Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga - Differences?

  • 10-11-2012 1:11pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭


    These are unarguably the top 4 leagues in Europe at the moment in terms of quality.

    We often hear a lot about the differences about each league (e.g. the Premier League is faster/more physical, La Liga is technically superior with teams liking to keep the ball on the ground, Serie A is defensive and tactical, Bundesliga is exciting with lots of goals etc...) but I would be interested in hearing from posters to what extent they think these leagues differ?

    Are the ideas that we have about each league generally true or are they often just lazy stereotypes?


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,581 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    To be honest, I find that each of these leagues has teams that suit each of those tags, what seems to define the public view of each league is how the top 4 or 5 teams play.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,950 ✭✭✭Pinturicchio


    The idea that Serie A is defensive is completely out of date. Anyone who's seen Roma, Napoli, Inter or Lazio recently wouldn't call it defensive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    The idea that Serie A is defensive is completely out of date. Anyone who's seen Roma, Napoli, Inter or Lazio recently wouldn't call it defensive.

    Overall though is it not a bit more defensive, despite containing some attacking teams? Considering they consistently have the lowest goal per game average of the top leagues?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,558 ✭✭✭✭dreamers75


    Money is the difference as it buys better players.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭MD1990


    The idea that Serie A is defensive is completely out of date. Anyone who's seen Roma, Napoli, Inter or Lazio recently wouldn't call it defensive.
    Juve too are very attacking


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,740 ✭✭✭✭MD1990


    ive noticed in the last few years
    that La Liga is played at a much higher pace than it used to be


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    Was at a midtable 2. Bundesliga game a couple of years ago, 1860 v VfL Osnabruck, finished 3-2. Cracking physical game, referee letting a lot of challenges go including a clear elbow in the run up to the winning goal.

    Which would be against the 1980s players turned pundits old cliche about European refereeing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    I started this thread because it's something I've been looking at lately and I wanted to see what the general impressions on here were.

    I've started looking at some of the stats from the last full league season in detail, and the first response from CSF here is pretty spot-on.

    This is a pretty long read so if it's a bit TLDR for you maybe just have a look at the conclusions part at the end. For the stats nerds amongst you it might be interesting.

    The very short version is that there's no great differences between the leagues and that the Premier League is the league with most short passes.

    My first venture into this type of writing so go easy :pac:

    EDIT: I've had to put this up in 3 separate posts
    Analysing Europe's Top 4 Leagues - Passing

    “There's something very entertaining about the speed of the Premier League, but it doesn't compare with the technical brilliance of La Liga [...] La Liga's pass and move football's better than the Premier League's blood and thunder approach. It's more cultured, clever and creative; it's the way football was always meant to be played.”

    - Top Rated Answer to the question 'Which is the better way to play football: La Liga style or EPL style?' on Yahoo Answer, March 2012


    These articles attempts to examine the extent to which the four top European Leagues (the English Premier League, Spain's La Liga, the Italian Serie A and the German Bundesliga) differ, using statistics from the most recent league season (the 2011/2012 Season). Analysis will focus predominantly on the Premier League and La Liga.

    The question (and answer) quoted above about 'which is the better way to play football' defines the styles of the EPL and La Liga as distinct from one another, and is an example of the general assumption that each league has its own way of playing, its own footballing identity unique to that country's league.

    Stereotypes and Expectations

    A quick google search of 'style of play' preceded by each of the four countries, reveals the styles that are most commonly attributed to each league. For La Liga, the first result is a wikipedia article on Tiki-Taka, for England a wiki article on Long Ball, for Italy a wiki article on Catenaccio. There is no single playing style stereotypically associated with German football, but the word 'efficient' seems to be frequently used on discussion forums and question and answer websites, and of the three it is probably most associated with the perceived direct and fast-paced style of English football. These tags more or less sum up the type of football usually deemed typical of each nation's league by fans and even by TV pundits:

    Premier League: very fast-paced, open, direct passing, 'blood and thunder' approach, with more emphasis on the physical than the technical or tactical.

    La Liga: creativity, short passes, technical brilliance, more 'cultured', a strong emphasis on the technical over the physical.

    Serie A: defensive, cautious, slow-paced, tight, counter-attacks, an emphasis on the tactical.

    Bundesliga: fast-paced, high-scoring games, similar to the Premier League but perhaps less extreme (in other words slightly less physical and more technical).

    If the stereotypes are to believed, the four leagues are quite different and distinct in their styles, and one would expect these differences to be reflected in the statistics from each league. In particular a notable difference between the English and Spanish leagues would be expected, with the supposed 'blood and thunder' directness of the Premier League contrasting with the 'cultured' passing of La Liga. In this article I will use the statistics from the 2011/2012 season to attempt to answer the following questions:

    - Are there major statistical differences between the four leagues? If so, what are they and what do they tell us about the overall playing style in each league?

    - To what extent are the stereotypes associated with each league's playing style true?

    We'll start by examining the statistical variable which I believe to be most indicative of playing style – Passing Stats.


    Tiki-Taka and Hoof-Ball: Barcelona and Stoke as Opposing Models of Passing Style


    When we talk about differences in playing style, usually the first thing that comes to mind is the way in which a team passes the ball. This is logical – the most noticable difference between the way teams play is in the way they use the ball when in possession. When we hear terms like 'tiki-taka', 'possession football' or 'cultured' to describe La Liga, or 'Long-Ball', 'Direct' or even (to some extent) 'physical' to describe the Premier League, it is the passing style that is being referred to. Anyone who follows these leagues knows that Barcelona (Tiki-Taka) and Stoke City (Long Ball, or what is commonly derogatorily referred to as 'Hoof-Ball') epitomise these two approaches; Barcelona play a lot of short passes to retain possession and dominate the ball, while Stoke tend to 'hoof' the ball long and play a lot of crosses, hoping to use their physical superiority and aerial power to full effect.

    We don't need statistics to tell us that Barcelona and Stoke are worlds apart in terms of style. However, by analysing the passing of the two teams we can statistically verify that these differences are reflected in the way each team passes the ball, and also discover what proportions of certain types of passes make up the typical composition of tiki-taka and long-ball approaches. In other words, these two extreme examples of each style can serve as blueprints of each style, which we can later use to compare the average passing statistics of each league.

