Prozone

[chinapig]

This interview was in the Sunday Independent and has been repeated by the EP:

http://www.thisisbri...il/article.html

I wonder if Steve will get the same abuse Gary did for using it?

[kevinmabbuttshair]

This could the difference to the previous manager

"There is no-one yet who has been able to give me a specific one-two-three things in a game which will make you win. You can concentrate on doing those three things and still lose.

"There is never going to be a way of looking at ProZone and expecting it to give you the key. A lot of people are trying to figure out a way in which it is going to give you the key, but so far no-one has. But it still has a very important role to play if you harness it in the right way."

[chinapig]

This could the difference to the previous manager

"There is no-one yet who has been able to give me a specific one-two-three things in a game which will make you win. You can concentrate on doing those three things and still lose.

"There is never going to be a way of looking at ProZone and expecting it to give you the key. A lot of people are trying to figure out a way in which it is going to give you the key, but so far no-one has. But it still has a very important role to play if you harness it in the right way."

Exactly the rationalisation I expected when I posted . At what point did Gary say it was the only means of making judgments and decisions rather than an invaluable tool among a number of ways of doing so? If anything Steve has expressed even more enthusiasm than Gary did. Rather goes against the view of those who felt it should be junked and that managers should make judgments purely on what they see from the touchline.

[kevinmabbuttshair]

Exactly the rationalisation I expected when I posted .

Of course it was , sweetheart.

[chinapig]

Of course it was , sweetheart.

An intelligent counter argument I see. On the one hand we have Steve pulling the rug out from under one of the criticisms of Gary Johnson by expressing the same view as him and on another thread we have somebody complaining that Steve is as slow off the mark as Gary in signing players. It's all getting a bit complicated.

[Nibor]

Exactly the rationalisation I expected when I posted . At what point did Gary say it was the only means of making judgments and decisions rather than an invaluable tool among a number of ways of doing so? If anything Steve has expressed even more enthusiasm than Gary did. Rather goes against the view of those who felt it should be junked and that managers should make judgments purely on what they see from the touchline.

Of course GJ was never silly enough to say publicly that his decisions were based on prozone. We did several times hear stats from him and KM (width is a myth, we put in a million crosses for example) that were quite worrying if they were used as a basis for decisions. We also had GJ's brother posting on here defending the selection of LJ on the basis of pass completion rates from prozone.

The thing is these tools don't take into account many things. Some examples:

1) What other passes were on?

2) How tight was the marking?

3) Did the play put a team mate under unnecessary pressure?

4) Was there a better option than that on target shot?

5) Were all those crosses shit ones from the half way line?

IMO all the stats tools should be used for is to pick out any changes that are unexpected as a starting point for analysing the performance. Not for target setting or justifying decisions.

Steve's view if you watch the interview (it's in the three parter a few weeks back) is as much that it can be dangerous as it is useful.

[CiderHider]

Of course GJ was never silly enough to say publicly that his decisions were based on prozone. We did several times hear stats from him and KM (width is a myth, we put in a million crosses for example) that were quite worrying if they were used as a basis for decisions. We also had GJ's brother posting on here defending the selection of LJ on the basis of pass completion rates from prozone.

The thing is these tools don't take into account many things. Some examples:

1) What other passes were on?

2) How tight was the marking?

3) Did the play put a team mate under unnecessary pressure?

4) Was there a better option than that on target shot?

5) Were all those crosses shit ones from the half way line?

IMO all the stats tools should be used for is to pick out any changes that are unexpected as a starting point for analysing the performance. Not for target setting or justifying decisions.

Steve's view if you watch the interview (it's in the three parter a few weeks back) is as much that it can be dangerous as it is useful.

Yeah prozone is not 'manager autopilot' as some people think.

Its just another tool, a bit of equipment. If we compare football to F1, both competitive, all trying to eek out the best from their cars/11 men, then Prozone is just a defuser, or an F duct type thing.

[WellRedPhil]

Of course GJ was never silly enough to say publicly that his decisions were based on prozone. We did several times hear stats from him and KM (width is a myth, we put in a million crosses for example) that were quite worrying if they were used as a basis for decisions. We also had GJ's brother posting on here defending the selection of LJ on the basis of pass completion rates from prozone.

The thing is these tools don't take into account many things. Some examples:

1) What other passes were on?

2) How tight was the marking?

3) Did the play put a team mate under unnecessary pressure?

4) Was there a better option than that on target shot?

5) Were all those crosses shit ones from the half way line?

IMO all the stats tools should be used for is to pick out any changes that are unexpected as a starting point for analysing the performance. Not for target setting or justifying decisions.

Steve's view if you watch the interview (it's in the three parter a few weeks back) is as much that it can be dangerous as it is useful.

Well said, my thoughts exactly. At times last season GJ and KM seemed almost reliant on Prozone, constantly bringing it up in City Player interviews and they gave off the impression that if Prozone said you were covering a lot of ground then you must be doing something right, which of course can often be far from the truth. The width is a myth comment highlighted this perfectly, as Nibor has mentioned our management seemed to suggest this based on the fact that we were crossing the ball, even though we were crossing the ball at a very low standard from often poor crossing positions.

[MATT BCFC]

Im not a fan personally. I seem to get the impression it makes players who run around a lot e.g. LJ and ME look good without them having in truth much effect on the game and players who have a bit of quality and have more intelligence e.g. Williams and have more effect on the game are made to look lazy.

Surely it doesnt take a computer programme to show who's worked hard, kept the ball well etc.

[Superjack]

He used it at Reading.

He got them to the Premier League.

In Coppell I trust.

[BCFC_Dan]

Im not a fan personally. I seem to get the impression it makes players who run around a lot e.g. LJ and ME look good without them having in truth much effect on the game and players who have a bit of quality and have more intelligence e.g. Williams and have more effect on the game are made to look lazy.

Surely it doesnt take a computer programme to show who's worked hard, kept the ball well etc.

As a fairly crude generalisation, I would say that in general teams with hard working players do better than those with lazy flair players.

For an example, compare West Ham with Stoke. West Ham have the more talented team, I think it's safe to say, yet Stoke finished higher with players who worked harder.

The best teams have players who are both hard working and talented, and it's worth remembering that for the most part the players of Man Utd and Chelsea, whilst technically superb are also by and large built like brick outhouses and about as physically fit as it's possible for anyone to be.

The non-league game is littered with players who seem too talented to be there and the reasons are very often to do with fitness and workrate.

[chinapig]

As a fairly crude generalisation, I would say that in general teams with hard working players do better than those with lazy flair players.

For an example, compare West Ham with Stoke. West Ham have the more talented team, I think it's safe to say, yet Stoke finished higher with players who worked harder.

The best teams have players who are both hard working and talented, and it's worth remembering that for the most part the players of Man Utd and Chelsea, whilst technically superb are also by and large built like brick outhouses and about as physically fit as it's possible for anyone to be.

The non-league game is littered with players who seem too talented to be there and the reasons are very often to do with fitness and workrate.

Correct of course that the world's best players usually have both talent and work hard (viz Messi and Rooney). A crying shame when talented players can't be assed, and we've had a few of those in our time. An average player on the other hand can make himself better if he has the commitment (Keegan comes to mind, who achieved more than much more gifted players of his day).

Much of Nicky's improvement last season came from him upping both his work rate and physical strength I felt, something the management staff impressed on him I think.

[Nibor]

As a fairly crude generalisation, I would say that in general teams with hard working players do better than those with lazy flair players.

For an example, compare West Ham with Stoke. West Ham have the more talented team, I think it's safe to say, yet Stoke finished higher with players who worked harder.

The best teams have players who are both hard working and talented, and it's worth remembering that for the most part the players of Man Utd and Chelsea, whilst technically superb are also by and large built like brick outhouses and about as physically fit as it's possible for anyone to be.

The non-league game is littered with players who seem too talented to be there and the reasons are very often to do with fitness and workrate.

You can sometimes teach a talented player to work hard. You can't teach a hard worker talent. You can up your work rate at half time, but no team talk will give you more ability.

We play at a level where everyone works hard, the difference is more likely to come from a touch of class than anything else.

For an example, look at our record with strikers under GJ, it's pretty poor. IMO that's because of the work ethic expected of them (how many times have we heard km run per game stats?). I would rather have a Gary Lineker style goal hanger scoring 25 a season than a hard working runner struggling to get 10.

There's a balance to be had for sure, and I believe from his comments that SC will focus less on the stats and more on what his eyes tell him and as a result will get that balance closer to right.

[CiderHider]

You can sometimes teach a talented player to work hard. You can't teach a hard worker talent. You can up your work rate at half time, but no team talk will give you more ability.

We play at a level where everyone works hard, the difference is more likely to come from a touch of class than anything else.

For an example, look at our record with strikers under GJ, it's pretty poor. IMO that's because of the work ethic expected of them (how many times have we heard km run per game stats?). I would rather have a Gary Lineker style goal hanger scoring 25 a season than a hard working runner struggling to get 10.

There's a balance to be had for sure, and I believe from his comments that SC will focus less on the stats and more on what his eyes tell him and as a result will get that balance closer to right.

Or a moment of madness.

Didnt' we have a lazy goal hanging, fat, free-role, Lineker type player in Trundle?, Johnson wanted his talent with the workrate of Skuse and pace of Sproule, just wanst going to happen. Should have told him to stay up front, wait patiently for the ball and get to know their keeper a bit.

[Nibor]

Or a moment of madness.

Didnt' we have a lazy goal hanging, fat, free-role, Lineker type player in Trundle?, Johnson wanted his talent with the workrate of Skuse and pace of Sproule, just wanst going to happen. Should have told him to stay up front, wait patiently for the ball and get to know their keeper a bit.

No, we had a talented, fit but aging flair player who loves to run at defenders, pull tricks and shoot from distance and we forced him to most often play back to goal while we chipped the ball at his head and chest.

I was one of a tiny handful of posters against signing him in the first place, but having done so the way we completely failed to use him properly was quite diabolical.

Johnson valued hard work in the form of running around too highly IMO, the balance wasn't right for our attacking players.

[Tales From The Front]

No, we had a talented, fit but aging flair player who loves to run at defenders, pull tricks and shoot from distance and we forced him to most often play back to goal while we chipped the ball at his head and chest.

I was one of a tiny handful of posters against signing him in the first place, but having done so the way we completely failed to use him properly was quite diabolical.

Johnson valued hard work in the form of running around too highly IMO, the balance wasn't right for our attacking players.

And lack of balance, correct me if I'm wrong was one of Mr Copells first observations about our squad....Gary should have had a spirit level too.

[chinapig]

No, we had a talented, fit but aging flair player who loves to run at defenders, pull tricks and shoot from distance and we forced him to most often play back to goal while we chipped the ball at his head and chest.

I was one of a tiny handful of posters against signing him in the first place, but having done so the way we completely failed to use him properly was quite diabolical.

Johnson valued hard work in the form of running around too highly IMO, the balance wasn't right for our attacking players.

What I remeber most of the Reading side that thrashed us 4-1 at AG was the way the strikers (Doyle and Hunt?) ran our defence ragged. They kept running the channels as the jargon has it and our defenders couldn't match them. I have to say that Doyle in the Wolves games I saw last season covered more ground than I can ever recall a striker doing. I'll be intrigued to see if SC is looking for that kind of player/approach or whether he is happy with a so-called "luxury" player. Assuming of course that he signs a striker/strikers at all as he is giving nothing away so far.

