1) sprint distance is definitely more important than total distance
2) my hypothesis is that the distance gap between the teams in a given match is what matters. If the gap is small then it is of no real consequence, but once it gets above a certain level (e.g 5km+) then it has an increasing influence on the match result.
For context:
120km as a team is high
100km is low
10km can be used as a rule of thumb for an outfield player, 5km = half a player
5km is also the equivalent of the team going the full length of the pitch 5 times.
good stuff Andrew ... the ppg when we get substantially out run (Dan's post) is striking even when factoring the Fulham result ... aside from that, it seems like, while it's the only data we have, aggregate distance (even limited to sprints) is too crude a measure to glean anything ... much more telling would be the situational stats that the clubs probably measure, i.e. sprints in threatening situations in attack or defense by game state and time during a match
Absolutely. With on-ball stats I'd always like to know where they happen - were the dribbles in the final third, or whatever. What you're saying is the off-ball equivalent. There would be head-to-head data that would be interesting too - is your winger outsprinting their corresponding full-back etc.
Really enjoyed this, a proper thought‑provoker. You’re right that the data needs more nuance. Distance covered is a nice idea, and the idea that you should at least match the opponent’s output makes intuitive sense.
But sport has always been an energy war. Cricket has the long‑standing tactic of grinding down quick bowlers. Rugby’s forward battles - and the modern Bomb Squad - are basically about controlled fatigue. And possession football was built on the idea that the team with the ball rests while the other side runs themselves into the ground.
So yes, distance matters, but how and when you spend that energy is the real story.
Andrew, there is a circulating idea that Liverpool players fitness is bad and they can’t run (due to Slot evil genius). I don’t see your data and analysis backing this theory. Is it a myth?
First and foremost, I'm no expert in this stuff. But I find it fascinating that Liverpool's highest distances from matches broadly correspond with the highest by the opposition. It's almost like the teams drag each other around and they can each vaguely match the other, whatever the distance level is. They can go further when they need to.
And I also think that Liverpool's lack of distance didn't matter last season, albeit with far more control/dominance of games it was never likely to be as big an issue. Whereas in this far more difficult campaign it has become a *thing* that wasn't really noticed before.
Couple of comments
1) sprint distance is definitely more important than total distance
2) my hypothesis is that the distance gap between the teams in a given match is what matters. If the gap is small then it is of no real consequence, but once it gets above a certain level (e.g 5km+) then it has an increasing influence on the match result.
For context:
120km as a team is high
100km is low
10km can be used as a rule of thumb for an outfield player, 5km = half a player
5km is also the equivalent of the team going the full length of the pitch 5 times.
Brighton outrun Chelsea 119-111 last night
good stuff Andrew ... the ppg when we get substantially out run (Dan's post) is striking even when factoring the Fulham result ... aside from that, it seems like, while it's the only data we have, aggregate distance (even limited to sprints) is too crude a measure to glean anything ... much more telling would be the situational stats that the clubs probably measure, i.e. sprints in threatening situations in attack or defense by game state and time during a match
Absolutely. With on-ball stats I'd always like to know where they happen - were the dribbles in the final third, or whatever. What you're saying is the off-ball equivalent. There would be head-to-head data that would be interesting too - is your winger outsprinting their corresponding full-back etc.
Really enjoyed this, a proper thought‑provoker. You’re right that the data needs more nuance. Distance covered is a nice idea, and the idea that you should at least match the opponent’s output makes intuitive sense.
But sport has always been an energy war. Cricket has the long‑standing tactic of grinding down quick bowlers. Rugby’s forward battles - and the modern Bomb Squad - are basically about controlled fatigue. And possession football was built on the idea that the team with the ball rests while the other side runs themselves into the ground.
So yes, distance matters, but how and when you spend that energy is the real story.
Thanks, glad you liked it
Andrew, there is a circulating idea that Liverpool players fitness is bad and they can’t run (due to Slot evil genius). I don’t see your data and analysis backing this theory. Is it a myth?
First and foremost, I'm no expert in this stuff. But I find it fascinating that Liverpool's highest distances from matches broadly correspond with the highest by the opposition. It's almost like the teams drag each other around and they can each vaguely match the other, whatever the distance level is. They can go further when they need to.
And I also think that Liverpool's lack of distance didn't matter last season, albeit with far more control/dominance of games it was never likely to be as big an issue. Whereas in this far more difficult campaign it has become a *thing* that wasn't really noticed before.