Getting football is not about
rational arguments. Explaining the
attraction of football is a bit like
explaining why people should like
opera, French movies, or performance
art. Like opera, football is an
exaggeration of life, a representation
of how the world is, or, for large
parts of the world, how they think it
should be: a world with even
chances, a level playing field.
To try to make sense of our complex
world we are increasingly resorting to
analytics and bringing in left-brain
thinking. We are now trying to make
sense of football with an ever-
growing body of quantitative tools.
Football has given rise to entire
analytics-based industries involving
sophisticated analysis of network
centrality, passing effectiveness, the
probability that a sequence of passes
of given lengths will result in a goal,
and much more. Economists are
getting in the game, analyzing
penalty kicks using game-theory and
statistical analysis. So far, these
efforts are hardly predictive.
Handicapping football remains
difficult. Some predictions -- notably
by Goldman Sachs and Nate Silver --
were spectacularly wrong. The reality
is that one can see an entire set of
statistics about a game, sans goals,
and not be able to determine who
actually won. The 120-minute
statistics of Argentina and Holland
were virtually identical . The
possession in the Brazil-Germany
game was 52 percent to 48 percent .
As in life, one can work hard and not
get the goals and the results. This is
true in football more than in other
sports. Scoring, and thus success, is
more discrete. Baseball and
basketball use series of games to
decide the outcome. That feature, in
addition to higher scoring, means
that the eventual winner is more
likely to reflect probabilistic
tendencies. As some cynics have
said, the problem with the NBA Finals
is that the best team always wins.
The decisiveness of a few discrete
events, often determined by luck or a
mistake, breeds superstition and
quasi-religious attitudes. Lack of
planning can be balanced by a single
heroic effort, so many believe. And
they are often proved right. One
mistake or a great single action can
win a game. The belief in the great
action, genius and miracles is the
great equalizer. On a good day,
Ghana could beat Germany, and Iran
could beat Argentina. But football is
democratic in another sense as well:
there is no optimal physique. Tall,
short, it does not matter. One can be
short, like Messi or Maradona, and
be the best player in the world.
These views represent creativity and
brilliant improvisation, the right side
of the brain. And the belief that one
act of brilliance can decide a game.
Hope for all.
But left-brain thinking is on the
advance. Planning is on the rise.
German coaches use extensive
scouting and analysis to identify
weaknesses in the Brazilian defense.
The German youth development
program, created after the disasters
in 2000 and 2004, likely was the real
reason for the success. Meticulous
planning, from a custom-built team
facility to the use of sports
psychologists specializing in penalty
kicks, created an environment where
success was likely. Yet, had Messi
scored in the final, all this would
have been widely considered a
failure, further evidence that success
in football depends on individual
genius and a spark of inspiration and
grace. Therein lies the attraction.
Football will continue to be a battle
between teamwork and individual
action, between deliberate planning
and improvisation, between left-brain
and right-brain thinking.
Statistical analysis, modeling, and
simulation will play an increasingly
larger role. But right-brain thinking
will continue to play a role. As Kuper
and Szymanski have shown, markets
for players are highly efficient and
teams with the biggest payrolls win
their leagues consistently. Yet in
spite of this, the magic of the single
game, the hope against odds, will
remain undiminished. Like opera,
football will continue to be an
exaggerated version of reality, deeply
meaningful and emotionally engaging
for millions. Most people in the world
like to believe in miracles, in
emerging as winners against bad
odds. Football gives them this hope.
Yet, it will become clearer that
planning and strategy do pay off, just
not always and not always when it
matters most. In its unique mix of
science and superstitions, football
represents the perfect metaphor of
the balance between our left and
right brains.

hunter21: Getting football is not about
rational arguments. Explaining the
attraction of football is a bit like
explaining why people should like
opera, French movies, or performance
art. Like opera, football is an
exaggeration of life, a representation
of how the world is, or, for large
parts of the world, how they think it
should be: a world with even
chances, a level playing field.
To try to make sense of our complex
world we are increasingly resorting to
analytics and bringing in left-brain
thinking. We are now trying to make
sense of football with an ever-
growing body of quantitative tools.
Football has given rise to entire
analytics-based industries involving
sophisticated analysis of network
centrality, passing effectiveness, the
probability that a sequence of passes
of given lengths will result in a goal,
and much more. Economists are
getting in the game, analyzing
penalty kicks using game-theory and
statistical analysis. So far, these
efforts are hardly predictive.
Handicapping football remains
difficult. Some predictions -- notably
by Goldman Sachs and Nate Silver --
were spectacularly wrong. The reality
is that one can see an entire set of
statistics about a game, sans goals,
and not be able to determine who
actually won. The 120-minute
statistics of Argentina and Holland
were virtually identical . The
possession in the Brazil-Germany
game was 52 percent to 48 percent .
As in life, one can work hard and not
get the goals and the results. This is
true in football more than in other
sports. Scoring, and thus success, is
more discrete. Baseball and
basketball use series of games to
decide the outcome. That feature, in
addition to higher scoring, means
that the eventual winner is more
likely to reflect probabilistic
tendencies. As some cynics have
said, the problem with the NBA Finals
is that the best team always wins.
The decisiveness of a few discrete
events, often determined by luck or a
mistake, breeds superstition and
quasi-religious attitudes. Lack of
planning can be balanced by a single
heroic effort, so many believe. And
they are often proved right. One
mistake or a great single action can
win a game. The belief in the great
action, genius and miracles is the
great equalizer. On a good day,
Ghana could beat Germany, and Iran
could beat Argentina. But football is
democratic in another sense as well:
there is no optimal physique. Tall,
short, it does not matter. One can be
short, like Messi or Maradona, and
be the best player in the world.
These views represent creativity and
brilliant improvisation, the right side
of the brain. And the belief that one
act of brilliance can decide a game.
Hope for all.
But left-brain thinking is on the
advance. Planning is on the rise.
German coaches use extensive
scouting and analysis to identify
weaknesses in the Brazilian defense.
The German youth development
program, created after the disasters
in 2000 and 2004, likely was the real
reason for the success. Meticulous
planning, from a custom-built team
facility to the use of sports
psychologists specializing in penalty
kicks, created an environment where
success was likely. Yet, had Messi
scored in the final, all this would
have been widely considered a
failure, further evidence that success
in football depends on individual
genius and a spark of inspiration and
grace. Therein lies the attraction.
Football will continue to be a battle
between teamwork and individual
action, between deliberate planning
and improvisation, between left-brain
and right-brain thinking.
Statistical analysis, modeling, and
simulation will play an increasingly
larger role. But right-brain thinking
will continue to play a role. As Kuper
and Szymanski have shown, markets
for players are highly efficient and
teams with the biggest payrolls win
their leagues consistently. Yet in
spite of this, the magic of the single
game, the hope against odds, will
remain undiminished. Like opera,
football will continue to be an
exaggerated version of reality, deeply
meaningful and emotionally engaging
for millions. Most people in the world
like to believe in miracles, in
emerging as winners against bad
odds. Football gives them this hope.
Yet, it will become clearer that
planning and strategy do pay off, just
not always and not always when it
matters most. In its unique mix of
science and superstitions, football
represents the perfect metaphor of
the balance between our left and
right brains.

Very interesting and very Educating, Nice one OP.

Very nice article. Thumbs up.
I think you should include the source. But if it was written by you, more respect.

Post this in the sports section. It would be quite relevant there.