Liverpool's Vital Statistics

[Fagan]

V interesting i thought

 

Liverpools Vital Statistics

 

 

Well, even ignoring the fact that even 4th has significant rewards these days, 2005/06 was actually notable in a number of ways. There was the record-breaking sequence without conceding a goal, which contributed to the 33 clean sheets, one shy of the all-time record. There was also the incredible percentage of league games won by the Reds: the 2nd-highest in the club's history. It was a busy year for the ?stattos?.

 

It was after being contacted by Oliver Anderson ? a statistician, Liverpool fan and qualified football coach ? that I stumbled upon the last fact. He had worked out the win percentages in recent campaigns, but I asked him to compare them to the 18 title-winning sides, to see how the current crop compared.

 

With every passing week during the spring months the Reds eclipsed the win percentage of another Anfield Championship era, eventually overtaking the phenomenal 1987/88 side and finishing behind only the supreme 1978/79 vintage.

 

Having helped me compile such statistics for my column on this website, as well as for my latest book, Oliver requested my input on his own project.

 

So let me set the scene. I am waiting in a coffee bar to discuss the fruits of his labours: original and detailed statistical analysis of Liverpool's fortunes since the arrival of Rafa Benítez.

 

Having only conversed by email, I am perhaps guilty of looking out for a guy carrying a clipboard, wearing a '70s civil servant suit and peering out through jam-jar glasses. It's hot and sunny outside, but over his death-grey clothes I anticipate some kind of anorak; possibly a cagoule, with its practical self-storage capacity.

 

Unless the anorak has been hastily concealed upon his entrance, the person I meet has the look of a regular guy. He looks more like a sportsman than a librarian. He has a normal sized head.

 

We discuss zonal marking, and he shows me figures that 'prove' Liverpool were actually the most successful team defending set pieces in the Premiership. There are comparisons between Steven Gerrard's productivity on the centre and on the right, and the same with Djibril Cissé.

 

There's the revealing goals-per-minute of Robbie Fowler, and the eye-opening productivity of Luis Garcia in the Premiership; based on minutes played, he comes out as the top Liverpool player. I am shown Pepe Reina's save percentages, and how they compare with his rivals in the league, and with the other Liverpool keepers. Then there is the regularity with which players make mistakes that cost goals.

 

We discuss all areas of the team's play over a number of hours (statisticians drink regular coffee, in a regular mug, without the aid of any unusual drinking apparatus), and I agree to help him with his own book.

 

I've always liked statistics, but believe in common sense when using them. Stats should carry warnings similar to those associated with junk food: as part of a sensible debate on football they are a healthy addition; as an entire diet, they're bad news. Without thoughtful analysis, they can mean nothing.

 

More and more managers and coaches use figures to tell them intricate details of their team's play. Technology is used to monitor all aspects of performance; it's better to be armed with too much information than too little. Knowledge is power.

 

But it's important to have some kind of understanding of football in the first place, and to respect the limitations of anything that reduces a complex interactive game involving a number of free-willed participants into a series of numbers. Statistics are an additional tool for analysing the game; they are not going to tell the full story.

 

Like Oliver, I feel it's now important to look at 'rate' stats, especially for strikers. In years gone by, clubs had two strikers and they played two strikers; a third may be present as back-up, but there was no such thing as rotation; just injuries and being dropped.

 

Forty years ago there were no subs, and 20 years ago just one. Nowadays up to six players are likely to play just part of a game, either through being subbed on or off; the amount of minutes they play are the key factor here. No striker's goals-per-game rate will benefit from being sent on in the 92nd minute to waste time.

 

Evaluating the amount of goals scored over the course of the season isn't as revealing as the rate at which those goals are scored. Goals-per-minute tell us a lot more, especially when four strikers are sharing the duties fairly evenly.

 

Craig Bellamy was easily in the top 10 Premiership strikers based on goals-per-minute for Blackburn, and while someone like Darren Bent scored more goals, his scoring rate was significantly inferior to that of the new Liverpool striker.

 

Marginally ahead of Bellamy was Robbie Fowler, based solely on his time at Liverpool. However, add his goal against Manchester United for City in a fleeting league appearance, and he leaps to 5th on the list.

 

It's a quite remarkable achievement, considering that he was coming back from injury and not match fit for the first month, and that he also had two legitimate league goals chalked off. (Having said that, the Blackburn goal was conciliatory gift from the linesman's union.)

 

The trouble is, of course, that it's no good being a 'one goal in two games' player if you only play two games a season. Fowler's rate remains impressive, but now he needs a good season under his belt. Of course, it's highly unlikely he'll need to find his best on 60 occasions; he's sharing striking duties, rather than being the sole provider of a decade ago.

 

It's also interesting to look at the best positions of certain players, but not just for their own figures, but for the success of the team.