    The stats register all attempted passes, thus both completed and uncompleted passes are registered. The passes are broken down into four categories:

    - Short Passes, Long Passes, Crosses, and Through Balls.


    Below are pie-chart representations of both teams' passing stats, with percentages.

    228389.png

    228390.png

    We can see that even a long-ball team will still play more short passes than long – this makes practical sense and should come as no surprise. However it is clear from looking at the pie-chart representation that the obvious difference in playing styles is significantly reflected in the teams passing stats; as expected Barcelona play more short passes and through balls than Stoke and Stoke play more long balls and crosses. Stoke play roughly 3 times more long balls and crosses, while Barcelona play an incredibly high 13 through-balls per game on average, compared to Stoke's 1 per game. The difference in the quantity of short passes between the two teams is not fully visible in this proportional representation, but on average Barca play 436 more short passes a game than Stoke – close to 3 times as many.

    These passing stats, then, can be seen to be representative of the contrasting styles of each team. However perhaps they don't fully represent the extent of the differences, as many of Barca's long passes might be raking lateral passes designed to switch the play, which don't really constitute a 'long ball' game. Likewise Stoke might clear a lot of balls long instead of taking the ball in to pass – this won't be registered as a long pass but still constitutes part of their 'no-nonsense' defensive play. There is another stat which may further reflect the differences in playing style between Tiki-Taka and Long Ball – Aerial Duels Contested.

    It stands to reason that a team playing a lot of long balls up the field (whether they be picked-out passes or just hoofed clearances) will contest a lot of aeriel duels. Here we can perhaps further distinguish between the two sides, as we would expect Stoke to contest a far higher amount of aerial duels in their matches. Below we can see that Stoke contest more than double the amount of aerial duels than Barcelona.

    228391.png

    Thus the amount of Aerial Duels contested in a league over the course of a season can serve as an indication of that league's playing style, and we should be expecting to see the most amount of aerial duels in the Premier League.

    One might reasonably argue that these differences in passing stats is more reflective of quality rather than style, considering that Stoke are typically a low-to-mid-table club with a modest budget while Barcelona are arguably the best team in Europe with a squad littered with top quality players. To counter this claim I will add the passing style of a team comparable in quality and stature to Stoke, a team which finished with just 2 points more than Stoke last year, but who attempted to adopt the 'tiki-taka' style usually associated with Spanish football – Swansea City.

    228392.png

    Swansea's manager last season, Brendan Rodgers, has openly stated his admiration for the Spanish 'tiki-taka' style and attempted to implement a version of the possession-based football at the Welsh club. Looking at the pie-chart for passing, we can see that their passing statistics are much more similar to Barcelona's than Stoke's. If Swansea were indeed trying to emmulate Barcelona's passing style, the statistics would show they did a pretty decent job. The main difference would be their relatively high proportion of long balls (11.1%) compared to the 'ideal' Barcelona model (just 7.3%), as well as a relatively low percentage of through balls compared to the Catalan pass-masters. These differences can be explained by the gulf in class between the two teams, as it is generally accepted that playing an exceptionally large proportion of short passes is more difficult and requires a higher degree of composure and technical ability than playing it long, and that playing a high quantity of through balls requires the type of excellent vision and execution (as well as intelligent movement off the ball) that only top class midfielders and forwards possess. Barcelona played by far the most amount of through balls last season throughout Europe (13 per game), while other teams which played a high quantity of through balls were Arsenal, Manchester City, Juventus (all 8 per game), Real Madrid, Napoli and AC Milan (7 per game), confirming the hypothesis that attempting a lot of through balls requires a very high level of passing quality and movement usually only possessed by top clubs.

    Despite these shortfalls, overall Swansea's passing stats, when compared to a team of similar quality (Stoke) and similar style (Barcelona), suggest that while a team's passing statistics can be influenced by the teams quality, they are much more indicative of playing style. Looking at Swansea's Aerial Duels per Game figure reinforces this contention – their 14.9 contested aerials per game is far closer to Barca's low number (11.6) than Stoke's high number (26.1).

    In other words, as we would might have expected, a team's passing statistics and aerial duels contested are representative of that team's playing style.

    Extending this conclusion to say that a league's passing statistics are representative of that league's prevailing style, we can examine the passing statistics across the four leagues in order to see whether they live up to their expectations and stereotypes.

    Of course, it has to be noted that the above examples are extreme examples, and thus we should not expect to see such extreme differences between each league as we do between Stoke and Barcelona; there are teams that play a mix of styles that can not be as rigidly defined as Stoke, Barcelona and Swansea can, and the differing styles of different teams within the same league should level out the statistical representation somewhat.

    However, if the stereotypes are to be believed and there is indeed a prevailing influence of certain styles in each league, then we would expect to note at least a modest difference between the passing stats, and in particular more long passes in the Premiership, and more short passes in La Liga.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    The Results

    At a glance, looking at the pie-charts, we can see that the passing styles amongst the four leagues are very similar, with all leagues playing in and around 80% of their passes short and about 14% long. Crosses make up between 4 and 5% of total passes, while throughballs are around 1% or less.

    228397.png

    228398.png

    228399.png

    228400.png

    As we can see from looking at all four charts side by side, the passing styles are not as distinct as the stereotypes would have us believe and there is little significant difference between each league.

    In particular, one might have expected the blue Short Passes piece of the La Liga pie to be larger than the corresponding blue sections of the other pies. Likewise, if we are to believe that 'hoofball' and direct passing still predominate in the Premier League, we might have expected the Long Pass section of its pie to stand out from its European counterparts.

    This does not appear to be the case and the much recycled lines about the 'culture' of La Liga and the 'hustle and bustle' of the Premier League appear to have little substance, at least as much as passing is concerned, and passing styles in general appear to be largely homogenous throughout all the leagues.

    However, a quick glance is perhaps not enough, and we should look closer at the actual figures before drawing any definitive conclusions.

    Short Passes: It is perhaps surprisingly the English Premier League which plays the highest proportion of Short Passes (82.4%). An average of 23 more short passes a game are played in England compared to the continental leagues. These statistics show that, despite a few teams still adhereing to the long-ball style, the league as a whole more closely resembles Swansea's short passing model rather than Stoke's long-ball style.

