Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
How Football Has Changed; Statistical Overview 1958-2010
Topic Started: Mar 17 2011, 12:55 PM (1,030 Views)
raconteur
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Mr. Pither,Mar 18 2011
09:40 AM
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.

And thank God for that. Romantics like to think the game was purer and better played in the past but guys like Gentile, Benetti, Goicoechea and Stiles just would not be permitted to play now the way they did from the 60s through the 80s and that to me is something to be thankful for. It is noteworthy that even with a stricter definition of what is a foul these days, fewer fouls are comitted now than in the past.

Gregoriak, interesting info you have provided but reading through the thread I have not seen a clarification on how the "pace" of a match, which you described in your opening post was determiend. As several other posters noted here, if pace is simply the distance the ball travels in a match, that could be a sign of long balls being played as much as teams quickly moving the ball through the field with ne and two touch passing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nkono
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Gregoriak, interesting info you have provided but reading through the thread I have not seen a clarification on how the "pace" of a match, which you described in your opening post was determiend. As several other posters noted here, if pace is simply the distance the ball travels in a match, that could be a sign of long balls being played as much as teams quickly moving the ball through the field with ne and two touch passing.


This is exactly the point I too was making as I am curious to see exactly what this distant the ball traveled really determines. Although this analysis was of Germany's play over various World Cups and one thing which can be said about Germany's play is they do not often rely on long balls.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gregoriak
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]

I can't tell you more about the pace measure than what I said at the beginning, as that was all the article stated. But I think since this was researched by professional scientists who earn their living with these calculations, we can assume they incorporated these thoughts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Pither
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Gregoriak,Mar 22 2011
12:32 AM
I can't tell you more about the pace measure than what I said at the beginning, as that was all the article stated. But I think since this was researched by professional scientists who earn their living with these calculations, we can assume they incorporated these thoughts.

This is what your initial post stated on the subject,

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.

Sounds to me this is simply the distance the ball covered per match which would then greatly skew in favour for a team which hits long balls. nkono's point, however, is true that Germany usually do not rely often on a long ball attack but of all the statistics gregoriak provided us from this study I tend to think this is the least informative. More instructive I think are the fouls per match, how often a team puts the ball in the opposition penalty area and the conversion of goal chances.


P-I-T-H-E-R ...as in Brotherhood, but with PI instead of the BRO and no HOOD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
raconteur,Mar 21 2011
07:36 AM
Guys like Gentile, Benetti, Goicoechea and Stiles just would not be permitted to play now the way they did from the 60s through the 80s and that to me is something to be thankful for.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I'm surprised to see Nobby Stiles on that list. Yes he was a 'holding midfielder' as we'd say these days but he certainly wasn't a thug. Stiles was known for his man-marking abilities and had the ability to mark skilful opponents out of a game, but not by booting them around all over the place. He's most known for his tussles with Eusebio during various encounters between United and Benfica, as well as the 1966 semi-final between England and Portugal. Eusebio was pretty much a non-factor in those games, but he has always said that Stiles always nullified him through strictly fair means, and in fact the two of them have remained friends since. Eusebio tells a funny story about going to visit the gents after one match and Stiles sauntered in and stood next to him at the urinal. Eusebio said to him "my god, won't you even leave me alone when I'm in here?" :P

Stiles's game was to win the ball and give it simply to the likes of Charlton, Law, Best and Crerand. He could be a tough tackler but I don't think that's a fair caricature of him. He was a short, skinny fellow, prematurely bald and who wore thick glasses - hardly a 'hard man'. Maybe it's the fact that he wore dentures that he had to remove for matches that gave him his 'toothless tiger' reputation? Stiles was a specialist tackler / nullifier / holding player but not a hatchet man. I certainly reckon it's unjust to put him in the company of the other three on that list!

Sorry to go off on a slight tangent from the rest of the thread!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ursus arctos
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
For Stiles, read Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Artful Codger
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
ursus arctos,Mar 22 2011
02:38 PM
For Stiles, read Chopper Harris or Norman Hunter.

Exactly, or for a more modern version, Vinnie Jones.

As Simon noted Stiles' appearance more than anything else gave him the hardman reputation. But he was a good ball winner who played fair and was always neat in possession. I have read one of the reasons he kept playing short passes was his eyesight was quite poor!