 

Djibril Cissé's overall goalscoring record was impressive, but less so when he played as a striker, especially in the league. He was actually at his most prolific on the wing, but while his individual figures were fairly impressive out there, the team's results suffered by comparison with other players in the role.

 

When Gerrard played on right, he created and scored less than during his time as an orthodox central midfielder ? which is his 'true' position, after all ? but the team benefited as a result; not only could he attack down the right, but his work-rate and defensive abilities meant he helped the team win a higher percentage of matches. He gave the team balance, in the absence of a specialist right-winger.

 

Facts like this aren't always apparent when watching football on a match-to-match basis. You can have instincts and form impressions, but it often helps to see figures that provide another form of evidence.

 

And that's something that Oliver, amongst others in the field, sets out to do.

[Huyton_Red]

Dont find any of these specialist liverpool writers that have popped up all over the web in the last few years particular interesting to be blunt.

 

This article sums them all up perfectly, far to long with 6 or 7 paragrpahs of irrelevant twaddle before finally getting to the point with a couple of sentences at the end.

 

I find it far more interesting, entertaining and informative just reading what people write on forums.

[Guest redmilky]

far to long with 6 or 7 paragrpahs of irrelevant twaddle before finally getting to the point with a couple of sentences at the end.

 

I find it far more interesting, entertaining and informative just reading what people write on forums.

That is the difference between formal article writing and a forum though isnt it?

[Rushian]

Dont find any of these specialist liverpool writers that have popped up all over the web in the last few years particular interesting to be blunt.

 

This article sums them all up perfectly, far to long with 6 or 7 paragrpahs of irrelevant twaddle before finally getting to the point with a couple of sentences at the end.

 

I find it far more interesting, entertaining and informative just reading what people write on forums.

 

Burn all writers!!!

 

There seems to be a bizarre reverse snobbery now attached to anything more than a couple of paragraphs long. Has modern life made everyone lazy?

[Fagan]

Burn all writers!!!

 

There seems to be a bizarre reverse snobbery now attached to anything more than a couple of paragraphs long. Has modern life made everyone lazy?

 

seems that way.

 

clearly over 5 paragraphs is a bad thing!

 

I actually think tomkins is pretty good, and he is a journalist and author, not some 2-bit internet blogger

[Huyton_Red]

Burn all writers!!!

 

There seems to be a bizarre reverse snobbery now attached to anything more than a couple of paragraphs long. Has modern life made everyone lazy?

 

Nah, this type of thing is not what I love about footy forums rushian, I love the fact the converstations are similar to what you get in the ale house before and after a game

 

Its nowt to do with snobbery, I am not into 'formal' writing on all things Liverpool, it has no interest to me whatsoever to read 6 paragraphs about how a lad who gathers stats doesnt actually look like a typical statician.

 

These forums, for me, are all about normal people talking in a normal way about footy and how bad george bush and isreal are.

 

Your home, RAWK, where all the snobs live, is where all the poems, songs and 40 page 'articles' should be posted

[Guest Sabre]

I think it's good at getting people to think about the possibilities of using statistics. Rafa is a complete statto. I'd be interested to read the book when it is published as there will be far more depth to it.

[Huyton_Red]

Too bloody right...

 

... I thought it was an interesting and unusual piece, with me crying out to have all the statistics he mentioned available to ponder over, see the trends, etc etc

 

...the article clearly states that stats arent everything, but even that article made me re-evaluate some opinions and re-inforce others that you pick up from watching a mix of live / live on TV / highlights / squinting at e-ticket goals....

 

I also get fed up with the line about 'if its published I can criticise it" If you don't like it don't read it, and if you do read it and don't like it, try and comment constructively rather than dismissively waving your hand all nikkiesque at it with a transparently ignorant disdain

 

Its got f'ck all to do with 'if its published I can criticise it'. I dont find 'articles' like this interesting and said so yeh f'ckin groupie

[Rushian]

Nah, this type of thing is not what I love about footy forums rushian, I love the fact the converstations are similar to what you get in the ale house before and after a game

 

Its nowt to do with snobbery, I am not into 'formal' writing on all things Liverpool, it has no interest to me whatsoever to read 6 paragraphs about how a lad who gathers stats doesnt actually look like a typical statician.

 

These forums, for me, are all about normal people talking in a normal way about footy and how bad george bush and isreal are.

 

Your home, RAWK, where all the snobs live, is where all the poems, songs and 40 page 'articles' should be posted

 

Seen you proffer that view before. For me forums were always a mix of what you like so much and the longer, more considered pieces. The first Reds forum of any note RAOTL always had a good mix of considered analysis, pub-style banter and discussions about white dog poo. You just chose want you wanted to read or contribute to and ignored the rest. However it now seems de rigeur to comment on anything of length with "can you summarise that for me" or "can't be arsed reading all that". Why bother replying at all?