    Long Passes: With 15.3% of their passes going long the German Bundesliga play the most long-passes, meaning it can perhaps be classified as the most direct league. However, the differences across the leagues are not very substantial. It's interesting to note that again the general perception of the difference between La Liga and the Premier League is reversed, with more long passes being played in Spain (13.5%) than in England (12.4%).

    Crosses: The highest proportion of crosses take place in Italy's Serie A, but again the differences across the leagues are minimal.

    Through Balls: This category takes up such a minimal slice of the pie in each league that one might be forgiven for dismissing its statistical importance. It is here, however that we perhaps see the biggest difference between each league's passing stats. As mentioned earlier, playing a through ball (defined as a 'defence-splitting pass') is a difficult skill to accomplish, so will not be attempted frequently, and will usually only be attempted at the end of some build up play consisting of other types of passes, hence it's small proportional reflection here. Even the through-ball masters Barcelona play less than 2% of their passes as through balls. As they make up such a small percentage, the differences between the leagues are difficult to guage proportionally and would be best looked at by the average per-game amount of through balls played in each league last season.

    228401.png

    Serie A sees the most amount of through balls, with Bundesliga playing the least. If attempting a defence-splitting pass is an indication of a high level of passing ability, intelligent movement and creativity, then it is perhaps here that finally we see some indication of La Liga's supposed superior passing 'culture' compared to the Premier League – roughly 3 more through balls are played a match. However, despite containing the team with by far the highest quantity of through balls, La Liga still falls short of Serie A's 10.1 through balls per game, suggesting that the most creative passing takes place in Italy.

    A little more to follow...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    When we looked at the difference between the stats represented by a typical long-ball team and a tiki-taka team, we noted that, as logic would dictate, long-ball teams contest far more aerial duels than teams that play short passes. So it is worth looking at this stat to further illustrate the passing style of the four big leagues.

    228403.png

    Again we see that the stereotypes don't hold up – in fact they are reversed. La Liga contest the most amount of aerial duels with an average of 25 per game (suggesting the ball spends a lot of time in the air) while the Premier League has nearly 4 less again, meaning it is the league in which the ball perhaps spends most time on the ground. An even more startling representation of aerial duels which shows just how wrong the stereotypes are, and the folly of basing them on just one or two teams, is when we look at Stoke City in comparision to 9 (!) Spanish clubs which contested more aerial duels last season.

    228404.png


    As we can see from statistics, almost half of the supposedly 'cultured' La Liga teams contest more aerial duels than the oft referred to 'cavemen' of Stoke. I have added in the low tallies of Real Madrid and Barcelona as an indication of a possible source for the misguided beliefs about the passing style in La Liga – as much of our viewing of La Liga is restricted to these two teams, our opinion of the league as a whole is formed by these teams.
    Conclusions

    There are some small differences in the passing style of the four major leagues, but they do not contrast as strongly as stereotypes often suggest. The variance in the quality and style of each team within each league levels out the passing statistics so that overall it is not possible to ascribe a certain passing style with a particular league – the idea of a league having a particular passing style is a myth.

    If we take passing stats as a strong indicator of overall playing style, then we can perhaps suggest that it is also false that there are significant differences between each league's overall playing approach and philosophy. Teams vary (often due to the variance in quality) – leagues as a whole don't (at least not to any great extent).

    If we do look at the small differences the stereotypes are negated even further. The idea that the English style is predominantly long-ball is redundant and ill-informed. If we assume that a high proportion of short passes and a low amount of aerial duels is representative of a short passing style then it is the Premier League which plays the 'purest' football. Likewise the belief that there is an overriding tiki-taka approach taken in Spain and that La Liga sees 'purer' or more 'cultured' football is a myth – Barcelona are the exception not the rule.

    There could be several reasons for the perpetuation of these false beliefs. Like any false stereotype, laziness is a big factor. Fans and pundits alike repeat what they have heard and don't bother to challenge it by looking at the facts. It's easier to accept these general truths, especially when 'experts' regurgetate these same ideas, giving them further credence.

    People like to compartmentalise, so it's natural that tags such as 'cultured' and 'blood and thunder' will stick to certain leagues, as it becomes easier for the fan or pundit to understand a whole league without resorting to watching 15 hours of football every week – and this takes me to my next more concrete explanation.

    If you were to truly understand the style of each of the entire 4 leagues (and not just a few select teams in it) you would have to watch 57 hours of domestic football every week. Clearly nobody has the time to do this. In fact most would find it difficult to fit more than 3 or 4 games into their weekly schedule, and many more would watch even less. How can one expect to describe a style of a league of which they are only seeing 30% or less of the matches? Highlight shows will help to a small extent but it is impossible to draw many detailed conclusions from highlights alone.

    How many people watch Osasuna take on Mallorca in La Liga? If they did they would likely see a huge amount of long balls being played and many aerial battles. Yet these teams are ignored when we label the league as predominantly a short passing league and only Barcelona and Real Madrid (and perhaps to a lesser extent other Champions League regulars such as Valencia) are considered.

    Another possible reason is a knock-on effect from national teams. The Spanish national team have been the pioneers of tiki-taka alongside Barcelona and they tend to dominate the ball in every game – in Euro 2012 they averaged a very high 65.2% possession and played 88.4% of their passes short. England, on the other hand, have often conformed to their 'long-ball' stereotype. Their failures in recent tournaments have often been attributed to a lack of a ball-playing midfielder who can dominate possession. At the moment their manager is Roy Hodgson, an advocate of a direct playing style – in Euro 2012 they had one of the lowest possession stats with an average of just 39.8% possession. Italy's national team have historically based their success on a solid defence and have produced arguably the greatest defenders in the world over the last few generations. Their last international success at the 2006 World Cup was predominantly based on a very solid backline. This is a possible source for the idea that Serie A is a defensive and tactical league (but we will come to this in a later article).

    So while the national teams might conform somewhat to the expectations, the domestic leagues (at least in terms of passing style) don't. This is no surprise given the high quantity of foreign players (and in the case of the Premier League, foreign managers) in each league.

    Of course when we talk about differences in each league, there is more than just passing to discuss. In the next article I will look at other stats across the four leagues to further determine the extent of their differences and what these differences consist of.