Back to the topic at hand, the fact that hardman have a more difficult time of it now is something everyone who loves to see creative play should celebrate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ursus arctos
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Some of the best historical football shots I've ever seen.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Chopper Harris and Vinnie Jones were unreconstructed thugs, while playing for that nasty Leeds side brought the worst out in Hunter who was otherwise a decent player.

Still don't think Nobby Stiles deserves to be bracketed with that lot, much less a devious assassin like Gentile!

Good pictures ursus, thanks for posting them
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gregoriak
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Mr. Pither,Mar 22 2011
07:45 AM
Gregoriak,Mar 22 2011
12:32 AM
I can't tell you more about the pace measure than what I said at the beginning, as that was all the article stated. But I think since this was researched by professional scientists who earn their living with these calculations, we can assume they incorporated these thoughts.

This is what your initial post stated on the subject,

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.

Sounds to me this is simply the distance the ball covered per match which would then greatly skew in favour for a team which hits long balls. nkono's point, however, is true that Germany usually do not rely often on a long ball attack but of all the statistics gregoriak provided us from this study I tend to think this is the least informative. More instructive I think are the fouls per match, how often a team puts the ball in the opposition penalty area and the conversion of goal chances.


This is what the article is saying on the issue of measuring pace:

"Although with the help of the old television footage one cannot detect how many meters the players covered and how fast they were while doing that. Even so, the scientists found a way to calculate the pace of the game and to make it comparable. For this purpose, they measured the net playing time which they put into relation to the distance the ball covered. For example, when a team had 30 minutes on the ball during a game and the ball covered 3.600 meters during that time, this translates to a pace of two meters per second or 7.2 kilometers per hour."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Onslow
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I found this statistic Gregoriak brought up interesting and nobody has yet commented on it,

Average time a player spent from receiving the ball to passing it:

Avg. 1958-1990 4.64 seconds
Avg. 2002-2010 4.04 seconds


When my mates and I are discussing modern football and comparing it to days gone by we usually talk about how there is less one touch passing now than in the past. But these statistics, at least pertaining to Germany at various World Cups would seem to differ with that general perception. You would think if there was more one touch passing, the average time on the ball would decrease. But there may be another explanation to why players from 1960-1990 held on to the ball longer than they did in the past decade's World Cups, and that is man marking is tighter now than it used to be, thus players had more time in the past to make decisions with the ball and therefore held on to it longer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ursus arctos
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I strongly think that it is the latter explanation.

"Pressing" was relatively uncommon in the earlier period, and players had a lot of time on the ball, especially outside of the attacking third.

I think that the issue with the "pace" statistic is just how the researchers treated long balls. It isn't at all clear to me that they considered a team to be "on the ball" when they hoofed it up to the big man.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Merengue
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
ursus arctos,Mar 28 2011
01:01 PM
I strongly think that it is the latter explanation.

"Pressing" was relatively uncommon in the earlier period, and players had a lot of time on the ball, especially outside of the attacking third.

I think that the issue with the "pace" statistic is just how the researchers treated long balls. It isn't at all clear to me that they considered a team to be "on the ball" when they hoofed it up to the big man.

You are probably correct ursus, although I do think in the 80s and 90s there was plenty of pressing done too but likely not to the extent we now see. Gregoriak do you have a breakdown per World Cup on their findings for time on the ball? I am wondering if the high altitude Mexico World Cups in 1970 and 1986 may have skwered the figures a bit for the pre 1998 period?
http://twitter.com/#!/SocrFutbolForum
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ursus arctos
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Very true, Merengue.

I was thinking more of the pre-1982 tournaments, as well as the Mexico factor (and the heat of day matches at Espana '82 and USA '94).
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
libero
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
ursus arctos,Mar 28 2011
01:34 PM
Very true, Merengue.

I was thinking more of the pre-1982 tournaments, as well as the Mexico factor (and the heat of day matches at Espana '82 and USA '94).

The altitude and heat factors you mention all could help explain why the on the ball time was longer pre 2002 and thus it would be interesting to see a breakdown by World Cup year for that info. But I still agree with ursus and onslow when they opined that greater onfield pressing likely is the reason behind the less amount of time on the ball in the most recent World Cups.

Quote:
 
I think that the issue with the "pace" statistic is just how the researchers treated long balls. It isn't at all clear to me that they considered a team to be "on the ball" when they hoofed it up to the big man.


Really? I think they would consider the time after a pass has been made and before it's recipient controls it as being time of possession, whether that is a 4 yard square pass or a 40 yard kick forward.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Soccer Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply