Soccernomics

Why England Loses, Why Spain, Germany, and Brazil Win, and Why the U.S., Japan, Australia—and Even Iraq—Are Destined to Become the Kings of the World’s Most Popular Sport

Simon Kuper & Stefan Szymanski, 2014 (3rd edition), Nation Books
http://www.amazon.com/Soccernomics-England-Australia%C2%97-Iraq%C2%97Are-Destined/dp/1568584814

I have to say that I am a big fan of statistics. As a kid in school when I went in summer to my grandparents I just needed a pair of dice and a lot of paper and a pen and I started playing soccer on paper. First I just rolled the game results, later I had a more complex system, how the performance of the players affected the result of every game. I wrote endless sheets of paper full with tables, game results, the performance of the different teams and so on. Therefore this book is definitely written for people like me who analyze the world in a scientific way even soccer. That means I definitely like the book and its approach and all critique I might have is not about the quality of the text in general but because as an “expert” I might have done things differently than described in the book.
The book is split in three big chapters, one about the teams, one about fans and one about countries and a comparison of them. In all sections statistics are used to evaluate common knowledge in soccer and to understand if the general opinion is right or wrong and if the latter, what story statistics tell, how it really is. Of course the cases, when the public opinion goes wrong are far more interesting and therefore the most room is given to them. The middle part about fans is probably the least interesting. It is good to know that there are only very few hardcore fans who support only one team but statistics about who watches more games in the stadium or TV are not really interesting to understand the game. Nevertheless, what was impressive in this part was the description, how soccer stadiums and big sports events like the World Cup and Olympia are financed by the public, the profits go to private organizations and there is no measurable improvement of the countries or cities economy, which is usually the argument, during or after the event.
The last part with a comparison of the different countries and their performance internationally is more interesting. The authors make the argument that experience, talent pool and the know-how exchange with other soccer countries are the three biggest influencing factors for success of different nations. That sounds right (and is of course supported by the statistics) but I would go a step further and would think one has to look a bit deeper by judging the talent development in the different countries and not just the talent pool, that means the number of citizens in a country. Countries like the Netherlands have a much better youth development system than England and therefore get more out of a smaller pool. Other countries, e.g. in Africa, probably could do much better, if they had an organized structure of training kids and youth players. One can also see that France’s success end of the 90s was based on the talents from Clairefontaine, Spain’s success 2008, 2010 and 2012 on the youth development of La Masia and the German success last year was based on the changes made to the youth development system in the country after the horrible European Championship in 2000. It should be quite easy to compare how many players of a country play in the top 3 or top 5 leagues in the world (England, Span, Germany, Italy, France) to see which country really has the best talent pool in the world.
The most interesting part of the book comes directly at the beginning, when the authors try to explore how players can be evaluated better based on statistical data and not on gut feeling and how teams perform based on the money they use.
At first let’s talk about the players. When the book was written first in 2009 statistics were just introduced to the soccer world, after the use of statistics in baseball were made public with Moneyball and these ideas were taken over to revolutionize soccer. Today statistics are so common in soccer that even newspapers juggle with running distances, won duels and passing statistics when they try to explain why one player is better than the other. Therefore the data and stories in the book sound a bit antique.
But in my opinion even more there is a general flaw in the argumentation Kuper and Szymanski make, which is also made by several English soccer clubs as described in the book. Both focus too much on single player statistics. This works well for Baseball and American Football, because in both games the same situations are repeated continuously and under similar conditions therefore the single player performance has much more influence on the final results. The authors of Soccernomics also explain that the test of Liverpool to buy the best dribbler, the best passing midfielder a.s.o. did not result in success but their argument is that the right statistic value is not found yet (e.g. they explain that “high intensity sprints correlate better with the winning rate than the running distance alone). If statistics fail to predict the results their argument is the “dynamics” of soccer is the reason for the failure. That is not wrong but doesn’t go far enough. What they really mean is that the group tactics are no represented by simple statistics. Even the best defender in the world is not able to show a good performance when the rest of the team shows lousy work against the ball. Even the goalgetter with a high success rate of 80% per shot would not be successful when the team is not able to get the ball into the box and he has to go move backward to get the ball at all. It is not surprising that the authors make this mistake because their role model is the Premier League and that is the definitely the one of the big leagues where tactics are at a very low level. The high level of the Premier League (if it is that high at all, just check the Champions League results of the last years) is solely achieved, because the best players are there for the most money. But one can assume that in more developed countries, from the tactical point of view, much more could be done with the same players. Just to conclude, I think it is important to look at statistical data but they only tell you something, when you use them, to understand the tactical plan a team has on the field. It might be better to buy the guy with 70% passing success than the one with 90% passing success for your center midfield, when the first has better anticipation and balancing of the teams organization on the field and that is what you need for your team.