    However, I believe passing statistics are probably the strongest indicators of differences in style, and the results from the 2011/12 season show that many of the typical beliefs about these differences are false.


    All statistics are taken (or have been calculated) from WhoScored.com (which uses Opta stats) and have been rounded to one decimal point.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    Where are those short passes taking place? 20 yards out with intricate play qamongst the attackers or 25 yards from their own goalline from full back to centre half.

    Aerial duels, are they from crosses or punts up the pitch or both, what's the accuracy of the long balls, are they desperate hacked clearances to nobody or are they long range passes to spread the play..


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    Great work on the article Morzadec. I like your logical style and how you lay out and defend your method before comparing and concluding. And your writing is clear.

    While I don't agree that those factors alone prove the case, it is the type and quality of writing that could get you noticed imo. If you stick that in a blog and submit it to a few news websites maybe you could get some attention.

    One thing I would say, if you are going to investigate the numbers in that depth then you really need to look at the statistical significance. It's something that is never done in football journalism, and so something you could get away without doing, but is definitely needed if you want to draw conclusions from that broad a range of data.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    dfx- wrote: »
    Where are those short passes taking place? 20 yards out with intricate play qamongst the attackers or 25 yards from their own goalline from full back to centre half.

    Aerial duels, are they from crosses or punts up the pitch or both, what's the accuracy of the long balls, are they desperate hacked clearances to nobody or are they long range passes to spread the play..

    The passes are all attempted passes anywhere on the pitch. Unfortunately I don't have access to any stats that register them by thirds of the pitch or whatever, so a pass back to the keeper will count as the same as a pass in the final third. I accept that these stats aren't perfect or 100% definitive of passing style, but I do think they are pretty significant (as shown by the Barca, Stoke, Swansea models). Obviously Swansea don't appear like Barca when you watch them, but their approach/philosophy is the same and this is shown in the pass stats and aerials.

    It would be interesting to see an analysis of passes by thirds of the pitch though - I imagine we'd see a similar 'evening-out' effect, where the variance in dominance/quality of teams in each league would make things relatively similar across the 4 leagues.


    The accuracy of the Long Passes is irrelevant - as is stated in the article it is all attempted passes.

    Aerial Duels is any Aerial Duel - from Crosses, clearances, aimless punts, or attempted long passes - any ball contested in the air.

    This was the reason I added in the Aerial stats - because Long Passes wouldn't register things like clearances and hacks up the pitch when under pressure, which is usually part of a direct/long-ball style. While not all of these will be contested by an aerial, a lot will. Aerials give us a better understanding of this, and is also useful because a Stoke Long Pass is more likely to be contested by an aerial than a Barca Long Pass (a lot of Barca Long Balls possibly being picked out, precise crossfield passes which aren't very representative of Long-Ball style).

    Pro. F wrote: »
    Great work on the article Morzadec. I like your logical style and how you lay out and defend your method before comparing and concluding. And your writing is clear.

    While I don't agree that those factors alone prove the case, it is the type and quality of writing that could get you noticed imo. If you stick that in a blog and submit it to a few news websites maybe you could get some attention.

    One thing I would say, if you are going to investigate the numbers in that depth then you really need to look at the statistical significance. It's something that is never done in football journalism, and so something you could get away without doing, but is definitely needed if you want to draw conclusions from that broad a range of data.

    Thanks Pro F.

    I agree that there's a lot more to it than just looking at Passing Stats and Aerial duels. There's more to style than just this, and I'm hoping to study some more stats to look how the leagues might differ in other ways.

    But I do think that Passing is probably number 1 on the list when we talk about style. The quote I put up at the start (or something similar) is said a lot by fans and pundits, and while a lot of us might know it's wrong and lazy, the intention was to see if it was true or not.

    I know that stats aren't the perfect, definitive way to measure playing style - but I think they give strong indication, especially when they record nearly 1500 matches over a season compared to the 50 - 150 that most fans or pundits would watch.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭EdenHazard


    Problem is man you'll get people who will still wanna perpetuate the myth of what they have become so used to. The stats tell it all really.
    Its simple like you mentioned most people just use the top teams and national teams as the yardstick for style of play.
    Its like Bilbao, people say that Messi never came up against a team like Stoke, even though Bilbao(used to at least) just kick people around on the pitch.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Pro. F wrote: »
    Great work on the article Morzadec. I like your logical style and how you lay out and defend your method before comparing and concluding. And your writing is clear.

    While I don't agree that those factors alone prove the case, it is the type and quality of writing that could get you noticed imo. If you stick that in a blog and submit it to a few news websites maybe you could get some attention.

    One thing I would say, if you are going to investigate the numbers in that depth then you really need to look at the statistical significance. It's something that is never done in football journalism, and so something you could get away without doing, but is definitely needed if you want to draw conclusions from that broad a range of data.


    Here here. Some fantastic stuff from Morz, and agree with it all or not I found it a great read.


    For me I think the base stats between the four big leagues (and also those of the leagues on the tier below) will always be similar in terms of % simply because of the obvious fact that it is the same sport being played and it really cannot be taken too far from it's basics.

    A short pass is easier to complete than a long one and is more likely to find it's target so it will always be in the 75% to 85% range and so on.

    Where I do think the differences can be noticed is in technical ability and tempo, but those are harder to quantify using basic stats.

    Also where the passing takes place would be an interesting stat for each league as dfx suggested. As in which third of the pitch did the bulk of the short passes occur for each league etc. Would each league see the same third get the highest % I wonder.

    Also whilst the % may be similar for short passes, long passes etc, the number of passes made in each league could paint a different picture.

    One league may see 300,000 short passes making up it's 80% whereas another league may have 750,000 short passes making up it's 80%. This sort of bulk figure might actually be a way to slightly quantify technical ability and the like. The bulk pass figures may also be a way to somewhat guage the tempo of games as a league that averaged twice as many passes in the same time frame would have to be having quicker paced games.

    I think if we wanted to we could pick a club from each league that would easily fit the stereotypes of the other leagues, so it is by digging deeper into the base stats that we might find proper differences.


    For my money if we are talking about leagues, I think that all have very distinct qualities for the viewer despite the base stats being so similar.

