What is going on at Brentford

[emjayblue]

For a team (like us tipped as dark horses by a few pundits pre season), in the last week or so they have been having something of a fire sale similar to that of Barnsley 6 months ago.

I know they are run differently to most clubs in respect of stat based player purchases, but they do appear to have got rid of some talented players lately. Put it this way, would prefer to be playing them when we resume than Fulham!

[Blue in the Face]

This could be taken as the failure of the moneyball idea in football. I always thought it can't really apply to football like it can to baseball which is heavily stats orientated. Baseball is is more about a collective of individuals in a technocracy wheras footy is eleven doods on the field at the same time trying to work together. Perhaps the idea could work to a degree, for one or two clubs, if no other clubs were onto the same idea. It just feels like lots of clubs got into this same idea at the same time.

Stats mean nothing compared to the human factor, like confidence and determination. Neil is showing us the value of the psychological aspect of the game. Something a certain Arsenal manager just doesn't seem to understand. Then again, if more clubs were trying to go about things the way Neil does, it might not work out so well for us.

I always thought in football it's good to be the odd man (or team) out, in that you offer something different to the other teams in your league. Which is possibly why Pulis always achieves good results because few other clubs are willing to shoot for the brand of football that he does. That works out even better for Pulis.

[Rjk]

This could be taken as the failure of the moneyball idea in football. I always thought it can't really apply to football like it can to baseball which is heavily stats orientated. Baseball is is more about a collective of individuals in a technocracy wheras footy is eleven doods on the field at the same time trying to work together. Perhaps the idea could work to a degree, for one or two clubs, if no other clubs were onto the same idea. It just feels like lots of clubs got into this same idea at the same time.

Stats mean nothing compared to the human factor, like confidence and determination. Neil is showing us the value of the psychological aspect of the game. Something a certain Arsenal manager just doesn't seem to understand. Then again, if more clubs were trying to go about things the way Neil does, it might not work out so well for us.

I always thought in football it's good to be the odd man (or team) out, in that you offer something different to the other teams in your league. Which is possibly why Pulis always achieves good results because few other clubs are willing to shoot for the brand of football that he does. That works out even better for Pulis.

Couldn't disagree more, more and more clubs are investing a lot of money in big stats departments. It is definitely a big part of the future of the game.

Brentford have one of the smallest operating budgets in the division, and have consistently outperformed that. Plus they actually seriously scaled back their analytics department a few years ago. Their player recruitment though has generally been good.

Perhaps other clubs have got smarter and they no longer have an advantage?

You can see the influence of stats on the way teams are playing, less wasteful pot-shots from distance, more teams playing it out from the back etc

I agree that if you have a style different to everyone else then you can pose a challenge that other teams aren't used to facing. However there is nothing inherent about the way that Warnock or Pulis like to play the game that is incompatible with the use of stats in the game. They can get a benefit from it as well as any other style of play.

[Delbert]

With average attendances of 10k they have to balance the books somehow. Selling on their better players a necessity, they'd be unable to compete on wages. They also have a new stadium to fund.

[emjayblue]

Very well articulated, can't argue with your sentiments. Had a look at their messageboard this morning and whilst a percentage of their fans agree with their policy (after all they are just trying to implement a system that will generate extra income due to the low capacity of their stadium), even the fans that support the initiative are finding it galling to sell 3 players to the same club in the same division as them, or a rival if you like. The 11 mil plus received from Birmingham was good financial business for them. However, as the players involved weren't sold to a premier league club, it is somewhat counterproductive making a rival stronger as their stated aim is a play off spot. Their fans appear to think they have something of a production line, with their B team as they refer to it being particularly strong. Pretty hard to sustain in the long run if you ask me.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

This could be taken as the failure of the moneyball idea in football. I always thought it can't really apply to football like it can to baseball which is heavily stats orientated. Baseball is is more about a collective of individuals in a technocracy wheras footy is eleven doods on the field at the same time trying to work together. Perhaps the idea could work to a degree, for one or two clubs, if no other clubs were onto the same idea. It just feels like lots of clubs got into this same idea at the same time.

Stats mean nothing compared to the human factor, like confidence and determination. Neil is showing us the value of the psychological aspect of the game. Something a certain Arsenal manager just doesn't seem to understand. Then again, if more clubs were trying to go about things the way Neil does, it might not work out so well for us.

I always thought in football it's good to be the odd man (or team) out, in that you offer something different to the other teams in your league. Which is possibly why Pulis always achieves good results because few other clubs are willing to shoot for the brand of football that he does. That works out even better for Pulis.

