Lincoln Sack Manager !!

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Do you want to tell Brentford & Brighton that? 2 clubs that we consistently outperformed and who are now light years ahead of us on and off the pitch.

They all use data yet that is 2 out of 92 .

I am all in favour of a great scouting network, whether that be contacts or from a data base which these 2 have used successfully, but the main reasons for their meteoric rise though is the standard of the managers, the coaches, and certainly in Brightons case huge investment. Data in isolation is worthless.

I think the £400million that Tony Bloom has invested in Brighton and the £100million+ that Matthew Benham has invested in Brighton are probably key data points to pick up on.

I think there's a dull obsession with pointless numbers on the game at the minute.  I use the term numbers because that's all it is, a series of numbers in some sort of order.  The correct use of that data can be used as information which in turn becomes an asset, for some clubs that's a major advantage.  

My favourite example of largely pointless data is when defensive midfielders are always at the top of the number of passes per game and/or pass completion rate.   The number of simple and easy passes they make each game, more often than not under no pressure, should mean that's the case.  They're always going to have higher stats than someone who's trying difficult passes.

But behind the scenes there's a lot of incredible benefits to real information and intelligence.  We don't get to see the bulk of that. Match of the Day isn't displaying the kind of stuff that analysts in the background get to see.  Micah Richards is not trained in data science, but clubs have people who are and can turn those numbers into an advantage over their opponents.  Or at least they can give the manager the option of having that advantage.

The use of data, stats, information (whatever you want to call it) is increasing in the game. It would be foolish to think football can ever be as simple again as 4-4-2 and getting crosses into the box, it's a long, long time since that was the case.  Even supposed football dinosaurs like John Beck were heavily driven by data.  Beck and other long ball merchants of the late 80's and early 90's recognised that the win margins at set-pieces were higher, so they tailored their sides to benefit from that.  They loaded their deck with physical players who dominated in the air, offset against their lesser ability on the deck, but knowing that risk and calculating it.

But the beauty of the game is that it's not all done on a spreadsheet.  There are far too many variables for it to ever be that simple.  Few clubs have managed to successfully adopt the Moneyball approach because football is a completely different game to baseball.  The nature of baseball is that it's in individual and defined passages of play.  How well does the player pitch, bat or field.  The reliance on other factors and members of the team is limited.  There will always be that instinct or feel for the game that both players and managers either succeed or fail in.

I don't know what Hurst's approach to the game is, he's mentioned numbers before but I don't know how invested he is in it.  Regards his feel for the game, I often think he's watched a different game to me but I think he's got a good sense for noticing when the balance of power is shifting, hence his penchant for bringing on a more defensive minded player.  However, I feel he lacks the instinct to see when the game is there to be won.  But then I'm a fan in the stands and he's a bloke who's made a career of football management.

With regards Lincoln and especially the Cowley's, if that was the case I think it would be a terrible appointment.  They did a great job there, no doubt about it.  But they offered something at the time that was ahead of the curve.  At the fifth and fourth tier, few clubs were doing what they did with the data science based approach, the use of sports science, it was all new stuff and incredibly advantageous at those levels.  By the time they went to Huddersfield and later Portsmouth, it either wasn't as advantageous at those levels or everyone else had caught up.  Now the methods they used are common practice across all four divisions, certainly at the level Lincoln are at.  Tactically I don't think they're up to it to cut it without a distinct advantage.

Nathan Jones would be a very interesting appointment.  He would eat himself if he got the chance, but I think he's a very good coach.  Don't be fooled by his record at Stoke (a club no-one has succeeded at in a long, long time - to the point that something is just fundamentally flawed there) and Southampton which was a poisoned chalice which only his ego led him to take.  I understand that one of the issues with Kennedy at Lincoln is that the board just couldn't see the progression, they couldn't see where Kennedy was trying to take them and they could perhaps tolerate blips if they had sight of the bigger picture.  Jones, if given time, would definitely fit in with that approach.

Quoted from diehardmariner

I think the £400million that Tony Bloom has invested in Brighton and the £100million+ that Matthew Benham has invested in Brighton are probably key data points to pick up on.

There’s no doubting that without Tony Bloom and his massive bags of cash, Brighton would still be kicking around in a repurposed athletics track somewhere between League Two and the Championship. However, they have a 5 year negative net spend of £134m - that is, they’ve spent £134m less on inbound transfers than they’ve made in departing player sales.

That is absolutely not the norm. Prior to their relegation last season, Leeds had accrued a £183m deficit in the preceding 5 years and Southampton £200m. £200m ffs! They were absolutely awful, and not just against us.

At the top table, Chelsea are in excess of £700m. £0.7bn - it’s an astonishingly large amount of money, and yet they still finished 6 places below Brighton last season and are below them again this season, despite taking their manager and several of their players.

