Hatty gets on base more than Pena, in fact 20% more… His fielding does not matter
Moneyball, 2011
This quote from the film Moneyball demonstrates the fact that some aspects of the game were unimportant to the way Billy Beane wanted to play baseball. This quote also rings true when talking about possession stats in football, every fan tries to justify that their team played better because they had a higher amount of possession than the other team. Well possession doesn’t determine the winner of the game, goals do. Teams who score more of their shots that are on target will be more successful than the team who holds on to the ball for longer, a team could have 70% of the ball and score only 1 of their 8 chances, while the opposition could have the other 30% of the ball and only 2 chances but if they score from both chances they would be more clinical and successful than the opposition. Possession stats do not matter.
Now generally the team that has more of the ball will create more chances to score and go on to win than the team with little possession, however, if the team sets up to defend and stops the opposition from being able to get shots away that are on target, they give themselves a better chance to take something from the game provided their strikers are clinical. Take Chelsea as an example, in the champions league semi final and final against Barcelona and Bayern Munich respectively. Chelsea set out to defend in those games knowing that both Barca and Bayern would have a lot more of the ball than they would, however, working on the philosophy developed by Jose Mourinho a few years previously at Inter Milan.
They knew that if they could prevent the opposition from getting shots on target and manage to score themselves from the limited opportunities they got, they would win. The fact that Chelsea had limited possession and less shots demonstrates this, Chelsea also blocked more of Barcelona’s shots on goal showing that they were attempting to get men behind the ball and stop shots on their goal. In the first leg Chelsea had a shots on target to goals rate of 1, meaning for every one shot on target they scored (they only had one shot on target in the game) while Barcelona had a shots on target to goals rate of 0 as they did not score from their 6 shots on target. In the second leg Chelsea again had a significantly less amount of possession but scored a goal every 1.5 shots on target while Barcelona again had a lower rate of a goal every 3 shots on target. This demonstrates that while Chelsea had less of the ball they were the more clinical team over the 2 legs and did what needed to be done to win the match.
Statistics from the first leg (left) and second leg (right) of the champions league semi Chelsea vs Barcelona
The pass attempts chart below shows that Chelsea prevented Barcelona from entering their penalty area through short passes as they got men behind the ball and prevented them from scoring.
The passing attempts of Barcelona in the 1st leg vs Chelsea
Once again in the final of the champions league Chelsea used the same tactics that got them the result against Barcelona having only 43.8% possession in the game. They defended deep, got men behind the ball and bodies in front of shots on goal, Bayern Munich had 43 shots on goal during the match with only 7 of these on target and 22 shots blocked by Chelsea defenders. The match finished 1-1 and went to penalties but importantly, Chelsea again were more clinical scoring a goal every 3 shots on target compared to Bayern Munich’s goal every 7 shots on target.
Statistics from the champions league final 2012, Chelsea vs Bayern Munich
Again in the final Bayern Munich found it difficult to penetrate the Chelsea area with passes, having to resort to shots from outside the box that were off target.
The passing attempts of Bayern Munich vs Chelsea in the final.
Another example of where one team dominated possession but did not win the game was the international friendly between England and Belgium. Belgium had 58.9% possession, more shots at goal and more shots on target than England did, however, England were the more clinical scoring from their only shot on target with Belgium not being able to finish any of their 6 shots on target.
Statistics from the England vs Belgium friendly
In the 2009/10 season Jose Mourinho used these tactics with great success in the champions league, by preventing teams from playing balls into their penalty area and stopping them from scoring they were able to win games by being the more clinical side. They may have only got a couple of shots per game but their strikers were able to score the shots they did have, while the opposition attempted in vain to break down the Inter Milan defence.
To summarise, this article has attempted to show that possession stats do not really mean anything in terms of who the better team is, as the only thing that matters is who is the more clinical team. Barcelona have been able to mix having high amounts of possession with being clinical finishers for the last few years, but while most people are amazed at how high their possession is, they should in fact look at how clinical they are in front of goal. The major examples given were from champions league and international football, it would be interesting to see if this trend of the more clinical team being the victor despite amounts of possession continues in leagues such as the Premiership, La Liga and Serie A.
This article was originally published on http://venners91.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/possession-stats-do-not-matter/
- Excellent
- Informative
- Awesome
- Good Read
- ok
About the Author
Categories: Arsenal (NN), Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Chelsea, EPL Index Featured Article, EPL Index Statistical Comparisons, Everton, Fulham, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester Utd, Newcastle Utd, Norwich City, QPR, Reading, Southampton, Stoke City, Sunderland, Swansea City, Tottenham Hotspur, West Bromwich Albion, West Ham United, Wigan, Wolves
Tags: Champions League Stats, CL Opta Stats, epl opta stats, EPL Stats, Opta Stats, Possession, Possession does not matter, Possession Stats
This article has had 757 Views
Absolute rubbish. For every one match like Chelsea vs Barcelona / FC Bayern, you could show countless examples that rubbish your analysis. Take around 80% of Barcelona’s matches in La Liga, for example. All you have done is highlight that a team who gives up possession and defends can get lucky now and then. Generally, the team with the highest possession will dominate a match, create more chances and win more games. Arsenal, United, City all have most of the possession in their matches and go on to win most of them too.
