[mantralux]

latzee, on 15 February 2011 - 04:22 AM, said:

Except that in this case it really really really doesn't?

As I've said earlier in the thread, in this case reality gets distorted. However, I still decide formation based on average position, rather than line-up based on players preferred positions.

Quote

Average position graphs show both wingers centrally because that is what you get when you average extreme left and extreme right, but they were by no means positioned centrally.

We all know this.

Quote

You even call it a very narrow 4-3-1-2 in your analysis, and it was by no means narrow, they both hugged the touchline most of the time (just look at their passing charts).

Just because the wingers were wide at times (hardly as wide as you claim they were) doesn't transform a whole team into being wide. I'd even say that the wingers were the widest playing positions, and they weren't even that wide. The midfield was narrow, the defensive line was narrow.

Quote

You simply screwed up and read too much into average position stats

I really didn't. What's happening here is that you seem to desperately be looking for reasons to claim I'm wrong about something, even though I've already described the reasoning behind it. I was fully aware of the swapping wingers during, and after, the match. I know the average positions got distorted because of it, and took it into account when looking at the stats.

I still say the formation was a narrow 4-3-1-2.

[Levo]

I am actually in full agreement with mantralux here on the whole IE8 issue.

Although frustrating because I can't look at it at work, but if you make something that is so visually stunning as Arsenal Reports, why settle for second best. I would want my sites to look its best and it is seems to be using things like HTML5 very well, something that IE8 doesn't do justice.

From a business analogy, someone like Apple doesn't use Flash because the technology hampers what they are trying to do could make their technology sub-standard so therefore don't use it even though many sites do. I quiet repsect that of Apple.

I not read any of the stuff as of yet, give it a quick browse and looking forward to the Barca preview. I do like the implementation of the graphics.

[mantralux]

Millie, on 15 February 2011 - 08:59 AM, said:

Respectfully, no it doesn't. While I agree that starting position in isolation is also a poor indicator (especially for a player like Tevez who starts forward and comes deep; or Ashley Cole who makes a lot of forward runs), I think that arrows on a formation diagram show formation far better than average positioning does.

Respectfully, yes it does. I'd even say that any in-depth tactical review from respected journalists and football pundits, always take average positioning into account as a first stage of determining formation. Arrows help, but are mostly still coupled with preferred position line-ups.

Average positions coupled with arrows would probably be the best representation of formation. And arrows indicating runs is coming to Arsenal Report.

Quote

It also does NOT show where the players actually positioned themselves. It shows an average of where they touched the ball. This is not the same thing. It does not show where they tend to place themselves when they defend and it doesn't show where they tend to place themselves when they attack. Furthermore, if they ever change position they completely skew the data (as has been pointed out in the thread).

Positioned might have been the wrong word. It shows where they have positioned themselves on average, which coupled with observing the game can give you a good overview of formation. Sometimes positions or whole formations become distorted, so that's why we'll have an even better overview when we have the timeline feature, where you can drag two markers on a timeline to see average positions within two markers.

Quote

For Tevez, for example, I think that in general a player in roughly the "centre forward" position with a backwards arrow tells you far more than the average position chart could. If you wanted statistical "proof" for that observation, you would need both a passing chart and some way of observing where players are when they don't have the ball.

Well yes and no. Arrows and passing patterns would definitely help, but if you know how to read an average position you'll know all of that from it. It is the average position after all, it's hard to ignore it. If he goes from centre forward to attacking midfielder during a match, his average positioning would end up somewhere in between those two positions.

Quote

The average position chart shows the average of where a player touched the ball. It is static. It does not show movement - it starts to break down if players swap positions - and it doesn't show what the coach told the player to do or what the player has decided to do.

Of course it doesn't show movement or what a coach has said....no one is claiming that average positions are the only statistics that matters. For movements or coach instructions, you'd have to go to other statistics or observations. Average positions is just a tool that I use as a first step in an analysis. It gives me an overview of the formation, it gives me some answers regarding how high the players positioned themselves on the pitch, and it gives me some answers about marking.