    The Italian league for example does have a very different tempo in general to the Bundesliga and build up play seems to be at 3/4 the speed of that in Germany.

    La Liga for me, outside of the top two clubs, is very similar in terms of tempo to Serie A but I think it is more physical.

    The Premiership is very similar in tempo to the Bundesliga but seems to be tactically behind the Bundeliga.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,424 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    @Morzadec.

    Top stuff there with those artticles.

    Top stuff and interesting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    Cheers lads!

    Kess re: the volume of short passes (or of all passes in general) I looked at this originally and I seem to remember there being no major differences. They were quite similar throughout the leagues, with maybe a couple of dozen more per game in the Premiership compared to the other leagues (maybe can be explained by the fact fewer free kicks given in the EPL so the game is allowed to flow more).

    Unfortunately my internet is down at the moment and I'm writing this from an internet cafe so I can't check the figures, but from what I remember the numbers in volume were all very similar.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,672 ✭✭✭elefant


    For me, the major noticeable difference ingameplay between the BPL and the Liga BBVA seems to be caused by the differing harshness of the refereeing. The referees in Spain hand out cards for fun, resulting in a lot of the games I see in La Liga becoming quite bad tempered and riddled with complaining and diving.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    What constitutes a 'short' and 'long' pass?

    Is any pass that's not a 'short pass', a 'long pass'?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    Morzadec wrote: »
    The accuracy of the Long Passes is irrelevant - as is stated in the article it is all attempted passes.

    So a Charlie Adam style attempted long pass into Row H, 20 yards from his nearest teammate and loss of possession is treated the same as a ball in behind for a striker to run onto to create a counter attack and which involves no aerial duel?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,849 ✭✭✭764dak


    dfx- wrote: »
    So a Charlie Adam style attempted long pass into Row H, 20 yards from his nearest teammate and loss of possession is treated the same as a ball in behind for a striker to run onto to create a counter attack and which involves no aerial duel?

    It doesn't matter. It's about style of play.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,558 ✭✭✭✭dreamers75


    What constitutes a 'short' and 'long' pass?

    Is any pass that's not a 'short pass', a 'long pass'?

    X and Triangle.

    FFS do we know anything on here!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    764dak wrote: »
    It doesn't matter. It's about style of play.

    No. He's illuminating the flaws in the statistics.

    If statistics can be shown to support the statement that Barca play a similar game to many teams in the English Premier League, then the criteria that those facts are based on are at best insufficient, and at worst completely unrelated to reality.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    dreamers75 wrote: »
    X and Triangle.

    FFS do we know anything on here!

    I suppose that's what I get for asking serious questions...

    THE PEOPLE NEED ANSWERS


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,076 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    One of the greatest untruths touted about a football league is that Serie A is boring.

    Yet so many accept it, although admittedly mostly brainwashed British football fans.

    My brother follows Serie A and I often had occasion to watch plenty of live games as he paid for Sky Italia, and many of the games in the last decade are very open and a lot of teams play very fast, attacking football.

    In fact I often would have watched a lot of the 'big' ties in the league, the likes of Juve v Inter, Juve v Milan, the Milan derby, Juve v Fiorentina, Roma v Milan etc, and most were very entertaining, especially compared to the equivalent games in the EPL.

    Admittedly many of the teams still put a lot of emphasis on defending but they balance this with plenty of exciting midfielders and forwards.

    But the mud seems to have stuck re: Serie A.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,849 ✭✭✭764dak


    No. He's illuminating the flaws in the statistics.

    If statistics can be shown to support the statement that Barca play a similar game to many teams in the English Premier League, then the criteria that those facts are based on are at best insufficient, and at worst completely unrelated to reality.

    Well, it's only about the frequency of different passes. It doesn't take into account who the passes are made to and other factors such as off the ball movement, positioning, pressing, marking, dribbling, shooting distances etc.

    It's just breaks the myth that English football is about long balls. Plus, he did say that Barca is an exception and not the rule in Spain. Barca has half the crosses and almost half the long balls as the average Premier League team.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    No. He's illuminating the flaws in the statistics.

    If statistics can be shown to support the statement that Barca play a similar game to many teams in the English Premier League, then the criteria that those facts are based on are at best insufficient, and at worst completely unrelated to reality.

    I don't know how you drew that conclusion - there is nothing in my argument or in the statistics I used that suggest that.

    I understand the skepticism about the stats - they are broad brush strokes and lump some different passes into the same category. However, I don't accept that they are not in some way significant or revelatory.

    If we accept the shared assumption that Stoke City and Barcelona play very different passing styles and that these styles are what are typically known as Long-Ball and Tiki-Taka (if you don't accept this, well then that's another matter as my premise is based on this assumption), then the pie-chart representations prove that these differences are statistically visible. In other words, it's not just subjective that they play different - it's represented in the stats.

    This means that we don't actually have to watch a team in detail (or to extend this, a league in detail) to make certain claims about their passing styles.

    For example, I've never seen Serie A strugglers Siena or Palermo play, but I can tell you right now from looking at their stats that Siena are a long-ball side while Palermo try to play it short.

    What I wanted to do was apply this model on a wider scale to entire leagues to test if other assumptions were true (i.e. La Liga is a Tiki-Taka League, EPL is a long-ball league, the passing style amongst the 4 leagues are very distinct).

    I think the figures prove at the very least that these assumptions are wrong.

    If you think the stats are not representative of a teams playing style, here's another example from this season. Arsenal and West Ham: - a team known for short passing and a team (or maybe more correctly, a manager) known for long balls.

    I've picked these 2 on my own subjective knowledge of play and I don't know their passing stats, but I have a feeling I know more or less what the results will be:

    Arsenal

    Short: 86.2%
    Long: 8.5%
    Cross: 4.3%
    Through Ball: 1%

    West Ham

    Short: 76.5%
    Long: 16.3%
    Cross: 7.2%
    Through Ball: 0%

    More or less as I expected, with no surprises here. Arsenal's stats are those typical of a short passing philosophy, while West Ham's are a long ball team's statistics.

    So these passing stats (slightly crude as they are) reveal a teams' basic passing philosophy. I don't see how this can be refuted.