That directly ties into their next evaluation of the success of clubs and the reasons behind them, especially the influence of money and of coaches. They identified, that when it comes to money wages have the biggest influence on a team’s success not necessarily transfer payments. So it makes sense that the best/most successful players also get most of the money. The coaches they tried to analyze by comparing the league position at the end of seasons with the position one would expect from the wages and they concluded that coaches have only a small influence on the performance of their teams. I think the statistics are flawed in this comparison because in an ideal situation the best all coaches can achieve is that every team comes out equal in comparison to the expected position, that means on average in the used statistics coaches are “useless”. Using this statistics in a comparison where the ideal result is that there is no influence might be correct (e.g. when the authors look for racism in soccer) but to see if there is a positive effect of coaches you would have to use a different measure (e.g. how much do they improve a player during his time at the club, which could be based on the goal impact value). But again the results might be flawed by the use of Premier League results. Just read the biography of Neil Warnock, a better known coach in England, and you see that work on tactical details is not a focus of him but more buying and selling players. No wonder money plays such a big role for clubs in England. Maybe a wages vs. achievements list of the Champions League might be different.
Additionally to that the authors seem also to favor the entrance of sugar daddies in the soccer world and their money doping approach to soccer. The argument is that several suggar daddies competing with each other level the game for clubs which were less successful in the past and therefore give teams a chance which would have none, because they don’t have the money.
The argument is lopsided, especially when it takes the Bundesliga as negative example, where one club (Bayern Munich) dominates the rest. I think the domination of Bayern is not different than the domination of Manchester United or Real Madrid and FC Barcelona. Yes, they get the majority of the championship titles but there are always years other teams get lucky. In the last ten years only 5 of 10 championships went to Munich, the same is true for the ten years before. Most of the times teams like Dortmund, Stuttgart or Bremen were able for one or two years to have successful tranfers or they harvested the fruits of a good youth academy and therefore became competitive even with less money. A similar example is described by Kuper & Szymanski for Olympique Lyon. That means, it is possible to be better than the richest just by a good personal policy and having the right coach to make us of it. That is not only true for the top of the league, in the last four years teams like Augsburg, Fürth and Paderborn were promoted to Bundesliga the first time although they had significantly lower budgets. All of these teams were able to compete in the first league although they had not more than an above average second league budget available. What that means is there is some permeability for small teams. They might not be able to compete for ever but if the right persons are in charge they are able to surprise. Why is that in danger with sugar daddies? A good example for that in Germany is the club RB Leipzig led from Austria, which is supported by Red Bull (but you could also take the SAP supported 1899 Hoffenheim or the VW supported Wolfsburg as well). The club started in 2009 buying the license of a fifth league club and is now playing in the second league. The problem with the club is not so much that they bought second league players to play in the fifth and fourth league to get up quickly but that they also started in the region to convince youth players down to 13,14 years old to join their youth teams. At the beginning they literally tried to buy out the whole team of an age group of the club with the best youth development in the area. Although at this age one cannot make contracts with the players and pay them money one can easily pay their parents money to convince them that their kid has to change sides. Especially in East Germany, a region with high unemployment compared to the German average, that is easy to do. How many players out of these youth team will really make it to the first team? Very few, because to allow for the quick progression and promotions through the league system, every year new players are bought, which already have that level instead of taking the time to develop them. Therefore not only the players are blocked in their development these types of clubs also leave a wasteland around them because how is a club being able to compete based on good youth development and good player choice, when the best talents are already taken away, before they get even close to the first team. So, when arguing against sugar daddies, it is not because of a fight between tradition and no tradition or if money is good or bad, these type of financing a soccer club prevents to provide equal opportunity for each club to be successful with good work.
Nevertheless, the book is an excellent start to understand soccer in a better way and the mechanisms behind the scenes. Therefore it is highly recommended to read, because it provides a fresh view and new talking points when understanding success and failure in soccer.
There are now different editions of the book on the market because the authors constantly updated the text. Based on the table of contents I would say that they just added new sections to the the book based on recent developments (Sugar Daddies) or included better examples (like the rise of Spain in the last years). Therefore one should not miss anything reading the last edition only.

