Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yellow hammer

Fewer Players the Key to Success

Recommended Posts

Fewer players ''secret to World Cup success''

The secret to success in next year’s Football World Cup could have been uncovered by academics.

New research shows that managers who field the fewest players during a campaign go on to win the most trophies.

By contrast, those who tinker too often with their selection cut their chances of victory.

The findings could be a warning to advocates of the squad rotation system, such as Rafael Benítez, the Liverpool manager.

But researchers claim that the formula could also be the key to success in South Africa next summer.

The research analysed every top flight football season for the last 40 years.

The findings show that teams like Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea have all won titles after fielding fewer players than anyone else in the league.

On average the top teams used their preferred 11 up to 50 per cent often more than teams that finished bottom of the table.

Prof Alan Nevill, from the University of Wolverhampton, who led the study, said: "What we found is that the teams that made the least changes in a season were the most successful.

"There''s almost a linear relationship – the team that made the fewest changes to their first 11 often won the league.

"This applies for every team since the 60s – from the old First Division to the Premiership.

"The squad rotation system is only really a product of the last 10 years but if we''re going on our evidence it''s not the best way to guarantee success,” he added.

Forty years ago it was not uncommon for players to start every game in a season for their club.

Despite the changes in the game in recent years, Prof Nevill said that the relationship between line-up and success still held.

"People say that teams play more games now so changes need to be made more often – but we found that this isn''t really the case,” he said.

"The top league has been reduced in size and players aren''t actually playing that many more games then they did twenty years or so ago."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/6591020/Fewer-players-secret-to-World-Cup-success.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The squad rotation system is only really a product of the last 10 years but if we''re going on our evidence it''s not the best way to guarantee success,”

True - in the league, or whichever specific trophy you win - the rotation policy is a means not to win a single specific trophy, but several - it reduces the chances of winning just a specific one, tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting.a settled side has not been a common feature over the years here has it ?.A prime example of this is how Maradonna constant tinkered with the Argentine side during world cup qualifcation.The Argies only just scrapped through to South Africa despite all their wealth of talent.Brian Hamilton was the biggset tinkerer of all,god he was a crap manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"People say that teams play more games now so changes need to be made more often – but we found that this isn''t really the case,”

Yes - because of rotation. Because there are more games, rotation is needed, otherwise they would be playing more...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is utter dross.

The bloke says that they have researched 40 years when 10 are relevant and then says that players are playing more games now than 20 years ago, just not that many more...???

So is it 10 or 20 or 40?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it less about rotation and more about the lack of injuries?  With rotation and few injries managers can still send out a team that they want.  

We have suffered in the last couple of seasons particularly at centre back which means an understanding is not built up and the that stability is missed.

But it is one of those reports that states the bleeding obvious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]

This is utter dross.

The bloke says that they have researched 40 years when 10 are relevant and then says that players are playing more games now than 20 years ago, just not that many more...???

So is it 10 or 20 or 40?

 

[/quote]

It''s not dross, it''s quite simple to understand really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And taken to its logical conclusion does that mean a squad of 17 is optimum???

What the a tilting point of when a squad beomes too small?  To me its common sense that the optimum squad size is proportional to number of games expected to be played during a season.   And as squad rotation is applied does it become more important that the quality of player is more consistent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no doubt a ridiculous amount of money was spent to tell us something we all know.  Jeeeeez, what a job!  Can I be a researcher a Wolerverhamperton Uni pleeeeeeease.  I could do a survey to show that the team in Cricket who scores the most runs is more likely to win the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, in the true tradition of total academic tosh (which this is) the dear old Professor goes on to tell us exactly why his conclusions are meaningless.

 

England’s hopes of lifting the World Cup next summer rest on Fabio Capello picking a consistent and unchanged side, according to new research by University of Wolverhampton academics.

Fresh from fielding a virtual second string XI in the weekend’s defeat to Brazil, many pundits and fans were left wondering if England has the squad to triumph in South Africa.

But Professor Alan Nevill, of the University of Wolverhampton’s School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure, has revealed that the key to success lies in picking an unchanged side – something that Capello was unable to do in the 1-0 defeat in Dohar.

His new research shows that the most successful teams over the past 40 years have been those where managers have made the fewest changes during a season.

Yet despite this, it is getting increasingly more difficult for managers to pick unchanged sides, with England and Chelsea star Frank Lampard one of the few top flight players to have represented their club in all games throughout an entire season (2005-2006).

Professor Nevill said the main reason why managers no longer picked the same side – despite proof that it is the most successful strategy – was most likely to be the increasing demands of the modern game.

“There are a number of explanations why managers no longer pick the same teams,” he said.

“The most likely one is that the demands of the modern game and increase in tempo mean it is becoming physically more demanding with much greater risks of injury.”

Other factors include an increase in the number of red and yellow cards leading to player suspensions.

Two managers who may be interested in the findings are Rafa Benitez at Liverpool, who famously went 99 matches fielding a different side or Claudio Ranieri who lived up to his ‘Tinkerman’ nickname by constantly changing his team while at Chelsea.

Professor Nevill carried out the research with Adam Watts, from the University’s School of Applied Sciences. Their paper, Does Selecting a Consistent Team Lead to Greater Success in Professional Soccer, has recently been published.

 

 

In other words the game has changed so much that the conclusions are.........................[:P]

Money for old rope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Scooby"]And no doubt a ridiculous amount of money was spent to tell us something we all know.  Jeeeeez, what a job!  Can I be a researcher a Wolerverhamperton Uni pleeeeeeease.  I could do a survey to show that the team in Cricket who scores the most runs is more likely to win the match.[/quote]You should not accept something as given just because ''we all know'' you are basing that entirely on your perceptions which could be misleading. By applying mathematics to the situation they were able to prove it conclusively.It was once believed that the earth was flat and only 6,000 years old, these were accepted as fact and nobody questioned it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It was once believed that the earth was flat and only 6,000 years old, these were accepted as fact and nobody questioned it."

And before that, they knew it was round, and even knew it''s size (calculated via the curve of the horizon)

The knowledge was there, but was destroy and blocked by religious bullshit...

What''s next on the agenda for Wolves Uni? Why to corn flakes go soggy when introduced to a liquid in the form of milk...?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never once believed that if you regularly play your best and thus least amount of players, allowing them to build up an almost telepathic understanding, that you would probably be more successful. A lot of managers can learn from this. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Jedi"]"It was once believed that the earth was flat and only 6,000 years old, these were accepted as fact and nobody questioned it."

And before that, they knew it was round, and even knew it''s size (calculated via the curve of the horizon)

The knowledge was there, but was destroy and blocked by religious bullshit...

What''s next on the agenda for Wolves Uni? Why to corn flakes go soggy when introduced to a liquid in the form of milk...?:)[/quote]I can''t figure out if your agreeing with me or not? Because using your example those who figured out the earths is round and its size would be like the people from wolves uni who used mathematics to prove the findings of their study and the religious folk who suppressed such information would be like those that are moaning about the use of scientific fact in said study. You then mention something about soggy cornflakes, I think your contradicting yourself. And yes there probably is a scientific reason cornflakes go soggy when introduced to milk and yes it is important we know these things. Or would you prefer a world based around hearsay and superstition like those religious folk of the 17th century?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...