From there, I then move on to passing patterns, tackling patterns, shot patterns, player stats, team stats, watch the match one more time, and then write the article. You're making it seem as if I look at average positions and then just base an article on that....I wish it was that easy.

Quote

Average position, like heat maps, passing charts, tackling stats and so much else is a tool - it is not the proof of formation but one piece of evidence amongst many to ascertain player behaviour.

Once again, I fully agree.

Quote

I hate to harp on about Zonal Marking, as I'm pretty sure you've expressed doubts about Michael Cox's methodology before, but I think his description of his formation diagrams provides a better analysis than relying on average position charts:

And I disagree. His formation diagrams are a simplified overview to me, almost like a formation-for-dummies. Which is perfectly fine, most people have an easier time understanding formation when displayed like that. But I don't think they represent reality any better than average positions would. They're essentially JUST observations, whereas average positions are actually based on a statistical fact.

For example; the only match both AR and ZM has written about is the Everton clash. In ZM's formation diagram he fails to show how central Rosicky played, showing Rosicky in what appear to be the position he was supposed to play. He also misrepresents Cesc's behaviour by a forward arrow, when Cesc was coming deep throughout the whole match.

By looking at average positions, you'll see why Rosicky was having a bad day, you'll see who Song was tracking (when two opposing players have very close average positions, it can be an indication of man-marking), you'll see how Arsenal mimicked Evertons midfield to take control, etc.

BUT.....I would also argue that a combination of these two approaches would give the best overview of formation. My opinion is; the more information presented, the better the opinion will be.

I have nothing against Cox really, I just think it's hard to do an in-depth analysis when releasing articles a couple of hours after the final whistle. Having said that, I read Zonal Marking every day, and it was one of the inspirations for Arsenal Report.

Quote

Formation is a pretty abstract construction anyway. It's not about where people were "on average", but how they behaved on the pitch relative to their team mates and opponents in the defensive and offensive phases.

It is not static. There is no "one" formation. And for that reason, I think that arrows offer more to the reader and more for the understanding of the match than simply taking an average.

If we have a different definition of formation then that's fine.

Yes I think this is part of the answer, because I don't fully share that opinion on what a formation is. To me, any presentation of a formation without taking average positions into account, is basically just an opinionated guess.

[Millie]

While I understand where you're coming from, the final point I have to make is in regard to whether or not average position = formation. I don't think that it does, but it's clear we differ on this.

You take the mean position of a player (for want of a better explanation) and suggest that this is his "true" position. Then, when you take all 11 means you find the mean formation.

The problem with means is that at no point during the game will the team actually look like that. And this is what I would suggest formation is. It isn't exact. Average position shows something - and it may even show the most important things, depending on how you look at the game. But that isn't formation. It isn't defensive shape, it isn't attacking positioning, and it doesn't show movement and behaviour.

To me, a better way of looking at things would be to look at the general positioning of players with the ball, and their general positioning without the ball. In that sense, to simply plonk Tevez somewhere between FC and AMC is to miss the point of what he is doing. But to have two diagrams, one with him at FC and one with him at AMC shows far more, and I think is far more useful in understanding how he behaves.

How you would use statistical data to show this I'm unsure. I suppose you would need to measure average position by tracking all movement, but this wouldn't be satisfactory as the ball moves positions. I guess heat maps (i.e. a more "modal" average position) might help, but this again isn't really satisfactory. I would say that formation is a subjective thing. Average position shows something with a degree of statistical objectivity, but whether is shows formation is a different argument.

To say that the formation Wolves played (based on the chalkboards posted by latzee) was narrow shows you have a completely different interpretation of what "formation" means to me.

However:

Quote

And I disagree. His formation diagrams are a simplified overview to me, almost like a formation-for-dummies. Which is perfectly fine, most people have an easier time understanding formation when displayed like that. But I don't think they represent reality any better than average positions would. They're essentially JUST observations, whereas average positions are actually based on a statistical fact.

