I've just read a fascinating article about the impact of stability within team sports. Actually, it's based on data crunching in rugby and football by a company run by the former Wallaby Ben Darwin. Really recommended reading:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2020/oct/19/ben-darwins-theory-of-sport-evolution-familiarity-breeds-success
The headline finding is that it finds a significant net advantage accrued by having players together for longer. This is observed in clubs that failed to bring in new players but did better the following season; nations with a smaller pool of players to select from overperforming relative to nations with lots of options (think Iceland vs England at the Euros); and clubs with lots of players who have been playing together since youth level. We know something about the benefits of chemistry and cohesion on an anecdotal level, but the data analysis tries to quantify it.
A couple of key paragraphs:
Darwin: “The more stable you are the greater level of understanding you have. You can buy skill but skill doesn’t manifest itself in chaos. If you have lots of different players coming in from different places with different habits it’s hard to get them on the same page, particularly defensively."
Darwin also cites studies in other working environments which concluded that settled employees tend to deliver most effectively. Apparently the average stockbroker takes three years to reach their peak. In Premier League football, on average, it is two and a half years but strikers tend to transfer easier than midfielders. Darwin’s examination of Premier League academies unearthed something else. “We found that the ability in the academies had nothing to do with the facilities or the talent. It was mainly driven by the stability of the team above them. If they were going into a stable senior team they would go well because everyone understood their role."
...
Some takeaways from this in the context of how the apply to Man Utd:
- Looking at our history, it's clear that just about all of our club's most glorious phases have benefited from cohesion. The Busby Babes had a set of youngsters graduating around the same time to the senior team. Fergie won the league after 5 years of instilling a culture and building around a core of players, then went on to greater things with a new core of academy players. In his final league triumphs many observers agreed we didn't have the best squad in the league, but we did have a kind of collective know-how. I can also think of summers where we did little in the transfer market and followed it with a great season, and others when great signings came in and the team didn't kick on.
- That's not to say that cohesion on its own is sufficient. There are plenty of instances of long-term underperformance. Look at the twilight years of Wenger's Arsenal. (I hope this isn't taken as a pro-Solskjaer article, or debated through that binary lens. It's boring.) Darwin's analysis finds that cohesion makes an 40% performance differential. The biggest differential is talent of players. Interestingly, the skill of the coaching is judged at 2%. This is where I think a lot of caveats should be raised. When you average out all sports and all instances, maybe coaching doesn't make a big statistical mark, but I'd wager the difference between a great coach and a poor one at the same club can constitute a decisive swing.
- What about implications for club policy? It's pretty obvious how this should ring true when you think about the churn we've had in players and ripping up plans every season or two. On an instinctive rather than particularly informed level, this has been why I've always been cautious about sacking each of our post-Fergie managers despite the disappointing results. I do think we need to build. We need continuity. But at the very least when we sack a manager, we really must replace him with someone whose tactical strategies fit with the bulk of the players we already have. Mr Woodward, please just take your balls off the table and delegate to a Director of Football.
- That said, one thing we have done rather more successfully in the last few years is clearing that pathway from academy to senior team. It's important we stick to those values for the sake of stability. But (remembering that according to this data stability = 40% differential, while talent is 58%) we also need to make sure the academy is stocked with youngsters of the highest ability. So I also applaud the recent policy of aggressively buying up top youngsters around the age of 16.
Anyway, we can quibble with the precise values attached to stability, coaching, etc. I haven't seen the methodology or the data itself and I'm not trained to critique it. I'm not suggesting we should take it as settled science, but rather as one single piece of empirical analysis that suggests to us that stability is even more important than we realised.
Stability
posted on 19/10/20
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 19 minutes ago
I don’t think it was a difference of patience compared to the first Galacticos, more so that it was a better constructed and managed squad of players. Ronaldo being better than any player they’ve probably ever had helps as well. It’s not a surprise they’ve fallen off the level they were at despite still having stability with the player staff. That one great player can make all the difference.
I think it’s where Chelsea have managed to keep doing well despite the changes, even if there are ups and downs. Hazard has been an unbelievable player for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good point about the quality of Ronaldo. But in the early 2000s they seemed to be addicted to buying the world's best (or most famous) player each year and making room for high profile acquisitions by ditching players who were instrumental to the way the team played (Makelele), could have provided more squad stability (Morientes), or prematurely (Sneijder, Robben). Of course, they didn't have a terrible 5 years, but in terms of ROI it could have been better.