    Of course, passing stats by thirds of the pitch or breaking the types of passes into further categories (i.e. forward short pass/sideways short pass/backwards short pass etc...) would tell us even more and they would be interesting to have a look at (unfortunately I don't have access to stats at this level of detail).

    However for the purpose I outlined, these stats tell us what we need to know and don't need to be nit-picked too much in my opinion. They successfully show that some of the ideas about the Premier League and La Liga are just plain wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    Morzadec wrote: »
    So these passing stats (slightly crude as they are) reveal a teams' basic passing philosophy. I don't see how this can be refuted.

    You are picking sets of teams at the extreme ends of the spectrum. You have no idea of the margin of error or the statistical significance of your findings. If you want to extrapolate beyond Stoke/Barca and Arsenal/West Ham to conclusions about entire populations then you need to do actual statistical work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,849 ✭✭✭764dak


    What is with the negative stigma towards long balls? What causes it?
    This is a pretty good goal.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    764dak wrote: »

    Very interesting, and would support what I said, albeit looking at it from a different angle. Barcelona (and Spain) the exception not the rule in Spanish football.

    whoscored actually linked to the article I wrote so I'd like to think that Martin Laurence might have got his inspiration for this piece from it!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭mitosis


    764dak wrote: »

    I think the piece shows the leagues are broadly the same at the extremes. Interesting and perhaps surprising is that Serie A is at the top for pass accuracy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    Analysing Europe's Top 4 Leagues – Is Serie A Boring and Defensive?


    'The idea that Serie A is defensive is completely out of date. Anyone who's seen Roma, Napoli, Inter or Lazio recently wouldn't call it defensive.'

    'One of the greatest untruths touted about a football league is that Serie A is boring. But the mud seems to have stuck regarding Serie A'.

    Replies to the thread 'Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga – Differences?' on boards.ie, December 2012.


    Stereotypes


    As mentioned in the previous article and as alluded to in the quotes above, Serie A seems to have gained a reputation as being a 'boring' and defensive league. Articles such as this from bornoffside.net refer to a 'defensive mindset [which] seems to be drilled into the psyche of the players'. When English teams face Serie A opposition in the Champions League, commentators will often warn viewers that the Italians will likely be difficult to break down due to the supposedly unshakeable national trait of prioritising defensiveness solidity at the expense of attacking or fluid football.

    Teams are defensive, emphasis is on tactics, keeping a clean sheet and attempting to score on the counterattack. The Italians brought the style of Catenaccio to football, so it is perhaps natural to assume that this style prevails in their national league's footballing identity.

    However, we have already seen the folly of believing stereotypes about leagues based on only watching a select few teams from a league, believing what 'experts' tell us, confusing the footballing style of a country's national team with that of its league or believing that a league's style does not change or evolve over time. The quotes above, if they are to be believed, would suggest that similar misrepresentations are being made about Serie A – they claim it is now an exciting and attacking league, and the days of Catenaccio are long gone.

    Like in the last article, I will analyse statistics from the Top 4 leagues to ascertain the truth of these assertions about Serie A, while also attempting to draw any interesting conclusions from the other top European leagues in the process.

    But first we must clarify an important term.


    What is 'Boring'?


    What does the term 'boring' mean in football? It might seem a difficult question to answer as the term is subjective. In general, something is not inherently boring. For example, the statement 'The Godfather is a boring film' is not a statement of fact, rather a subjective opinion. We have seen this in football also with the recent debate about Spain's dominant International side – some see their football as fantastic to watch, while others see it as slow, boring, repetitive and unadventurous.

    So how can we possibly measure how statictically 'boring' a league is? How can we prove or disprove the subjective claim that Serie A boring?

    Well, we have to transform 'boring' from a subjective term to an objective, measureable statistic by inferring what the majority of football fans, pundits, writers and commentators mean when they use the term. There is a clue in the other word that is also often dispariginly pinned to Serie A – 'defensive'.

    The bottom line when we talk about excitement and boringness in football is goals. It goes without saying that goals are usually the most exciting moments of a football match. A lot of goals? Exciting football. A nil-nil draw or a one-nil win? Boring. This is the way football is predominantly viewed. 'One-nil to the Arsenal' was sung by Arsenal fans, while opposition fans chanted 'Boring, boring Arsenal'. The last World Cup in 2010 was widely received as a 'boring' World Cup due to its low goals tally of 2.27 goals per game. Chelsea and Liverpool's low-scoring Champions League clashes last decade were frequently labelled 'boring' and groans of despair could be heard across the football world when they were once again drawn against each other in 2009. These are just a few examples of many that reveal the common acceptance that a lack of goals generally means a lack of entertainment.

    I have reservations about equating goals with excitement. For me football is about more than just goals, and at times a nil nil draw can be an incredibly engrossing and interesting match. However, for many this is probably not the case, and it is true that frequently a goalless game can be disappointing for the spectator and that usually the most memorable moments and highlights from a match are the goals. In any case, as we have seen, there are countless examples that suggest that when the term 'boring' is used in football it refers to a lack of goals. A low goal tally could also be seen as an indicator of defensive football, as a greater emphasis on defending by teams throughout a league should typically result in more low-scoring games.

    So to determine whether or not Serie A is a particularly boring and defensive league, we need to examine the amount of goals scored in that league in comparision to the other top leagues across Europe.


    Goals per Game


    Like in the last article, we'll look at the statistics from the last full season, 2011-12, as they contain the most current and relevant complete data. If the stereotypes are true, we should expect a relatively low goals per game tally in Serie A. Here are the results.
    238722.png

    Based on last season, there would seem to be some credibility to the stereotypes about Serie A.
    They have the lowest goal-per-game tally across the four leagues, with the Bundesliga pipping the Premier League and La Liga, which all have significantly higher tallies.

    So based on this evidence, it would be fair to conclude that last season Serie A was the most boring (in the previously outlined interpretation of the word) league amongst the top European leagues. However, the discussion does not end here. The labelling of Serie A as a boring league is not something new – it has been heard throughout the years. While last season is of course the most recent and therefore most relevant data, it is worth looking at an average across recent years to see if these figures represent an ongoing trend, season on season.
    238723.png


    In this ten year representation of goals Serie A, once again, comes out at the bottom of the pile. Their ten-year-average is just .02 goals more than last season's tally suggesting it was typical for Serie A in relation to recent trends. We can also see that the Bundesliga has consistently provided the most 'exciting' football in terms of goals scored, and that last season was nothing new or exceptional.