I agree with the first bit (they're simplified), disagree with the second bit. Despite the "facts" of the statistics, they are flawed and subjective. You have (or the good folks at Opta have) subjectively decided that the mean of the touches of the football = average position and you have then subjectively decided that average position of all 11 players = formation. You might be using "facts", but are they relevant to what you're trying to show?

Charles Reep? Anyone?

Perhaps they are relevant - and you are showing what you want to show. But to do so is to change the meaning of the word formation from that generally accepted. You could well be a trail blazer, and perhaps our concept of formation is outmoded or irrelevant.

Quote

Yes I think this is part of the answer, because I don't fully share that opinion on what a formation is. To me, any presentation of a formation without taking average positions into account, is basically just an opinionated guess.

This also assumes that formation can be exactly plotted. I disagree. And even if it can, average position in the way Opta calculates it is a deeply flawed tool for judging this. Formation and positioning are relevant - not to the absolute of the field of play but to the constantly shifting position of the player's team mates. Average position measured in the way Opta do it is a poor judge of this.

Quote

From there, I then move on to passing patterns, tackling patterns, shot patterns, player stats, team stats, watch the match one more time, and then write the article. You're making it seem as if I look at average positions and then just base an article on that....I wish it was that easy.

I'm not doing that, honestly. But you do seem to be saying that FORMATION = AVERAGE POSITION. That's what I'm uneasy about. The rest of the evidence used and the rest of the article is very good. But we're talking about the specific issue of "what is formation?"

Quote

BUT.....I would also argue that a combination of these two approaches would give the best overview of formation. My opinion is; the more information presented, the better the opinion will be.

Absolutely. I can't argue with that at all. And if anything, in recent months ZM has moved to very short sketches of matches rather than fully though-out match reports. That is where a blog like yours can fill a hole, and I hope it continues.

[mantralux]

Millie, on 15 February 2011 - 11:38 AM, said:

While I understand where you're coming from, the final point I have to make is in regard to whether or not average position = formation. I don't think that it does, but it's clear we differ on this.

That's not exactly what I'm saying either though. I'm saying [average position + match observation = formation].

Quote

The problem with means is that at no point during the game will the team actually look like that. And this is what I would suggest formation is. It isn't exact. Average position shows something - and it may even show the most important things, depending on how you look at the game. But that isn't formation. It isn't defensive shape, it isn't attacking positioning, and it doesn't show movement and behaviour.

And I think the point we're disagreeing on is what formation actually is. For me it's not either the defensive or offensive shape, and it's not based on what preferred positions the players have. Formation to me is an overview of how the team interacts within itself, in sections, banks or behaviour. Formation is the basic shape the players are instructed to stay in. Formation is the collective term for shape, width, approach, etc.

So when just putting a formation down in an opinionated guess, some will show it from a defensive approach (like ZM or most TV networks before a match), some will put it from an offensive approach (I think The Guardian used to do this)...but in the end, this won't show how the team actually played either. And since average positions are based on actual data, at least there is some statistical fact underneath them.

Unfortunately Football Manager has simplified the term 'formation' to the point where many FM players think formation is how you line-up your players in the tactics panel before a match. In reality, formation is a much more vague term, and at the top level in football, coaches aren't drawing icons on a whiteboard to show a basic formation. Instead, players hear terms like 'shape' or 'narrow' long before words like 'formation' are used.

Quote

To me, a better way of looking at things would be to look at the general positioning of players with the ball, and their general positioning without the ball. In that sense, to simply plonk Tevez somewhere between FC and AMC is to miss the point of what he is doing. But to have two diagrams, one with him at FC and one with him at AMC shows far more, and I think is far more useful in understanding how he behaves.

Just to be clear, the average positioning by Opta isn't solely based on touches.