 

Anyway I'll let you get on with what you do best, castigating the Guardian's Public Jobs Section

[Huyton_Red]

Seen you proffer that view before. For me forums were always a mix of what you like so much and the longer, more considered pieces. The first Reds forum of any note RAOTL always had a good mix of considered analysis, pub-style banter and discussions about white dog poo. You just chose want you wanted to read or contribute to and ignored the rest. However it now seems de rigeur to comment on anything of length with "can you summarise that for me" or "can't be arsed reading all that". Why bother replying at all?

 

Anyway I'll let you get on with what you do best, castigating the Guardian's Public Jobs Section

 

To be honest, I agree with you, such responses to these type of articles are rude and unnecessary, even what I have just posted could be considered rude and unnecessary so I wont reply in such a manner again, I will just ignore the 'professional' style articles than annoy me so much in future.

 

Oh, and RAOTL used to be full of sycophants and plazzy poets as well, it was the father or RAWK .... Certain posters had a 'following' and when they would post one of these 67 page songs about the grass at anfied making the soul sing to the lord they would get all the sycophants congratulating them on how wonderful they where

 

Puke inspiring it was to a grump arl b'stard like myself

[Benitez]

 

Oh, and RAOTL used to be full of sycophants and plazzy poets as well, it was the father or RAWK .... Certain posters had a 'following' and when they would post one of these 67 page songs about the grass at anfied making the soul sing to the lord they would get all the sycophants congratulating them on how wonderful they where

 

Puke inspiring it was to a grump arl b'stard like myself

 

 

made me that did, cos it's true!

[Senrab_nhoj]

yeh f'ckin groupie

 

Never been called that before I have to say.....

 

[Dule]

I always enjoy reading Paul's articles, he always has something informative and positive to say about our team and fans, something that most of you seem to forget how to do.

 

This article is yet another piece of work that not only contributed to my knowledge of our team, but also confirmed some of the things i believed about our players and team that i already assumed based on watching the reds last night.

 

If you don't like reading the articles then don't read them, its as simple as that. But don't come to a thread like this and slag the people who actually have something informative so say about our great club.

[genghis]

quote

 

"With every passing week during the spring months the Reds eclipsed the win percentage of another Anfield Championship era, eventually overtaking the phenomenal 1987/88 side"

 

sorry to return to the point of the thread but does nobody else find this f'cking astounding? Last year's team won more games than the Barnes/Beardsley/Aldridge team.

 

That is incredible, and if the addition of pace in 3 positions on the pitch helps us go up another notch, Rafa will indeed be mentioned in the same breath as Shanks and Sir Bob.

[IgPig]

Its fast becoming a cliche that every time a Tomkins article is posted it just becomes a means of saying how crap/great he is.

Edited July 26, 2006 by hamstrung

[Cobs]

quote

 

"With every passing week during the spring months the Reds eclipsed the win percentage of another Anfield Championship era, eventually overtaking the phenomenal 1987/88 side"

 

sorry to return to the point of the thread but does nobody else find this f'cking astounding? Last year's team won more games than the Barnes/Beardsley/Aldridge team.

 

 

except they didn't

 

they won more as a % of games played, they won 1 game less but played 2 games less

 

25 out of 38 v 26 out of 40

[Andythered]

42.5% of statistics are made up.

[Jarg Armani]

except they didn't

 

they won more as a % of games played, they won 1 game less but played 2 games less

 

25 out of 38 v 26 out of 40

 

but why let the facts get in the way of a load of old waffle.....hang on, we've been here before.

 

you're quite pedantic really aren't you cobs?

[Cobs]

but why let the facts get in the way of a load of old waffle.....hang on, we've been here before.

 

you're quite pedantic really aren't you cobs?

[whitewidow]

42.5% of statistics are made up.

 

This is true 20% of the time.

[sutty]

I enjoyed that.

 

However statements like statistical analysis makes Garcia our top player means very little unless you reveal the basis for the statement

 

I'd have liked to have seen some examples so I could understand what was going on.

 

Plus it would give Will something to thrap one out over.

[genghis]

except they didn't

 

they won more as a % of games played, they won 1 game less but played 2 games less

 

25 out of 38 v 26 out of 40

 

yeah, I know - actually I figured he was talking about all percentage of all games played (including cups) in which case I suspect last year's side pissed on the 87/88 team...I'm pretty sure we won a lot more games in Europe last year than that team did in the 87 for example.

 

But anyhow, still impressive form from Don Rafa's side, compared to Kenny's dontchathink? And it's not like we're up against some of the cannon-fodder than lived in the top-flight in 87....Oxford, Luton, Norwich, QPR, Wimbledon....good grief.

[Mike]

I enjoyed that.

 

However statements like statistical analysis makes Garcia our top player means very little unless you reveal the basis for the statement

 

I'd have liked to have seen some examples so I could understand what was going on.

 

Plus it would give Will something to thrap one out over.

 

conjecture

[Cobs]

conjecture

[Guest Sabre]

What's the book called?