[RedUn]

The thing is these tools don't take into account many things. Some examples:

1) What other passes were on?

2) How tight was the marking?

3) Did the play put a team mate under unnecessary pressure?

4) Was there a better option than that on target shot?

5) Were all those crosses shit ones from the half way line?

IMO all the stats tools should be used for is to pick out any changes that are unexpected as a starting point for analysing the performance. Not for target setting or justifying decisions.

Yes, Prozone is raw data - the value comes in asking pertinent questions in analysing it. The ignorant approach would be to not ask any questions of the data, or not to collect it in the first place.

[Nibor]

What I remeber most of the Reading side that thrashed us 4-1 at AG was the way the strikers (Doyle and Hunt?) ran our defence ragged. They kept running the channels as the jargon has it and our defenders couldn't match them. I have to say that Doyle in the Wolves games I saw last season covered more ground than I can ever recall a striker doing. I'll be intrigued to see if SC is looking for that kind of player/approach or whether he is happy with a so-called "luxury" player. Assuming of course that he signs a striker/strikers at all as he is giving nothing away so far.

Nobody wants a so-called luxury player, I'm sure SC won't. But I do expect he will set the balance more towards quality than GJ did, he's said as much in his interviews.

It's amusing that you mention that particular game as if I recall rightly we got shit on 4-0 in the first half and only made a game of it when we brought on Trundle and Noble

[chinapig]

Nobody wants a so-called luxury player, I'm sure SC won't. But I do expect he will set the balance more towards quality than GJ did, he's said as much in his interviews.

It's amusing that you mention that particular game as if I recall rightly we got shit on 4-0 in the first half and only made a game of it when we brought on Trundle and Noble

It's a little sad there is little room for luxury players these days because of the fitness levels and pace of the game. What price a Stan Bowles now? I'm sure you're right on the quality point, though he also emphasised the importance of work rate and tempo. Hopefully his reputation will help attract the right sort of players, though it won't necessarily be so-called big names given his track record. GJ talked about a smaller, better quality squad then allowed it to mushroom as he lost judgment and control sadly. Steve is saying the same and will no doubt deliver, though I imagine more players may need to leave and it may take time to achieve what he wants.

Right on the second point too even if Reading eased off somewhat and we had nothing to lose. It was also the only time I can remember Stern John having a half decent game!

[BCFC_Dan]

You can sometimes teach a talented player to work hard. You can't teach a hard worker talent. You can up your work rate at half time, but no team talk will give you more ability.

We play at a level where everyone works hard, the difference is more likely to come from a touch of class than anything else.

For an example, look at our record with strikers under GJ, it's pretty poor. IMO that's because of the work ethic expected of them (how many times have we heard km run per game stats?). I would rather have a Gary Lineker style goal hanger scoring 25 a season than a hard working runner struggling to get 10.

There's a balance to be had for sure, and I believe from his comments that SC will focus less on the stats and more on what his eyes tell him and as a result will get that balance closer to right.

No disagreement from me here.

The problem is that everybody wants the players who are both talented and hard working and they command a high price. A club in the lower leagues is generally forced to choose between them. The trick is, as you say, getting the right balance and trying to get the available flair players to work harder.

Johnson is a good lower league manager because he values hard work, which is often the defining factor at that level. He does try to incorporate flair (Noble, Trundle, Williams) but when he can't get it fit enough for his needs he seems to give up and resort to less talented players.

We're beyond the Johnson era now. We need Coppell to bring in players with genuine class to compete at the top of this division but there's no way he's going to sacrifice workrate in any way to do this. One of his favourite players at Reading was James Harper who is basically a bigger version of Lee Johnson. He's neat, tidy, runs about a lot and rarely does anything that looks like it's affecting the game. Whether he does or not is another discussion; he was clearly good enough to be in Reading's promotion and Premier League sides but whether that's because he was being carried by Sidwell I don't know. The point is that Coppell rated him and he seems to be a "Prozone" player.