The Eye Test

Football is constantly adapting. As research into science, medicine, and technology continues to push the boundaries in terms of what we previously knew and understood, football has been a beneficiary. Or, has at least gone with the times.

Whether you prefer the robotic, tactically disciplined, athletic nature of the modern day game compared to previous generations is down to you and how you see the game.

However, no one can argue that sports science and data hasn’t had a huge effect on how the game is played, coached and observed.

But has it gone too far? To the point where data is so heavily relied upon that it actually misconstrues the capabilities and stylistic suitability of a player for a team, league, and manager etc.

This article isn’t looking at data, and how it’s used to assess players specifically, in a negative manner. More, simply looking at how data is used.

Data used to assess players and their suitability as a potential new signing is a welcome and necessary addition to player evaluation.

Research and technology has become so advanced, you can quantify data to find the perfect player that hits every target you are looking for. At least, that’s what the data tells you.

That is where the issue can lie. Data that is available is so detailed nowadays that players can be bought and sold almost purely based on the findings through a computer screen.

Think ‘Moneyball’. Except Billy Beane never won the world series.

Now it is important to preface this that the vast, vast majority of those involved in professional football won’t make, often multimillion pound decisions, purely off of what figures tell you when you open a document.

Football is ever improving in how it departmentalises staff and expertise. Clubs will appoint data analysts, many of whom are purely focussed on quantifying data.

This has a huge benefit as it can really narrow down the search for the profile of player you are looking for. In simpler terms, it is incredibly unlikely that a player can go under the radar, providing the professional club has the monetary resources.

That data will then be presented to, perhaps, a head of recruitment for example, and then the eye test will be conducted to ensure the data matches up.

This is the way player analysis should go. But we are already seeing the scales tipped towards an over reliance on data; mostly from people on the outside of professional clubs who don’t have the financial capability to ‘do it all’ when assessing a player.

The influence of people with opinions outside of professional football clubs is ever-growing. And quite often, to great effect. Football looking towards those who didn’t necessarily play to a high level of the game for employment is becoming a more common occurrence.

And there is nothing wrong with that concept. I didn’t play professional football, however my track record of improving professional’s and academy players despite being only 25 years old is something I am incredibly proud of.

However, you have to take the rough with the smooth. And a lot of people are now getting roles in football due to their ability to analyse in microscopic detail, much of the time due to their access to data. And that can lead to an ever-growing reliance on data to assess players. Data shouldn’t be relied upon. It should be used to quantify and support the eye test. But the eye, and social/emotional test should always take precedence.

One of my roles in football is as an analyst. But not a data analyst. I assess players based on what I see. And I do so in microscopic detail. Some may say that I can afford to do this because I’m not signing multi-million pound players for a team. But I am pushing those players towards clubs so I have to make sure my analysis and belief that the player fits the club is strong.

If you want to look at specific examples of where data can be misconstrued in providing analysis, lets focus on a few players.

For example, Davinson Sanchez has averaged 1.9 tackles per game in the league this season. Virgil Van Dijk has averaged 0.8.

Is Sanchez a more dominant centre-back than Van Dijk? No of course not. Those figures are largely misconstrued due to a number of factors. Sanchez has far more tackles to make due to Spurs being far more open than Liverpool. Van Dijk is also a master in the art of jockeying; shepherding opponents away from danger to avoid needing to make the tackle.

Now of course, this is just one, rather basic piece of data that is being looked at in isolation. However, if we look at another piece of data, Sanchez has tackled players who try to dribble past him 35.4% of the time. Harry Maguire stands at 37%, reasonably similar.

Sanchez is also 188cm tall, and weighs 77kg. Maguire is also 188cm tall and weighs 79kg.

All of this paints the picture of Sanchez and Maguire being physically imposing players who can dominate their opponents in duels. According to data.

However, the eye test shows you that Magure is far more physically imposing than Sanchez is.

For example, Sanchez has rather pinched in shoulders and a wiry, narrow frame. This can lead to a likelihood of him getting rolled by strikers he tussles with. On a few occasions for Spurs now, Sanchez has overstated his own strength and physical prowess. He has tried to regain possession by outmuscling his opponents. However, due to his pinched in shoulders and narrow frame, as well as his tendency to tip slightly forward when he runs, this means he can struggle to stabilise himself when challenging, and have issues with widening his body circumference to shield opponents away from the ball. Instead, strikers have used his weight against him, secure themselves, and rolled away to then take advantage of the space Sanchez has left.

This doesn’t happen to Maguire, a much broader and sturdier frame. If Maguire uses his body, he is going to come out on top.

The data used here hasn’t highlighted these major differences between the two, but the eye test certainly has.

This isn’t a dig at Sanchez. He is an excellent young centre back with a lot of potential and if he can learn how to use his body correctly and steady himself, could go on to become a mainstay in the Spurs backline for years. This is purely looking at how data alone can misconstrue certain attributes when assessing a player.

There are plenty more cases worldwide where data can present an inaccurate image of a player if used in isolation.

Ibrahim Sangare is one of the most talented young number 6/8’s in Europe. If you profile his data you get a defensive and athletic monster who is also an excellent ball progressor over longer distances. And this is true, the eye test also backs that up.

But what the eye test shows that data doesn’t is the aura of Sangare. He is incredibly dynamic, which data shows, but also often chaotic in terms of style. It is harder for data to show that.

This style would suit plenty of sides. But what if the team is looking for a more measured presence. A calming screener. Data can of course highlight this with regards to heat maps and other detailed statistics, but the eye test is what confirms how perhaps a Zakaria is the more measured approach compared to Sangare in terms of mentality, aura and style. Sangare has a progressive first touch to evade pressure, as does Zakaria. Data shows that. But Zakaria has a deftness in touch. A subtlety and calmness that brings peace to the situation around him. Data can not quantify that, or the effect that ‘style’ has on his team mates for example.

Two excellent young players, two similar profiles regarding data in many respects, however completely different with regards to aura and style.

Data is a positive and necessary addition, and the vast majority of professionals use it correctly. However, there is no question that we are heading towards a game that is becoming far more data orientated and if used incorrectly, that can have a devastating effect on clubs and players.