Liverpool

[grecIAN Harris]

I'm not saying that by Barnsley having ProZone (I think they do anyway actually) will mean their players will one day play for one of the biggest clubs in the world but the insight and facts it provides will increase the likelihood of it happening. Science is used as a basis for decisions and when it is can only help the club and players and to suggest otherwise is lunacy.

Prozone does nothing more than a scout and a few videos would do apart from add a few percentages and stats into the equation. How do you think clubs coped just as well for the previous hundred years? There's lies, damn lies and statistics. If Simon Davey, or anybody else for that matter, actually went and watched Chelsea rather than relying on prozone he'd leave knowing exactly what he was up against. If he wanted to sign Lee Elam, prozone might tell him Elam could beat 5 players on a run down the line and set a goal with 80% of his passes but would it tell him that he's a lazy t*sser when it comes to tracking back. I think not. If he, or his scouts, watches him they'd see it in an instance. Science in it's biological form I'll run with being an aide but I'm not buying into prozone being better than the human eye combined with an educated footballing brain.

 

[ChallinorisaGOD]

Prozone does nothing more than a scout and a few videos would do apart from add a few percentages and stats into the equation. How do you think clubs coped just as well for the previous hundred years? There's lies, damn lies and statistics. If Simon Davey, or anybody else for that matter, actually went and watched Chelsea rather than relying on prozone he'd leave knowing exactly what he was up against. If he wanted to sign Lee Elam, prozone might tell him Elam could beat 5 players on a run down the line and set a goal with 80% of his passes but would it tell him that he's a lazy t*sser when it comes to tracking back. I think not. If he, or his scouts, watches him they'd see it in an instance. Science in it's biological form I'll run with being an aide but I'm not buying into prozone being better than the human eye combined with an educated footballing brain.

That is not what Prozone does whatsoever. It can be used as a scouting tool but more specifically it is used as a performance analysis tool for a teams OWN players. It provides statistics and facts of each of the players and how they perform in every single area of their game and on the pitch. These facts and stats allow the club to see OBJECTIVELY what has happened during a game from which appropriate decisions can be made on how best to coach a player. It can be used to scout other teams players also but this is a secondary function. Its prime use is tom improve the ability of players already in its own squad.

And yes, Prozone would tell you if a player is a lazy person and as such it would say if Lee Elam wasn't tracking back. It provides a video of the game for the analyst to watch but also the stats and figures (such as distance covered, in what areas of the pitch etc) it literally provides millions of pieces of information on every single player on the pitch for the entire game and then it is down to the analyst to pick out the important stats to pass on to the management. So it would tell you that Lee Elam covered 80% of the pitch in the forward third and ran at an average speed of 1m/s when tracking back. If this wasn't evidence enough that he was a lazy t*sser this could be cross referenced against the video provided for further proof. How can the human eye recount the millions pieces of information that the science can do? I'm not saying each one is important but a good analyst will be able to pick out something from the stats that the human eye may have missed. There would be apporximately 100-200 critical pieces of information a maanger at the top level would require about a player before they knew what coaching would be most beneficial. Multiply this by 11 and the human eye can never count and record them as well as the software is able to.

It is NEVER used as an alternative to scouting but more a base (as I've said twenty times) to provide the facts to the important people to make decisions, it is a combination of this and scouting that gives the best chance of making the correct decision.

Science is alwasy an "aide" and never the definitive but it is PROVEN to be such an aide to teams that not a single team in the top league can do without it. If all it took was the human eye and a footballing brian then Alex Ferguson, Wenger et al would not need to use it. But they do because they know it helps them to make informed decisions and increases the chances of them making the correct ones.

You're naive and wrong to think that science (such as ProZone and other stats programs) has no place in football.

 

[grecIAN Harris]

I stand corrected but for the love of God bring me back the GAME of football. It's a sport not a science. The fact this apparently is needed is proof of the ridiculous pressure that money has bought to bear on football.
Still takes a human to put the ball in the back of the net not a computer program and ability will be the overriding factor............................ always. Fact!

 

[finetime]

I stand corrected but for the love of God bring me back the GAME of football. It's a sport not a science. The fact this apparently is needed is proof of the ridiculous pressure that money has bought to bear on football.
Still takes a human to put the ball in the back of the net not a computer program and ability will be the overriding factor............................ always. Fact!

If this is what it comes down to, why not go down the park and watch some lads have a kick about on a sunday?

Your naivety in this thread is hilarious. And who said Toon fans weren't knowledgeable?

 

[ChallinorisaGOD]

I stand corrected but for the love of God bring me back the GAME of football. It's a sport not a science. The fact this apparently is needed is proof of the ridiculous pressure that money has bought to bear on football.
Still takes a human to put the ball in the back of the net not a computer program and ability will be the overriding factor............................ always. Fact!

Finetime makes a great point in that if this is what you want to watch then the league we're in is a great example of this where "science" doesn't play an important role as simply no-one can afford it.