Got to agree with Matt here.
I clicked on the article expecting to see some kind of statistics generated from hundreds of games showing that overall possession is not a determining factor. Instead, you’ve cherry picked a couple of games that make the point you wanted and ignored everything else.
Surely anyone could come up with a couple of games where the winning team had 75% of the ball and conclude the exact opposite to the above article?
Possession stats do matter however there are more occasions than those highlighted in the article where this has happened. Liverpool have had an average possession of 55% this season and Swansea 57% this season but they finished 8th and Swansea 11th.
Yes but they, like Barcelona when they had high amounts of possession are generally the more clinical team in front of goal than their opposition if you read that part. Look back at the stats from Inter Milan’s champions league campaign mentioned and you will see that they used this style of play, having less possession, less shots and less passes pretty much all the way to the final and then they won it, are you saying that two teams have basically won the champions league based on luck over many rounds? All I was saying is that possession is over rated as a stat and people should be more focused on goal scoring percentage or shot to goal conversion as it clearly defines who is the better team in the only stat that matters on the football pitch, goal scoring. It’s a business that demands wins, if you don’t win you won’t be there long and the tactic was started my Mourinho to counter the tiki taka style of teams like barcelona and Spain. It may not always work but when used well it has been proven to work.
I have to say a lot of people this season (for example on Sky Sports etc / Gary Neville especially) has mentioned chance conversion % rather than the old possession %. The more clinical a team is the better their chances of scoring rather than having a lot of possession. I do see the argument that you must have the ball to get these shots/chances etc but I think there is a case for both sides here. The media are especially tuning into the chance conversion and shot accuracy statistics a bit more, thats for sure.
There are exceptions to the rule but if you analyse a broader range instead of cherry-picking teams that can do it successfully, then you will find that teams with possession generally do better than those without. Instead of looking at a team that is winning, why not include a few teams who regularly lose to see how their possession stats add up. If, for example, you told me Wolves had an average of 55% possession across the season with more than 50% in 33 out of 38 games then this would add some weight to the argument. I suspect that this would not be the case though. You wanted to make a point and picked a handful of teams who had been successful without possession and totally ignored both the teams who were unsuccessful without possession and those who were successful with possession. Lazy.
It wasn’t really cherry picked it was the last 3 games of the champions league and the whole knockout stage of the 09/10 champions league campaign for Inter as was mentioned to me by an analyst. If you read the last sentence you will note that it said it would be interesting to see if this trend continued into the leagues, as this article was intended to introduce the topic and then I would later revisit a whole season when I had the time to go through all of the stats or give another analyst the idea to go forward and look into the league data. Feel free if you have the time to go through all of the teams. When I say possession doesn’t matter I suppose I was looking more towards the meaning that you could have 30% or 70% of the ball it doesnt matter the only thing that matters is goals scored in football. You don’t win a game because you have more possession you win a game because you score more goals than the opposition. It’s a tired old excuse used by fans that say oh we were the better team because we had more of the ball when the fact of it is the better team will score more goals. The way Chelsea played in the Semi and Final and the way Inter played in 09/10 champions league were just key demonstrations of the tactic, I don’t agree with it as a viewer as it doesnt make for good viewing but it was clearly effective.
But I could put together an analysis to say chance conversion doesn’t matter – all I would need to do is find a host of games where one side converted their only chance and the opposition converted 2 out of 30 chances. To say possession stats do not matter is false. Any stat on its own has no meaning. It all has to be taken in context with other stats.
As for doing an analysis on possession, why would I bother? I already know the answer.
Ridiculous. Had a little chuckle at this I’m affraid.
Look up scientific and academic research, not a few games over a season, and you will find how much possession matters.
Other factors matter as well obviously, but if you want to take one variable and see how it stands alone, the research is in complete contrast to your claims.
I think you’ll find there’s arguments for both sides in scientific research saying that being clinical in front of goal is more important than possession, as for not being enough games if you read one of the above comments, you’ll note that I said it was an introduction to the topic, not a definitive answer. Also as companies are pursuing a similar line of research I think you’ll find more articles like this popping up. Clearly it is a tactic that is proven to work in champions league over two legs anyway. In the end if a team can combine possession and clinical finishing they will obviously be more successful than teams without possession but their finishing will be the main factor in comparison to the opposition.
As for the more ‘clinical’ team, again research shows how the number of shots correlates with success. There’s so much out there, for me to start going into detail about it here, just do your research and write a better article next time.
Possession does matter. It matters a hell of a lot more than relying on the opposition to miss penalties and sitters. If you bring into consideration the average conversion rate of a top Premier League striker being around 25% over a season, that works out a goal for every 4 shots. If you only create 2 chances on the counter per game it will obviously decreasing your chances of winning.
