Prozone

[EPR2.0]

Following Reading home and away, it looks like pretty much everyone is using it;



So when every team is using a certain technology surely that levels the playing field into the hands of those best placed to use the technology, rather than the players, so how do the players feel about that?

[Winchester Royal]

Just part of the manager's job now surely, to manage the prozone analysts so they get the most out of the system?

[EPR2.0]

Just part of the manager's job now surely, to manage the prozone analysts so they get the most out of the system?

I guess. I'm just not sure how computer analysis of their performance goes down with the players - who after all are playing at this level because they know how to play football because they've been doing it since they were 5.

[handbags_harris]

I actually think computer analysis such as this is a fairly major unconsidered reason why leagues such as the Championship are considered to be "poor" and "weak". Simplistically put,in a division of relatively even financial clout from top to bottom (meaning players are somewhat similar in their level of ability) coupled with the computer analysis available it gives players and coaches a much better idea of exactly what individual opposition players do game-by-game and how to counteract their threat, leading to play seeming to be be somewhat stifled, direct and primitive. Is it only really a recent phenomenon that in every recent Championship season the football on show is consistently inconsistent and turgid throughout? In my time watching Reading at this level, it certainly wasn't in the mid-90's, and neither was it from 02/03 to 05/06, but even the season as close as 05/06 not every club had Prozone. I remember Glenn Hoddle complaining that Wolves had to do away with Prozone in 05/06 because their budget after their parachute payments ceased was so low they couldn't afford the £1 million a season upkeep of the system. So does this come down to poor players and poor tactics? In some cases you could argue yes, but in the main defensive players now are so evenly matched to their attacking counterparts in opposition shirts in this division that they are generally going to cancel each other out. The improvement in defensive quality can surely be partly pointed at computer analysis, while the best attacking talent would very quickly be picked up by Premier League teams, leaving the mundanity of players who aren't consistent enough in the game-by-game level of performance toiling away in the Championship.

[stealthpapes]

Following Reading home and away, it looks like pretty much everyone is using it;



So when every team is using a certain technology surely that levels the playing field into the hands of those best placed to use the technology, rather than the players, so how do the players feel about that?

FWIW, if you're levelling the playing field, it won't be into the hands of anyone. Not sure what works better, but the competitive advantage of having it when others didn't will be reduced, yes.

So as pointed out in the next post, it comes down to who can get useful information and, more importantly, insight from it. I think the brighter players will be able to take a step back and see that while they're on the pitch and playing, for all the years of experience, they can't see and interpret everything. If a player can't cope with it to the 1980s frankly.

But on its own, it's a tool. If you use it poorly, you won't get the results. I don't think it will dominate over the XI on the pitch but Handbags point comes in here. Football is most often dominated by the performance of the weakest player (like an O-ring...). If the worst players are brought up, that has much more effect than trying to make the best players better. So, as described, you'd have a much more even league. I'm not sure that's necessarily lend itself to turgid football (not sure how you'd measure it and it's rarely been amazing... ), but the points spread around the mid-table does seem a lot closer nowadays.

I'd also possibly suggest the stadium rules filtering through has an effect - I'd need to check but I'd suggest that the spread of stadium sizes and quality narrowed over the years. Same with teams taking aboard modern training, sports science and nutrition techniques.

It does beg the question - if it's only recently that computer-aided analysis has given teams a good idea of what their opposition were doing, what were scouts etc doing before?

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

Doesn't the levelling of the playing field depend on whether the ProZone stats are shared? I can see why clubs monitor their own players, but I don't see why they'd make these stats availbale to the competition.

[stealthpapes]

I'd make the point that you could give, say, Kes the stats and they'd be no use whatsoever.

Actually, more seriously, I'm exactly not sure how it works. I thought Prozone did the technology and the clubs bought the data but they could also hire people to watch games and record similar data independently (and this crowd-sourcing has been used by a lower league club in the UK iirc).

But again, the data is one thing, the analysis and interpretation is the key bit.

[11.30 from paddington]

There's a relevant section in the book 'Why England Lose' in reference to Wenger using pro-zone at Arsenal. As Bergkamp got older, he found he was regularly subbed at 70-75 mins. He complained to Wenger and his boss replied, "Dennis, look at the stats. After 70 mins, your movement and running decreases by 30% (Or something). We need to bring someone on to keep our attacking momentum going."

So placed in the hands of managers like Wenger, pro-zone will be a distinct advantage, in ensuring he's getting the optimum performance out of his players at any one time.

Saying that, I have to admit to liking (and agreeing with) Mick Gooding's quote. "Statistics are like a bikini. They show you an awful lot, but they don't show you everything."

[Ian Royal]

There's a relevant section in the book 'Why England Lose' in reference to Wenger using pro-zone at Arsenal. As Bergkamp got older, he found he was regularly subbed at 70-75 mins. He complained to Wenger and his boss replied, "Dennis, look at the stats. After 70 mins, your movement and running decreases by 30% (Or something). We need to bring someone on to keep our attacking momentum going."

So placed in the hands of managers like Wenger, pro-zone will be a distinct advantage, in ensuring he's getting the optimum performance out of his players at any one time.

Saying that, I have to admit to liking (and agreeing with) Mick Gooding's quote. "Statistics are like a bikini. They show you an awful lot, but they don't show you everything."

Absolutely. As papes says. It's a tool and one of many. It gives you something to check you professional opinion against.

[Oaky_Cokey]

Good question about the effect on player behaviour. Textbook managers, admirers of tiki taka at Barcelona etc., are keen on possession stats aren't they? If you're a player, and focus is on possession stats for every player on the field every week surely you incentivise play-safe decision making over playing that ambitious ball or attempting a take on (i.e. the sort of stuff fans want to see)? So if you see a player that should be barrelling forward instead stop, put his foot on the ball, and play it square or backwards, is he thinking about taking a risk or massaging the prozone stat his manager is fixated about? I'm sure it's never like that in reality but I have wondered once or twice this season....
http://bigfourza.com/blog/2012/12/prozo ... -football/

[stealthpapes]

Most teams have moved on for possession stats as they're not all that useful. Same with aggregated distance travelled stats.

[EPR2.0]

Noticed yesterday that the Prozone cams have gone from the MadStad.

[TBM]

Noticed yesterday that the Prozone cams have gone from the MadStad.

Done via GPS now, little chip in the boot of the player(s)