Quote

I would say that formation is a subjective thing.

I agree, again. That's why I'm not claiming it's a fact that it was a 4-3-1-2, just my opinion - based on observations and average position stats. However, I do feel that the opinion is better backed up if the formation is determined by actual data, than just observation. I can definitely see why you would call it a 4-3-3 or a 4-5-1, but in my opinion Doyle was so separated from the wingers in terms of height, that his position became a separate section, creating a formation with 4 sections rather than 3.

Quote

To say that the formation Wolves played (based on the chalkboards posted by latzee) was narrow shows you have a completely different interpretation of what "formation" means to me.

Hmmm well I'd say the 'narrow' part in saying 'Wolves played a narrow 4-3-1-2' has more to do with defensive approach and positioning, than with the formation in general. Wolves' midfield was very tight, and so was their defensive line. The wingers were the only players actually separating the team on the width and adding options on the flanks.

Granted, this wasn't the approach throughout the entire match, but again here's why average positions are useful. They provide the bigger picture, the average. Which is far more interesting to me than just (for example) placing Fabregas in an attacking midfield position with a forward arrow to indicate that he is attack-minded, when he is actually moving from box-to-box most of the time.

Quote

You have (or the good folks at Opta have) subjectively decided that the mean of the touches of the football = average position and you have then subjectively decided that average position of all 11 players = formation. You might be using "facts", but are they relevant to what you're trying to show?

Just to be clear again: player touches isn't the only factor in determining average positions, at least not in Opta's case. Other statistical trackers might work that way, but Opta does take other factors into account when deciding the average position of a player.

Quote

But to do so is to change the meaning of the word formation from that generally accepted. You could well be a trail blazer, and perhaps our concept of formation is outmoded or irrelevant.

I don't think either, I just think that 'formation' in a general term means close to what you're saying - displaying a basic line-up from a defensive approach, based on observing player behaviour and starting positions. But 'formation' on an in-depth analytical level is closer to what I'm saying - the actual positioning of the players, based on observing player behaviour, starting positions AND statistical data like passing patterns and average positioning.

I don't think either of them is the "right" one, I can't stand absolute terms when it comes to football...they're both one way of looking at an aspect of football tactics. And in my opinion, having different ways of interpreting broad terms like 'formation' is what makes match reports interesting. By interpreting a broad term differently, you can actually look at the match from a different angle.

For example, me saying Wolves played narrow, and you saying Wolves played wide, doesn't make either of us wrong. I mean it CAN of course (if you're stating something factually incorrect), but in this case I think the differing opinions about Wolves' width are a result of how we looked at what happened on the pitch.

Quote

This also assumes that formation can be exactly plotted. I disagree. And even if it can, average position in the way Opta calculates it is a deeply flawed tool for judging this. Formation and positioning are relevant - not to the absolute of the field of play but to the constantly shifting position of the player's team mates. Average position measured in the way Opta do it is a poor judge of this.

And again, as I don't know why you think player touches is the only factor in determining average position: this is not how Opta works.

Quote

I'm not doing that, honestly. But you do seem to be saying that FORMATION = AVERAGE POSITION. That's what I'm uneasy about. The rest of the evidence used and the rest of the article is very good. But we're talking about the specific issue of "what is formation?"

Not intentionally trying to make it sound like [average position = formation], as that is definitely not my personal opinion.

[Millie]

To be clear, no matter how Opta judge average position, I will stand by the arguments I've made. Substitute how it actually works for how I've misrepresented it and my points and beliefs remain the same. Average position, even if it were an exact mean of everywhere the player moved around the pitch would still be a flawed measure of formation, and I stand by it.

We're not going to reach a consensus on this. Good luck with the blog.

[mantralux]

Millie, on 15 February 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

We're not going to reach a consensus on this. Good luck with the blog.

I enjoyed the discussion about how to interpret the term formation though, and it's good to see different viewpoints on the matter, even if you don't agree with what's being said.