Rubbish article. There is no way you can draw the conclusions you do with regard to possession from 3 abnormal games. 90% of the time Barça would win comfortably against Chelsea, and so too would Bayern. Sure enough Chelsea defended well. But the main factors influencing the aggregate result against Barça were non-existent defending for 2 of the 3 goals scored by Chelsea, and Chelsea had a huge chunk of good luck (Barça missed a pen). Chelsea did NOT win, but rather Barça lost.
I think this is correct as i see that man Utd has adopted the same defensive mentality and try to be the more clinical team. Even though they are still in transition but they will get it done, same with Mancity when they were playing really ugly football under Mancini but after their defence were organized they were able to concentrate on being more clinical in front of goal. This is the new trend and Mourinho isnt the only one doing it. SaF Mancini have noticed this and adopted the same approach.
Clearly everyone’s missed the point I was trying to make with article, maybe thats my fault in the way it was written, and that’s part of the learning curve being new to writing a blog, but what I was trying to say was not that possession in the game doesnt matter but as the title says the STAT doesn’t matter at the end of the game. I was trying to make the point that too many people say that their team was better because they had more of the ball throughout the game but were the losing team. The only thing that matters in football is who scores the most goals, you can be all pretty and play fancy football but if you don’t put the ball in the back of the net you are not the better team. I hope people read this before posting more comments saying possession in game does matter because that wasn’t what I was trying to say because obviously it is, but Chelsea and Inter Milan proved you can win without the ball and they won because they were more clinical. Now maybe that only worked over two legs because it would be difficult to play that way over the course of a 38 game season, and you’d probably lose more often, but as I’ve said before it was only intended as an introduction to the topic.
OK. It is obvious that the team that scores the most goals wins the game. There are numerous occasions when the team with less possession wins. But even if winning is the only thing that matters the chances of winning are still greater for the team creating more chances and this implies being in possession.
I can assure you that professional players would rather play like Barça than like Chelsea, ie their enjoyment comes from displaying ball skills beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. There is something wrong with the game when a team that relies on low level skills can beat a highly talented team.
Agreed with most of the responses here. In addition, just a word of advice when trying to present a statistical analysis. Make appropriate use of graphs. Don’t just throw them in to try and add some authenticity. I am not sure what you were trying to convey with your graphs, but not only are you comparing different types of data (eg. percentages vs total shots) against each other, but your line graph suggests you are trying to demonstrate some sort of downward trend. There’s a reason that you see these sort of data presented in table form on tv rather than graphed.
Possession % as such in total does not matter – it does though in the final third of the pitch, but must be in conjunction with the stats regarding ability of the players to hit the target.
To retain the ball stops the opposing side from shooting,but there is the need for stats on “telling” passes used in union.
Nonsense. Why have you wasted time writing this?
What have you wasted time giving such poor criticism?
As indicated, they do matter. You need to look at the full picture. and importantly you need to see how good a strike force you have. You can have all the possession but if you don’t have decent strikers, it will mean nothing.
Absolute rubbish. What blinkered thinking. How could you really think that you can always be successful just conceding possession?
It’s just common sense that if you take two teams with equal ability, the one with the most possession will create more chances, and will win.
Barring luck.
Chelsea got lucky. Very lucky.
QPR stayed up because Mark Hughes got them playing in this way.
They beat Swansea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and Stoke in their last 5 home matches. They used the method of play in this article against Swansea, Arsenal, and Spuds to very great effect. And very nearly caused the upset of the season at Man City in the final game when scoring from 2 out of their 3 chances coneding over 80% of the possession in the second half with only 10 men. Finally conceding 2 goals in the last 90 seconds of 5 minutes injury time, — the second of which was after the players were distracted with the bench clebrating they Stoke result and staying up.
I think that as you said the most important fact in a game is who scores more, as they will always be the winner irrespective of possession, style etc.
Again as you said, possession does give more opportunity to get shots on target but if zero% clinical then zero goals and the best you can do is draw.
There is a mathematical niggle though if you just think of goals to shots ratio. One shot one goal is 100%, but the opposition could have 2 goals and 4 shots meaning 50% efficiency… but winners nonetheless. If you have no shots on target and score zero goals is that 0/0 = 100%? if you don’t shoot and the other teams scores an own goal is that 1/0 = infinite? Or would yuo not use the goal in the ratio?
To the possession obsessives, possession does not always mean exciting football either, take the last world cup final. I was bored to death seeing Spain passing ad nauseum, I see (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jul/12/spain-netherlands-world-cup-statistics) shows their passion as 63% with 4 shots and 1 goal in extra time… given their possession they only had 52% territory, so lots of sideways and backwards passing, midfield boredom (I suppose unless you are Spanish). The Dutch had the same number of shots on target with less possession and less territory, so possession does not always equal more chances/
So I guess my point is that there is no other universal measure besides goals scored
In fact I saw a note in the comments of the above link that New Zealand was the only unbeaten team in the 2010 world cup. So in cup competition even winners can be losers and vice versa… It’s a funny old game
Interesting – thanks for that comment Anthony.