Warnock is indeed using a version of moneyball. Cheap players, reclamation projects. Players with talent but have underachieved so far - like Damour and Mendez-Laing.

[life on mars]

Financial survival,average crowds 12k ,probably wages higher in London area , dost sell much merchandise in the USA or China,thank god we have a Tan

[the other bob wilson]

Very well articulated, can't argue with your sentiments. Had a look at their messageboard this morning and whilst a percentage of their fans agree with their policy (after all they are just trying to implement a system that will generate extra income due to the low capacity of their stadium), even the fans that support the initiative are finding it galling to sell 3 players to the same club in the same division as them, or a rival if you like. The 11 mil plus received from Birmingham was good financial business for them. However, as the players involved weren't sold to a premier league club, it is somewhat counterproductive making a rival stronger as their stated aim is a play off spot. Their fans appear to think they have something of a production line, with their B team as they refer to it being particularly strong. Pretty hard to sustain in the long run if you ask me.

Brentford ditched their Academy and now operate a system whereby that B team you mention comprises of top teams cast offs or young players bought for pretty small fees. As far as I know, the B team are not in any league and don't play competitive matches, but the object of the exercise is to eventually produce a lot more first team players than you get coming through from the Development/under 23 system at other clubs - presumably they were confident that they would be able to prove this shortly, hence the decision to sell three first teamers yesterday and not replace them.

I wouldn't like it if City went for a similar approach, but I can see that there is a logic to Brentford's thinking - it just all seems a bit soulless to me.

On the subject of stats, I see that while we are now a fair distance ahead in the Championship's shots on target table, we are still behind Millwall and Brentford (who have had ninety two, more than any one else in the division) in the shots at goal figures. Brentford, with thirty two are second to our thirty seven, when it comes to actually working the keeper, so I would have thought the attitude at such a stats based club would be that they will soon be climbing the table because their current position is a statistical anomaly.

http://www.footstats.co.uk/index.cfm?task=league_shots

[ken smith]

Brentford ditched their Academy and now operate a system whereby that B team you mention comprises of top teams cast offs or young players bought for pretty small fees. As far as I know, the B team are not in any league and don't play competitive matches, but the object of the exercise is to eventually produce a lot more first team players than you get coming through from the Development/under 23 system at other clubs - presumably they were confident that they would be able to prove this shortly, hence the decision to sell three first teamers yesterday and not replace them.

I wouldn't like it if City went for a similar approach, but I can see that there is a logic to Brentford's thinking - it just all seems a bit soulless to me.

On the subject of stats, I see that while we are now a fair distance ahead in the Championship's shots on target table, we are still behind Millwall and Brentford (who have had ninety two, more than any one else in the division) in the shots at goal figures. Brentford, with thirty two are second to our thirty seven, when it comes to actually working the keeper, so I would have thought the attitude at such a stats based club would be that they will soon be climbing the table because their current position is a statistical anomaly.

http://www.footstats.co.uk/index.cfm?task=league_shots

It depends where there shooting from though. If 30 of Brentford's shots on target are from 40 yards and straight at the keeper its bit of a false stat. I get it can give an indication of who are attacking more, but similar to the possession ones people used to cream over it needs to be taken in context.

[Blue in the Face]

... You can see the influence of stats on the way teams are playing, less wasteful pot-shots from distance, more teams playing it out from the back etc

I agree that if you have a style different to everyone else then you can pose a challenge that other teams aren't used to facing. However there is nothing inherent about the way that Warnock or Pulis like to play the game that is incompatible with the use of stats in the game. They can get a benefit from it as well as any other style of play.

Some good points about data analysis. You only have to look at Osian Robert's influence on the National team to confirm this. For one thing he has had us prioritise working the ball and protect areas when we don't have the ball into more central areas of the pitch in response to data which illustrates that this is where most goals come from. He has definitely studied data and applied it to his methods.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. The longer I've watched football, the more I think the secret to success is to try and skin the cat differently to everyone else to ensure success. Go against the tide. I think that's what Cardiff are doing at the moment in that they seem to be sacrificing ideas about "controlling the game" for the sake of just working shots on goal above all things. I'm a bit worried that Wales have found themselves in the opposite position though because of other coaches taking note of their success and how to apply it themselves and work against it.

There is a big problem with reliance on data compared to baseball though. Andy King could look a better passer than Aaron Ramsey because he picks more conservative options for example. Looking at Cardiff's pass completion rate and possession this season tells that you can be successful in terms of winning games while looking bad in stats. Though I'm aware I'm making an overly simple argument there. But it's a common argument that is easy to expand on.