Brighton have turned a profit on transfer fees, lost their manager, several key players plus almost their entire back room team, including their head of recruitment, and yet still get better. People, be it players or coaching staff, continuously leave, and they simply replace them something even better. Again, that is not the norm.

These people are mere variables. The constant is the people at the very top, Tony Bloom and Paul Barber, and the system that they have in place. Good systems, powered by unique and insightful data, interrogated and interpreted in novel ways, can provide competitive advantages. As they have for Brighton. As they once did for the Oakland A’s.

Data for data’s sake won’t add value. Executed in the right way though, of course it can have a significant part to play. The evidence is out there. I find it baffling this argument is still ongoing.

Quoted from Poojah

There’s no doubting that without Tony Bloom and his massive bags of cash, Brighton would still be kicking around in a repurposed athletics track somewhere between League Two and the Championship. However, they have a 5 year negative net spend of £134m - that is, they’ve spent £134m less on inbound transfers than they’ve made in departing player sales.

That is absolutely not the norm. Prior to their relegation last season, Leeds had accrued a £183m deficit in the preceding 5 years and Southampton £200m. £200m ffs! They were absolutely awful, and not just against us.

At the top table, Chelsea are in excess of £700m. £0.7bn - it’s an astonishingly large amount of money, and yet they still finished 6 places below Brighton last season and are below them again this season, despite taking their manager and several of their players.

Brighton have turned a profit on transfer fees, lost their manager, several key players plus almost their entire back room team, including their head of recruitment, and yet still get better. People, be it players or coaching staff, continuously leave, and they simply replace them something even better. Again, that is not the norm.

These people are mere variables. The constant is the people at the very top, Tony Bloom and Paul Barber, and the system that they have in place. Good systems, powered by unique and insightful data, interrogated and interpreted in novel ways, can provide competitive advantages. As they have for Brighton. As they once did for the Oakland A’s.

Data for data’s sake won’t add value. Executed in the right way though, of course it can have a significant part to play. The evidence is out there. I find it baffling this argument is still ongoing.

I think we are having the argument because some fans think we are going to be the next Brighton because we've employed a data analyst, or getting involved with the 21st group.

Whichever way you cut it both Brentford and Brighton have enjoyed investment which is off the scale. Hundreds of millions pounds of investment which I agree they have put to very good use in the quality of their transfers particularly in getting unknown talent and good for them.

I appreciate you have got to start somewhere but I think we should concentrate on getting our house in order rather than spending too much time on post match data.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I think we are having the argument because some fans think we are going to be the next Brighton because we've employed a data analyst, or getting involved with the 21st group.

Whichever way you cut it both Brentford and Brighton have enjoyed investment which is off the scale. Hundreds of millions pounds of investment which I agree they have put to very good use in the quality of their transfers particularly in getting unknown talent and good for them.

I appreciate you have got to start somewhere but I think we should concentrate on getting our house in order rather than spending too much time on post match data.

Well, that’s a different argument altogether. Our recent investment in data analytics isn’t about creating the kind of competitive enjoyment that Brighton enjoy, it’s about not having the kind of competitive disadvantage that has been allowed to open up while clubs around us moved on (not the fault of the current board, I might add).

I don’t know the secrets of the proprietary system Brighton leverage; evidently no one outside of the inner circle of the club’s top brass does. But it ultimately stems from Bloom’s own predictive gambling data company, where it was able to be developed in the environs of a multi-billion pound turnover business, and accordingly, was able to benefit from appropriate investment which probably runs into the hundreds of millions over time (because it has its own direct payback model). That’s what makes it unique. That’s why others can’t copy what Brighton have done. Even Chelsea can’t pump hundreds of millions into developing proprietary technologies; that’s not their modus operandi.

All that said, the notion that having some kind of data analytics capability should be better than having none, seems reasonable. The logic goes that coming into this summer, we had a more settled squad, a significantly bigger budget, AND new and improved ways in which to identify targets and make better recruitment and strategic decisions; the cumulative effect of these advantages, over last season if not the competition, should be tangible improvements in the playing side.

Based only on the evidence we have seen so far, that litmus test has been failed. We are not tangibly better than last season. That is clear. That leads me to just three possible conclusions:

1. We simply haven’t used the data platform
2. The platform, or the staff using it, aren’t very good
3. It’s all working perfectly, we just haven’t seen the fruits of its labour yet

Personally, scenario 3 feels very unlikely at this juncture, however I’ve been very wrong before and I’ll be very wrong again. But whether we’re using it or not, our performances and results so far this season suggest multiple points of failure. As such, it’s rather difficult to pinpoint precisely where things are going wrong and to what extent.

It’s a little bit early to jump to conclusions on anything, for me.

There's good and valid points from both Poojah and Lew here.

There is absolutely a case of the superb use of data when you look at Brighton, but it goes deeper than just data.  It's an overarching ethos that goes well beyond that of using data more effectively.  Bloom himself has made his money by a) making intelligent and information led decisions but also b) holding his nerve and striking when it's right rather than when everyone else (read that as the market or the fans) think it's right to do so.  I know it's a bit cliche but when we went there in March the whole club just felt 'right'.  You can see why people would buy into it. There's a reason people will go there in the first place to give their skills, also why people are able to further develop their skills whilst at the club.