Biography: 0/3
History: 1/3
Background: 3/3
Tactics & Game philosophy: 0/3

Next book: Be Careful What You Wish For (Jan 17th)

The Blizzard: Issue Five

Jonathan Wilson (editor), 2012
http://www.theblizzard.co.uk/product/issue-five/

This issue of The Blizzard was a little bit less exciting than the ones before. A big topic of Issue Five was the world cup bidding process which lead to the decisions for Russia and Qatar but they miss to lift the fog around that topic. Three articles cover the topic and although a lot of people comment on the process in the articles, hardly any leads are followed to prove the speakers right or wrong or final conclusions are drawn, which are based on all the information available. It is good to hear what the Qatar officials or some conspiracy theorists have to say but I would expect that their comments are double-checked and opposed to each other to see the validity of what is said. As it the articles are just an endless line of comments, which do not help to get a more educated opinion about whether there was corruption and bribery involved in the decision making.
The interviews in this issue are not really enlightening as well. I think reading the first four or five answers of Socrates you know the direction of the thinking of one of the last hippie soccer players and you can predict his answers very well. Roy Hodgson, on the other hand never really had anything interesting or new to tell in his career. I think his biggest achievement as a manager was to make the media and supporters of the English national team accept mediocrity and that it is already a big achievement for a small country like England to go the the World Cup Final. Who would have thought that a manager can play the British media so well that he does not get fired after the disastrous tournament in Brasil.
Much better however are the articles about the supporter culture, whether it is in Japan, Singapore or Argentina. Especially the article of Ben Mabley about Japan, shows very nicely the rise and fall of any trend in the youth culture. Very similar to music, if a new genre is created, it starts with separation and the will to be different than the existing. That can be on a big scale as general rebellion against the parents, like in the seventies, or that can be on small scale, like Black Metal separating from the rest of the Metal genre. At the beginning the newcomers are creative, they try to get inspiration from other areas, which are usually rejected by the establishment, to show that they are different. The new way gets a shape and the uniqueness is celebrated in a certain way. More and more people follow although not knowing the source myth and why the followers do what they do. They are not coming because they want to be different but because they want to join and want to be part of a movement. Now the movement becomes so big and the clothes they wear and the song they sing become a ritual, which is carried out, because it is necessary to be part. The whole movement ends in the mainstream and has not the differentiation ability it had before. At that point either the old founding members or some creative new guys start to grumble because the uniqueness is gone and sooner or later a new genre or movement forks off starting the cycle again. This cycle is very nicely described for the ultra fans of Gamba Osaka, who just want to be different than the usual Japanese supporters, partly to revolt against the typical Japanese culture, too, but finally end exactly there again.
Simon Kuper’s observation that the nationalism is not that serious anymore I can just confirm. Being from Germany I had for years the pictures of the 1990 World Cup quarter final in my head when a game against the Netherlands was scheduled, which made me hate the Durch fervidly for one evening. I can also remember the school trip in 1992 when we teens had serious discussions about getting into a fight with Turkish school kids because they had supported Denmark (remember “everyone hates Germany”) when we watched the final together. All that is gone. On one hand the European union made it easy for so many people to move around, that you end up with friends from all over the world, so you have to accept other loyalties, too, and when you work abroad you always partly support your host country, too. On the other hand the European Union made the national states less relevant but it strengthened the regional loyalties. Being Scottish, Bavarian or Catalan creates today a much stronger home feeling than being British, German or Spanish and therefore the local teams are supported with more vigor than the national teams.
Finally the article about Wiel Coerver by Steve Bartram is worth reading. For my taste it focuses a bit too much on the biography of Coerver and does not provide enough detail about the method itself (which is available in German) but I think it would be a good expansion of The Blizzards’ scope, when the history or development of the training methods in soccer is portrayed.

Biography: 0/3
History: 1/3
Background: 3/3
Tactics & Game philosophy: 1/3