Couldn't disagree more...

But you sort of did agree when you said...

Perhaps other clubs have got smarter and they no longer have an advantage?

That was of the main points I was making. It's harder to mine the hidden gems via stats because everyone else is on to it. I wonder if we've been using a bit of game theory and going for the players that no one else wants because their stats are terrible. With Neil and co trusting more of the human aspect and the judgement of good old fashioned scouting? We don't seem to be up against much competition for the players we've signed.

Warnock is indeed using a version of moneyball. Cheap players, reclamation projects. Players with talent but have underachieved so far - like Damour and Mendez-Laing.

Great point and I definitely agree because I was making part of this point above, but you're contradicting yourself I think? A reclamation project would suggest a player who is performing badly. Would this on some level not apply to stats? Yes Moneyball does cover the idea of good baseball players trapped in poor teams, but it doesn't really cover the idea that the targeted player has poor stats. Does it? Maybe it covers poor form, but I don't think it covers players with poor stats in general. Maybe I'm wrong.

Perhaps Cardiff have been opting for the inverse of the moneyball system? It seems to me that he's trusting scouts who go on good old fashioned insight and instinct. Loic Damour's stats look pretty shocking across the span of his career. The way I see it, Warnock is embracing the human and psychological element of the game. Right side of the brain answers in an era where left side of the brain methods are dominating.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Great point and I definitely agree because I was making part of this point above, but you're contradicting yourself I think? A reclamation project would suggest a player who is performing badly. Would this on some level not apply to stats? Yes Moneyball does cover the idea of good baseball players trapped in poor teams, but it doesn't really cover the idea that the targeted player has poor stats. Does it? Maybe it covers poor form, but I don't think it covers players with poor stats in general. Maybe I'm wrong.

Perhaps Cardiff have been opting for the inverse of the moneyball system? It seems to me that he's trusting scouts who go on good old fashioned insight and instinct. Loic Damour's stats look pretty shocking across the span of his career. The way I see it, Warnock is embracing the human and psychological element of the game. Right side of the brain answers in an era where left side of the brain methods are dominating.

I was thinking more along the lines of targetting players who have played well, had the potential at a younger age ( Mendez-Laing at Wolves, Damour at that French academy ) but never realised it ( Mendex-Laing to Rochdale, Damour to French Ligue 2 ).

[Rjk]

It depends where there shooting from though. If 30 of Brentford's shots on target are from 40 yards and straight at the keeper its bit of a false stat. I get it can give an indication of who are attacking more, but similar to the possession ones people used to cream over it needs to be taken in context.

Which is why people use measures like xG which value shots from far out as less likely to score than tap ins and take it to account the type of shot and where the ball has been passed from etc

[Blue in the Face]

I was thinking more along the lines of targetting players who have played well, had the potential at a younger age ( Mendez-Laing at Wolves, Damour at that French academy ) but never realised it ( Mendex-Laing to Rochdale, Damour to French Ligue 2 ).

I see what you mean. Then perhaps the "committee" should have more credit as Big Ken fits into that category too. One thing I'd say we've benefitted from with Ken is we signed a player who's weaknesses in his game were improbable through good coaching.

Which is why people use measures like xG which value shots from far out as less likely to score than tap ins and take it to account the type of shot and where the ball has been passed from etc

The data would have to get that specific for it to be useful I suppose. I can see how could be useful for searching through loads of players from all kinds of leagues you won't have the man power to scout. Don't think anything will ever beat human judgement to spot talent or potential though.

[Rjk]

I see what you mean. Then perhaps the "committee" should have more credit as Big Ken fits into that category too. One thing I'd say we've benefitted from with Ken is we signed a player who's weaknesses in his game were improbable through good coaching.



The data would have to get that specific for it to be useful I suppose. I can see how could be useful for searching through loads of players from all kinds of leagues you won't have the man power to scout. Don't think anything will ever beat human judgement to spot talent or potential though.

Nobody is using a purely stats based approach to scouting. If you can find an interesting player through a stats approach, you then get a scout to have a look to confirm what the data is telling you, and to try to work out other characteristics that aren't readily measurable.

Old fashioned scouts aren't infallible though, I recently read somewhere that man u passed up the opportunity to sign isco as a 21 year old because "his head was too big for his body"

[BlueWales]

Only one set of stats counts.

Goals actually scored.

The rest is a load of bollux because we have to follow Yank wank.

If stats worked the bookies would be broke but they aren't.