    What is more interesting is the tallies of La Liga and, in particular, the Premier League. We can see that last seasons tallies were significantly higher than the ten-year average.

    In fact the Premier League and La Liga have experienced a goal explosion recently. The two most recent seasons in the Premier League have been the highest since its inception, and the one previous was also relatively high (2.77 gpg). La Liga has also seen a marked increase in goals in the last four seasons. So then why are their ten-year averages so comparably low?

    The obvious answer is that their have been some comparably low-scoring seasons in this ten year period. The three seasons between 2004 and 2007 in the Premier League saw a combined average of just 2.5 goals – less than Serie A's average tally or their tally last year. La Liga had a similar tally during these three seasons – 2.51. So if Serie A is a boring league, then the Premier League and La Liga were for several seasons too, and have only recently become more entertaining.

    Yet Serie A continued to have its boring reputation during these years (as was stated earlier, this is not a new tag ascribed to Italian football) when it was in fact slightly more 'exciting' than the English and Spanish leagues during these seasons.

    What's more, despite Serie A coming out bottom over the ten year period, the differences between the leagues (high-scoring Bundesliga aside) are relatively trivial – just a .05 difference between Serie A and the Premier League and a further .03 between the Premier League and La Liga.

    So again – if Serie A is boring, the Premier League and La Liga are barely more exciting. In the last decade there appears to be no statistical evidence to support the claim that Serie A, in particular, is exceptionally boring. So where do these claims come from?

    One potential answer is suggested in a quote at the beginning of this article, which describes the idea that Serie A is boring and defensive as 'out of date'. There is a suggestion here that Serie A indeed was a boring league in the past, but has become more exciting in recent years, yet its reputation as boring has continued to pervade – or, in other words, as the other quote states, 'the mud has stuck'.

    Looking at the average goal per game data from past decades should reveal whether this theory is correct.
    238724.png


    We can see a colossal difference in the amount of goals per game in the 70s and 80s compared with the 90s and 2000s. The 1970s and 80s saw the goal per game rate barely exceed two goals – something incredibly rare in football. Indeed, this twenty-year period saw seven seasons drop below the 2 goals-per-game mark. Having looked at data across a range of leagues and years, these years are unparallelled in their consistent scarcity of goals. Serie A during these years was an exceptionally boring league.

    In other words, Serie A now is nothing like it once was, and there seems to be considerable evidence to support the quotee's claim that the ideas about it are out of date – it was vastly more boring in the 70s and 80s than it is now.

    One might argue that just because it was exceptionally boring in the past, that does not exclude it from being at least a bit boring now. However, we have already seen that in recent years Serie A does not stand out from the Premier League and La Liga. To further counter this claim, let's have a look at Serie A's most recent decade alongside other widely watched leagues and competitions.

    In order to see if their total of 2.58 for the last decade stands out as exceptionally low, I have included probably the most prestiguous, widely watched and highest quality competitions (excluding those already examined) alongside Serie A: The World Cup and European Championships (in which, due to their infrequency and to provide a greater representation, I have included tournaments from the last twenty years), the Champions League, the Europa League (due to a lack of easily available data and it's recent change of format I've only included the last 5 seasons) and France's Ligue 1 (which is often included as part of a 'top 5' of Euorpean Leagues, but which I have left out of my detailed analysis due to the fact I think it is significantly weaker than the 'top 4' leagues).
    238725.png


    This table puts an end to the debate about Serie A being a boring and defensive league. It sees more goals than the modern era of the most famous and prestiguous tournament in the world – the World Cup. It also has a significantly higher goal rate than the European Championships. Its goal rate is comparable to Europe's premier club competition and pinnacle of club football, the Champions League. We can see that the real boring league of Europe is France's Ligue 1 which has a far lower goal rate of just 2.29.


    Conclusions


    Taking the word 'boring' to mean a paucity of goals, statistics show that the quotes at the start of this article are accurate in their appraisals – the stereotypes about Serie A being boring and defensive are as false as those that label the Premier League as a predominantly long-ball league.

    The introduction of 3 points for a win in 199 4 marked the end for a defensive style which was already showing signs of being abandoned in the late 80s and early 90s. Since then Serie A has been much the same as La Liga and the Premier League, with most seasons falling into the standard range of between 2.5 and 2.7 goals per game.

    Those who wish to hang on to their dismissive claims towards Italian football will be reassured by the fact that Serie A had a lower goals tally last year compared to the other top leagues, and also the lowest of the four leagues over a ten-year period. However, this is, as has been shown, a limited view of the statistics.

    It would appear that many are confusing today's Serie A with the Serie A of the 70s and 80s. This is very strange considering Italian football was nowhere near as accessible to a foreign audience during this period compared to now. Also many who today spout claims about the league being boring would have been very young or not alive at all in these decades. In short, when Serie A was boring, not many non-Italians were watching it.

    This serves as a possible indicator about where false footballing stereotypes predominantly originate – namely, word of mouth and repetition. We have already discussed the possible varying sources of stereotypes, but the example of Serie A seems to suggest the number one reason is uncomplicated – the stereotypes are just assumed truths, presented as a sort of footballing 'common knowledge', shared and repeated so many times that they are unchallenged and taken for fact. Despite the highly popular Gazetta Football Italia in the 90s and greater access to live matches and highlights through satellite TV and the internet in the last decade (not to mention the fact that recent decades should logically be fresher in the memory) it is somehow the Italian football style of previous decades which has remained at the forefront of the imagination of many when they think about Serie A.

    In other words, it appears these claims are not based on any kind of football-watching at all. However it is worth discussing the other suggested reasons for the perpetuation of footballing stereotypes in relation to Serie A.

    The comments of commentators and 'experts' can be seen as an extension of the previous point – few if any of these pundits watch or even casually follow Serie A, but they need to say something and thus revert to the easy stereotypes about 'tight' defences. These comments certainly perpetuate these false beliefs, as they are coming from supposed experts so can be repeated by fans with a sense of authority attached to them.