At the top level, the highest level of performance is required (yes by money, but also by the supporters who are not prepared to watch a substandard level of performance, you should know that you support Newcastle ) and any way that it can be achieved will be utilised by necessity. I'm glad you have now come round to the fact that science can be useful in sport and in particular in increasing sporting performance levels, your personal preference to watch a game where no science is used is indeed your opinion and right but saying science has no place in sport or there is "too much" of it is quite simply incorrect. And the fact of the matter is there are more people who would prefer to watch a higher quality of sport and any way of achieving this is deemed to be constructive to them.

I've never specified that ability is not a deciding factor or less important than the use of science but trying to point out that science can have the potential to improve ability and hence has an important role to play in the highest level of sport. It will always be a human who's scoring the goals......but science and its use can help them improve their ability and proficiency of achieving this making the team you support better.

 

[LOG]

Science also gave us steroids. A different sort of science i know, so this is probably irrelevant.

ps. i agree with you Challinor as to the role this particular kind of science can play.

 

[angelic upstart]

Bizarrely i (sort of) agree with GrecIAn. Science doesn't choose which players you have in your squad. Science doesn't choose who is the most technically best player/s (as far as i know) science does, on the other hand, know what each individual does in the previous game or games. But it's hardly science is it? Sky did it for years before Ranson copyrighted it. And it means f*ck all in a team game if you know what you are doing, see the Iain Dowie/Sam Allardyce school of management for further details. Does it actually say what players will do? I doubt it. These things are always down to good managers does anyone really think that Gilles Grimandi goes around the south of France with f*cking Prozone??? Or does he simply look for "big lads that could learn a bit more, with a good attitude"? I'll guarantee it's the latter. So GrecIAN is correct with his assumptions (in theory) in my opinion.

 

[ChallinorisaGOD]

Bizarrely i (sort of) agree with GrecIAn. Science doesn't choose which players you have in your squad.

Actually, it does. Any of the top mangers will use the information given to them by scientific programmes upon which they decide to base their training and coaching schedules to improve the statistics which they deem to be lower than they should. Most managers will and have used ProZone and statistics programmes to base who plays in their side or who they will sign. Wenger did it with Paul Robinson for one example.

Science doesn't choose who is the most technically best player/s (as far as i know) science does, on the other hand, know what each individual does in the previous game or games.

The stats and science will be able to tell you exactly who is the most technically gifted players in your side - all you need is a decent analyst to extrapolate the correct figures.

And it means f*ck all in a team game if you know what you are doing, see the Iain Dowie/Sam Allardyce school of management for further details.

Or see the Arsene Wenger/ Sir Alex Ferguson school of management for its enormous amount of uses. For every bad manager who uses science there are 3 good ones - and lest we not forget that Allardyce and Dowie didn't fail because they use science but more precisely they're crap. Allardyce became famous for using science because he was one of the first to do so and that helped to take Bolton into the Premiership and sustain them there for a number of years. Now everyone else has caught up with him he doesn't have that advantage and his managerial deficincies have been found out. I'll say it again - if it wasn't needed then why do the top mangers all insist on using it? Maybe because they know it helps them make more informed decisions on player recruitment, development and coaching.

Does it actually say what players will do? I doubt it.

Of course it can't ever predict the future why do people expect it to? What it can do is provide more information than any other system known to us on the performance of individuals on a football field. It is not to far of a stretch of the imagination to realise that if a player has done something consistently for the last few games he is more likely to do that again. Using the Lee Elam example if he hasn't tracked back in the last three games and only made 3 tackles on average per game winning under 50% of them it is likely to assume this will carry on into the next game? Thats a very very simple example of what the science and stats programs can give you. I agree, that could be noted by a coach during a game but as I say the science goes a lot deeper than that and finds more in depth detail regarding the performance the human eye may miss or the fact that it can recall 11 players exact performances for 90 minutes and remember everything that happened to each one.

These things are always down to good managers does anyone really think that Gilles Grimandi goes around the south of France with f*cking Prozone??? Or does he simply look for "big lads that could learn a bit more, with a good attitude"? I'll guarantee it's the latter. So GrecIAN is correct with his assumptions (in theory) in my opinion.

I don't think anyone has said that a scout will go to local young kids game using ProZone to analyse their ability. A good scout is all that is required at that level to recruit the players with potential and get them to ClaireFontaine. However, what is the case is when they are there and have been recruited they will be monitored using stats and science programmes to accurately and objectively monitor their deficiencies and enable the coaching staff to develop a training programme to help them improve them. It can be used as a top level scouting tool but more commonly as a performance analysis indicator of your own team.

So please tell me what is GrecIAN correct about? If it is wanting to watch a game with no science that a personal opinion and could be seen as correct. If you mean science having no place in football then you are extremely misguided and wrong. Science plays a key role in top level sport, it is not the sole answer and science alone will not produce results (and I've not said it will) - but combine it with intelligent footballing staff and it will produce better results for the team.

 

[manc grecian]

Can we not go back to laughing at Liverpool?

 

[Ellisthegreek]

Big game for Liverpool tonight! come on you Scousers! 2-0 lead to take into the 2nd leg would be happy days!