That they continue to buy and sell at a profit, manage to develop on and off the field staff continuously and still flourish is fantastic.  I've long found myself not enjoying the Premier League.  Brighton are the exception in that, they're a joy to watch.  

But for all this, it doesn't happen without that mass investment first.  Yes. they've used their wealth far better than Chelsea (the complete other extreme of how to not run a football club) but my point largely was that the Bloom money has given them the platform to let that approach and ethos flourish.  As with Brentford.  Which is the point that I think Lew's making.  There needs to be a solid base for these advantages to flourish and, arguably more importantly, something to get them going in the first place (investment).

When anyone talks about continuous improvement in sport it's often David Brailsford and Team Sky/GB that gets rolled out as an example.  Without question, so many 1% improvements were sought in every single area.  Individually, nothing at all.  Collectively, huge inroads.  None of it happens without the huge investment though (I'll leave it to someone else to make further suggestions, especially regards Team Sky).  There's having that data that's insightful and then having the ability to do something with it.  I don't think we've got the investment, infrastructure or reach to make significant inroads with data alone.  Again, not saying that means we shouldn't be using it. We absolutely should.

I also agree with Lew that I think perhaps expectations have become heightened because we've employed someone in this capacity.  All this has done to my eyes is brought us in line with everyone else. Once more, it doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do or a step in the right direction.   I've said before how I used to cringe in the Conference when part-time teams would rock up with a bigger backroom set-up than us, players all wearing GPS Vests, staff with iPad's in the managers ear with insight all game.  We had Dave Moore with a bucket and sponge.   I'm delighted we're going down the right path, at long last.

But I do think for clubs of our size, now that everyone is on a similarish playing field when it comes to this type of thing, the advantages are slimmer and slimmer.  Not too dissimilar to the Peterborough model from a few years ago, finding that talent in non-league who you can sign for £50k and sell for £2million a couple of years later.  Fantastic at the time, before long everyone employed a non-league scout and that particular advantage dried up.  It also dragged the market value up too, which is why you've got Conference clubs putting £1million price tags on players.

There will be another niche advantage that emerges, there always is.  Whilst things are feeling a bit meh at the minute around Town, I'm confident that with the people the club have brought on board (namely the arrangement with Twenty First Group) we're in a great position to benefit from whatever those new advantages are.  We might not be the ones who pioneer them, we don't need to be.  We're not competing at that end of the stick, but we certainly can get ahead of the general curve of everyone else.

Brentford - south west London - very attractive location for investment
Brighton - one of most vibrant cities in UK - very attractive location for investment
Grimsby.... hmmm....

Two excellent posts there, and the point I am indeed making is that you need incredible investment to be able to approach things like Brentford and Brighton,  which they did only once they stabilised and got the best managers and players they could afford when they were in the lower divisions.

Yes it's nice we have caught up and are embracing modern methods including data analysis,  but everybody has it and any advantage is absolutely miniscule,  if that. Even without going into the minutiae of any further data, we are unable to solve any of the problems the naked eye can tell you which obviously the manager and coaching staff must know, with or without data analysis.

On the playing side I reckon data analysis is next to useless, on the player recruitment side it could have some value but only then if you have a manager and coaches to make the most of it. Like so much in football it is a lottery which is actually what makes it so good.

You can find good players without data.  Just takes a lot of leg work for starters.

Colby Bishop is the top scorer for Portsmouth last season and this season.  They are top of Div 1 and probably heading for the Championship.  At age 26, he has scored 28 goals in 58 appearances.  A very good return.

They bought him from Accrington in 2022 after he scored 32 goals in 109 games for them.

Between 2019 and 2022 he scored 28 goals in 49 games for Leamington.

However, in 2017 he played a few games for Boston United.  No one spotted his talent there.  Should he have been on Town’s radar?  Was his undoubted potential for scoring a lot of goals evident there?

(He had previously been released by Notts County at aged 17.  He is local (ish) having been born in Nottingham).

Annoying that he was at Boston and then went onto much better things at other clubs.  A proven goalscorer over the seasons.  A career record of 110 goals in 291 games. At age 26.  

The thing with Bishop is that his record was largely unremarkable until he got to Portsmouth.

His overall record was massively weighted by spells in the Conference North with Worcester and Leamington, either side of a nothing spell at Boston.

At Accrington in League One, he was ok.  Just ok.  1 in 4.  Only at Portsmouth as a professional outfit has he gone onto hit 1 in 2.  

You can argue that Portsmouth might have used data to suggest that if given better service, or better facilities, he would produce the goods.  Or you can argue that their scout just identified him as a good player and would flourish.

Truth is, we'll probably never know.