Compare that with the recent generation, and I think they've been more consistent in keeping core players over a long period. Losing Ronaldo's brilliance is of course a huge factor, but I think we've also seen a lot of that core ageing and passing their peak around the same time.
posted on 19/10/20
comment by Garner be a star (U13920)
posted 1 minute ago
chicken or egg first
does success allow stability or does stability make/give birth to succces
my opinion is that you need (relative) success to consider having stability and then the perks of stability such as cohesion leads to even greater success. Ignoring the first part where success allows stability, leads to an illusuion that stability causes success "in isolation".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good question. I suppose it is possible to build success gradually. Look at the Bournemouth example that Viva_Vida gave. But the problem is that at the ultra-competitive top level of sport, you don't have time to underachieve for very long. Patience is short. As mentioned all along, stability isn't an alternative to quality; it's just the most effective way to maximise the impact of the quality.
You could see it as chicken and egg - you need to prove the quality before you give players the time. But conversely the danger of impatience is getting into a vicious circle, where you keep replacing players who haven't succeeded, and in the process you maintain a state of flux in the team so everyone underachieves.
The key thing (hint: get a sodding DoF!) is to have structures in place that have senior recruitment, youth development, youth recruitment, scouting, data about current playing staff in the hands of someone with the right qualifications and knowledge to oversee excellence in standards and stability in gradual evolution of the squad.
posted on 19/10/20
It was a flawed policy, but I wouldn’t necessarily say an impatient one. You’ve also got to look at the ages of the players signed, I think that’s something Perez realised was a flaw in his first tenure at the club.
It’s true about the team ageing, but losing Ronaldo is the major reason in their drop off. Just look how they struggle to score without him in the team.
posted on 19/10/20
#OleOut
posted on 19/10/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Garner be a star (U13920)
posted 1 minute ago
chicken or egg first
does success allow stability or does stability make/give birth to succces
my opinion is that you need (relative) success to consider having stability and then the perks of stability such as cohesion leads to even greater success. Ignoring the first part where success allows stability, leads to an illusuion that stability causes success "in isolation".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good question. I suppose it is possible to build success gradually. Look at the Bournemouth example that Viva_Vida gave. But the problem is that at the ultra-competitive top level of sport, you don't have time to underachieve for very long. Patience is short. As mentioned all along, stability isn't an alternative to quality; it's just the most effective way to maximise the impact of the quality.
You could see it as chicken and egg - you need to prove the quality before you give players the time. But conversely the danger of impatience is getting into a vicious circle, where you keep replacing players who haven't succeeded, and in the process you maintain a state of flux in the team so everyone underachieves.
The key thing (hint: get a sodding DoF!) is to have structures in place that have senior recruitment, youth development, youth recruitment, scouting, data about current playing staff in the hands of someone with the right qualifications and knowledge to oversee excellence in standards and stability in gradual evolution of the squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree
we had a manager than life manger in SAF and for too long have come to think manager are all that matters. I have not seen any evidence that utd have a footballing structure behind the scenes, independent of the manager that can support/challenge the manger in footballing decision
I was working in the ethiad when city were undergoing their transformation. Yes, the brought in a lot of players and many were flops. But there was also a lot of work being done in the background to support the manager especially in the 18 months prior to peps appointment
posted on 19/10/20
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 9 minutes ago
It was a flawed policy, but I wouldn’t necessarily say an impatient one. You’ve also got to look at the ages of the players signed, I think that’s something Perez realised was a flaw in his first tenure at the club.
It’s true about the team ageing, but losing Ronaldo is the major reason in their drop off. Just look how they struggle to score without him in the team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I take your point. That said, Ronaldo is also ageing and isn't quite the player he was a couple of years ago.
Let's indulge in a counterfactual. Ronaldo stays at Real Madrid. To what extent do they drop off from previous heights, if at all?
posted on 19/10/20
He’s not, it was a sound financial decision but he’s still one of the most decisive players in football. I also think he allowed these other Madrid players to play their game without the added responsibility of having to be that decisive - you only have to see how so many have failed to step up in his absence, Ronaldo in the team makes the team better through his own talents as well as how he allows others to play better.
I think Madrid would naturally have a decline due to the age of the players. But I think they do much better in the league the season after Ronaldo left and fair better in the CL.
posted on 19/10/20
Great article, RR.
Don’t have time to join the discussion this eve, but really enjoyed reading, thanks
posted on 19/10/20
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 3 hours, 4 minutes ago
#OleOut
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 19/10/20
One thing about an article this long, the wums never get to the comments bit.