Every successful club in the world invest in more data analysts, as a few fans on a forum say it’s nonsense. I wonder who has the edge.
There's a big difference between data analysis, monitoring the health and fitness of players, and complete overload of ridiculous and pointless statistics, that largely mean nothing.
A team could have 80% possession, 30 shots on target, and 20 corners, but score zero goals, while the opposition have 20% possession, zero corners, and zero shots on target, other than one long ball up to the striker, who get's fouled and wins a penalty, and scores, winning 1-0.
Many teams have won games, having had less possession, less corners, less shots on goal etc.
The same applies to all sport. A tennis player could win a 5 set match 7-6, 7-6, 0-6, 0-6, 7-5. The winner wins 21 games overall, but the loser actually won 29 games, but still lost the match.
In snooker, a player could win the world championship 18-17, but during the match, didn't make a single century break, and won all their frames by stealing the frame on the last couple of balls, but the loser actually won all their frames making centuries, and big frame winning clearances, amassing a much higher amount of points throughout the match, but still losing.
Health and fitness Data analysis is one thing, with the advances in technology, it can be used to help monitor the health and fitness of a player, in order to help keep them fit and in good condition, and many clubs and athletes use modern data analysis, and that's justified and understandable.
Statistical data is used to reflect upon after a game, to show what areas the team did well in, and where there is need for improvement, such as not enough shots, too many corners conceded, not retaining possession enough, areas of the pitch where they had most possession, free kicks won/conceded, tackles won/lost, 2nd balls won/lost etc, and this is all info that can be used to adjust tactics and focus on certain areas of improvement in training, so even though it can get a bit OTT, it does have it's merit.
But the whole xG (expected goals) nonsense and other extreme statistical analysis is where it gets bloody ridiculous, as historical statistical data means nothing, as in each game the statistics will have been effected by the opposition, conditions, different players, lineups and form, and no two games are the same, so how anyone thinks that kind of data can be consistently reliable in any way is ludicrous.
I used to love watching football on the TV, at all levels, no matter who was playing, and I'll always love supporting and watching Oxford United, but in my opinion, football, and all sport in fact, is becoming way too over analytical, and it's sucking the fun out of it. It's being treated like it's rocket science, with too much reliance on technology and statistics, which is making it boring and soulless, which is why I and people I know don't really watch much football anymore, other than the team we actually support.
Instinctive, naturally talented players coming through nowadays are being considered "raw" and then overloaded with modern day info, tactics, and statistics, until that instinctive raw natural talent is stamped out, leaving a boring, tactically overloaded, obedient conveyor belt-type player.
Football is an art form, based on natural talent, passion and instinct, and survived for over 100 years without this kind of nonsense, and was all the better for it.
Thank god we all got to see the world class instinctive natural talent, and genius players of decades gone by, before the modern game managed to get it's claws into them!
