguments of the modernists almost always centered around the - allegedly - higher pace of today's game, the results of this study in my opinion favor the view of the traditionalists. The most famous World Cup arguably is the 1970 one played in Mexico, for various reasons. This has led to games from that tournament getting repeated on television more regularly than those of other tournaments. Yet the pace of the 1970 World Cup was atypical already at the time due to the altitude and merciless heat in which the games were played. One can see this by looking at the 1966 games, which come right after 1974 and 2010 in terms of pace. As 1970 is a more prominent tournament with more "classic" games, many modernists examine that tournament and come to the conclusion that the pace "in the past" was significantly slower than "in the modern game", ignoring the special circumstances of Mexico '70. Another thing underlining the arguments of the traditionalists is that the game was tougher in the past, as players between 1958 and 1990 on average were fouled twice as often as those between 2002 and 2010. That is a pretty significant difference. What favors the views of the modernists is that players in the past had more time between receiving a ball and passing it off again (4.64 seconds compared to 4.04 seconds in the last three World Cups). However this point was often exaggerated by modernists which I have encountered on various occasions, the most extreme claiming that "in the past a player had about 7 seconds available to make a decision while today it is often less than 2 seconds". Clearly the difference is not as striking as often claimed. In the terminology of modern tacticians, a successful through ball or chip pass played over more than 15 meters is considered a "effective pass". As the study revealed, in the past players like Netzer and Overath did play such passes in abundance which is not seen today anymore. One of the reasons for this might be that they on average had 0.60 seconds more time to aim their passes. The other reason surely was that they simply had an excellent eye for long passes which current players in Germany lack. |
![]() |
|
| Gregoriak | Mar 20 2011, 06:43 AM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What also is interesting was the conversion of goal chances. Between 1958 and 1990, the average was 20.3 %. This fell to 12.3 % between 2002 and 2010. Through balls and chip passes on average were played successfully 22.2 times in games between 1958 and 1990. This fell to 12.7 times in games between 2002 and 2010. Does this hint at the offensive players being simply better in the past than today (in Germany`s case)? Another fact favoring the view of the traditionalists in my opinion. |
![]() |
|
| Gregoriak | Mar 20 2011, 06:46 AM Post #10 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
1958 was just one game which was analysed (as only one German game from that Cup is available), which was the third place game vs. France. To Germany (reigning World Champions at the time) it was rather meaningless and played with a reserve squad. I would not consider that game particularly representative of the pace of 1958. |
![]() |
|
| Gregoriak | Mar 20 2011, 06:49 AM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I beg to differ. In today's football all top clubs in all top leagues assign researchers to analyse football games. It is not a German specialty at all. The only new thing here is that a football magazine asked one of these scientists to analyze past games. |
![]() |
|
| alabastergremlin | Mar 20 2011, 01:05 PM Post #12 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For that argument to hold water, would you not have to assume that todays game is officiated exactly as it was then? Any rules changes or any changes in philosophy of what is and what isn't a foul would have to be taken into consideration. And when it comes to the subject of passing and shooting...how do you factor in changes in technology (whether it changed the ball, other equipment, and even the field itself)? Did Tiger Woods' clubs give him an advantage or was he behind that advantage? (Wow, that seems oddly dated!) |
![]() |
|
| Rufus T. Firefly | Mar 20 2011, 06:14 PM Post #13 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am not sure how to explain this but my guess is defensive marking is tighter now than it was 30-40 years ago thus attackers had a little more time to shoot then than they do now. I am not one of those who say the sport is better now or played quicker than it once was but to me defensive marking is tighter and that i feel is a likely explanation for higher goal conversion rates in the past. |
![]() |
|
| Gregoriak | Mar 20 2011, 11:45 PM Post #14 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We have to differentiate between 1) the number of goal chances per game (which might have been higher in the past) and 2) the percentage of goal chances converted (which definitely was higher in the past). 1) If it was higher in the past, it might be attributed to what you said (less tight defenses back then - although back in the days of strict man-marking this is not certain) 2) But once a current player has a goal chance - and this is what is compared - he is less likely to score than a player was in the old days. |
![]() |
|
| Gregoriak | Mar 20 2011, 11:47 PM Post #15 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Generally, we can assume that referees in the past were less strict than they are today. Thus many fouls that do get called today would not get called in the past. Yet still there were more fouls called in the past, which may hint at harder fouls being committed more regularly than in the modern era. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Soccer Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





6:35 AM Jul 11