    Another explanation could be the categorisation of an entire league based on the biggest and most successful clubs within it. We saw this with La Liga falsely gaining a reputation as a 'tiki-taka' league based predominantly on the example of Barcelona, and something similar might have wrongly influenced some opinions with regards to Serie A. The Champions League is the arena in which most fans watch teams from other countries, so many might have formed opinions (or more likely reaffirmed what they already believed) after the all-Italian final of 2003 which finished goalless after extra-time, taking this as evidence of typically defensive and boring Italian football. Some might also call to mind Fabio Capello's great AC Milan team of 1994 which won both the European Cup and Serie A. Founding their success on an incredibly strong defence, Milan somehow won the league with a paltry 36 goals in 34 matches, and their matches in the league that season averaged out at an unprecedentedly low 1.5 goals per game. The logic for many then might have been along the same lines of what is happening with Barcelona now – as the best and most famous team in their respective countries, they are the best representative of the assumed style in that country. Therefore, those following Serie A in 1994 might have logically (in their minds at least) made the invalid argument that, because Milan are boring, Serie A is too. This would ignore the fact that an average of 2.47 goals-per-game were scored by the other clubs of Serie A that season, not at all a low tally considering 3 points for a win had not yet been introduced.

    A final possible reason for the false beliefs about Serie A was mentioned in the last article – a propensity to confuse the style of the national team with that of its national league. This is possibly at play with England and Spain with regards to passing style, but it is perhaps with Italy that this confusion prevails most strongly. The most successful Italian team of recent times was the 2006 World Cup winning squad, which had an incredibly strong defence. They conceded just 2 goals in 7 games on their way to victory and their games averaged just 2 goals per game. The national team has been seemingly quite defensive in the major tournaments in the modern era (since 1990), with their matches averaging out at 2.03 goals-per-game in their 59 matches (although it should be noted that the dynamics of knock-out matches where avoiding defeat is paramount are very different to league matches where the incentive of 3 points for the win encourages a more risky approach). Add to the fact that, as Fabio Cannavaro states, Italy 'have always been good at defending and shouldn't be ashamed of that', and have historically produced great defenders (Baresi, Maldini, Cannavaro, Nesta to name just a few), it is perhaps understandable that people associate Italy (and by association Serie A) with defending.

    Looking solely at goals-per-game as the one variable to decide such a broad, subjective and difficult concept of what exactly 'boring' means in football may seem limited. The word is often also used in relation to other factors, such as competivity (or a lack of it) and we will look at this in the next article. However, as has been discussed, goals are the essence of what we mean when we use this term. In this sense Serie A is not boring. At the time of writing Serie A seems to be following the previously mentioned 'goal explosion' trend that has recently appeared across top European leagues, notching up a high tally of 2.73 goals-per-game so far this season.

    One could ignore all the goals now flying in in Serie A, stick to their guns and say that they think it's boring and that's their opinion, and it would be difficult to argue with that – however no one who makes such a claim would have watched even a small percentage of the thousands of matches played across Europe in recent years, while statistics capture the data in its entirety. I know who I trust more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    Apart from comments on the article and Serie A, I would be interested if anyone had any theories to explain the 'goal explosion' that we've seen across the top leagues in the last few years.

    Can anyone think of any possible reasons why we're seeing a significant upswing in goals (it's continuing this season too by the way)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭mitosis


    Morzadec wrote: »
    Apart from comments on the article and Serie A, I would be interested if anyone had any theories to explain the 'goal explosion' that we've seen across the top leagues in the last few years.

    Can anyone think of any possible reasons why we're seeing a significant upswing in goals (it's continuing this season too by the way)?



    1 Changes in the rules: Backpass, tackling and offside.

    2 Using a beachball

    I'll be back if I think of more


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ahnowbrowncow


    There is a bigger gap between the top teams and the lower teams in the league which result in high scoring, one sided results.

    More money to spend which then results in buying in higher quality attacking players like suarez and aguero???

    I'd be interested to see how the percentage of foreign players in the english league has changed in the last 10/20 years and if that has any impact on the amount of goals scored.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,952 ✭✭✭Morzadec


    There is a bigger gap between the top teams and the lower teams in the league which result in high scoring, one sided results.

    More money to spend which then results in buying in higher quality attacking players like suarez and aguero???

    I'd be interested to see how the percentage of foreign players in the english league has changed in the last 10/20 years and if that has any impact on the amount of goals scored.

    Yeah but there's been big money and foreigners in the Premier League for a while now. And the league had some of it's lowest scoring years when Ronaldo was at United. It was the year he left that the goals started increasing.

    And not just in the EPL, but in Spain too. Both leagues seemed to have a period of a few seasons where few goals were scored, and then have both jumped into life the last few seasons.

    In La Liga it's true that Madrid and Barca have really pulled away and have been scoring a lot of goals, but I'm not sure if the same can be said in England. A lot of the really high points totals achieved by champions were in years when the league was low-scoring.

    I'm hoping to look at competitiveness in the leagues next, so it might be possible to see if there's any correlation there.

    EDIT: To be clear the increase in goals I'm talking about refers to the last 5 seasons in La Liga and the last 4 in the EPL (both including the current unfinished season). Serie A this season appears to be following the trend also


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,990 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Some great reading there but some of it just shows how stats paint a false picture.

    From my experience, La Liga is the passing league and an awful lot of goals in it are great goals where there are many passes involved before a goal, Bundesliga is the attacking league where is seems defense is not as much of a priority, Premier League is probably the best balanced tactically where teams don't give away easy goals but do attack and there is fair enough balance between well worked goals and ones scored through pace.

    I watch as much La Liga as I do Premier League, only get to see about two to three games a week from the Bundesliga.

    There are certainly phases where things change. Generally they happen when a team surprises and is successful over a whole season. This season because of what happened last year at Swansea you see a lot more passing in the Premier League. Manchester United have changed their approach this season too and I am always thinking that Alex Ferguson looked at Holloway with Blackpool and then Lambert with Norwich and has put some of that into his own tactics and what we've seen this season from United is a more carefree, aggressive attacking philosophy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ahnowbrowncow


    Just to say these stats and the analysis makes for a very interesting read so keep it up Morzadec.


Advertisement