You can hate or love stats, but in an era of big data they are a powerful tool. Even on RedCafe very few people are able to watch every game with every coach out there while taking notes and making good observations. While I would love to see more from Bologna under Motta, Sporting under Amorim, go back in time and see a few games of Hoffenheim during Nagelsmann spell there, time just dont cut it.
That makes statistics a bit more interesting. Because it is data from not just one or two games, but all games. And it is without bias.
Question is, what data would be of use? It seems like for quite a few the only metrics that matter is number of points and titles. While that is important, I also think it is an approach with flaws. It is an approach with inherent outcome bias. Firstly, it will always favour managers at good teams with alot of resources and you could miss out on a really good coach doing well with «poor» players. And over 38 games, chance and momentum can push results quite a bit. But it is not likely to last.
I was always negative towards hiring Mourinho at Man Utd because I felt his approach was outdated. That he was not a coach that was able to implement a proactive, modern style and relied heavily on individual quality and chance. I think underlying stats would have proven that.
But is there a few common statistics that we all can agree indicates that a team is really well coached? Looking at Man City and Liverpool, and lately Arsenal, three teams with different styles, they have a few things in common. They play proactive football, meaning they are able to take their game to the opponent. They dont sit back and play on the counter. Even Liverpool, who is more of a transition team than City and Arsenal, is really proactive. Does this show up in their stats? I think it does. This is interesting, because I think Ratcliffe was quite clear that this was something they wanted from Man Utd.
I think where Liverpool, Man City and now Arsenal is clearly different from the rest is the following;
- xG-difference,
- Possession in the final third and penalty area,
- Opponents possession in the final third and penalty area,
I've gone through data relating to the above for some of our options. I would love to have stats on pressing (success rate, number of pressing sequences in final third etc), but I dont have any suitables stats available.
Even in the best season of Mourinho, OGS or EtH, Man Utd had a low score on these metrics. At best, top three on one of them. Never consistently good on all of them. Surprisingly bad during Mourinhos best season in 17/18 when Man Utd became 2nd. Man Utd had a positive xg of 15 that season, behind Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Liverpool and City. (Even worse comparatively in the other metrics, but not that big of a surprise since Mourinho never tried dominating teams on the ball.)
*Data from fbref.
After looking through the data I do think that Amorim, Nagelsmann and Potter looks like decent options. I was less impressed by Mottas Bologna (who I have not included in here). It is almost a bit of a surprise just how good Brighton actually were under Potter in terms of dominating possession high up the pitch compared to teams like Leipzig and Sporting in Bundesliga and Primiera Liga.
That makes statistics a bit more interesting. Because it is data from not just one or two games, but all games. And it is without bias.
Question is, what data would be of use? It seems like for quite a few the only metrics that matter is number of points and titles. While that is important, I also think it is an approach with flaws. It is an approach with inherent outcome bias. Firstly, it will always favour managers at good teams with alot of resources and you could miss out on a really good coach doing well with «poor» players. And over 38 games, chance and momentum can push results quite a bit. But it is not likely to last.
I was always negative towards hiring Mourinho at Man Utd because I felt his approach was outdated. That he was not a coach that was able to implement a proactive, modern style and relied heavily on individual quality and chance. I think underlying stats would have proven that.
But is there a few common statistics that we all can agree indicates that a team is really well coached? Looking at Man City and Liverpool, and lately Arsenal, three teams with different styles, they have a few things in common. They play proactive football, meaning they are able to take their game to the opponent. They dont sit back and play on the counter. Even Liverpool, who is more of a transition team than City and Arsenal, is really proactive. Does this show up in their stats? I think it does. This is interesting, because I think Ratcliffe was quite clear that this was something they wanted from Man Utd.
I think where Liverpool, Man City and now Arsenal is clearly different from the rest is the following;
- xG-difference,
- Possession in the final third and penalty area,
- Opponents possession in the final third and penalty area,
I've gone through data relating to the above for some of our options. I would love to have stats on pressing (success rate, number of pressing sequences in final third etc), but I dont have any suitables stats available.
Even in the best season of Mourinho, OGS or EtH, Man Utd had a low score on these metrics. At best, top three on one of them. Never consistently good on all of them. Surprisingly bad during Mourinhos best season in 17/18 when Man Utd became 2nd. Man Utd had a positive xg of 15 that season, behind Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Liverpool and City. (Even worse comparatively in the other metrics, but not that big of a surprise since Mourinho never tried dominating teams on the ball.)
| Team | Finishing position | xG-diff | Touch per 90 (att3rd/pen box) | Opponent touch per 90 (att3rd/pen box) |
| Hoffenheim 17/18 | 3rd | 3,3 (6th) | 123/19 (10th/5th) | 131/20 (8th/9th) |
| Hoffenheim 18/19 | 9th | 23,4 (3rd) | 156/28 (6th/2nd) | 136,8/23 (9th/12th) |
| RB Leipzig 18/19 (pre-JL) | 3rd | 25,2 (2nd) | 166/24 (4th/5th) | 111/15 (2nd/2nd) |
| RB Leipzig 19/20 | 3rd | 32,6 (2nd) | 167/27 (3rd/2nd) | 117,3/15,8 (4th/3rd) |
| RB Leipzig 20/21 | 2nd | 35,0 (2nd) | 179/28 (3rd/3rd) | 94,1/13,6 (1st/1st) |
| FC Bayern 20/21 (pre-JL) | 1st | 35,8 (1st) | 216/35 (1st/1st) | 106/16 (2nd/2nd) |
| FC Bayern 21/22 | 1st | 52,7 (1st) | 217/37 (1st/1st) | 100/16 (1st/2nd) |
| Brighton 18/19 (pre GP) | 17th | -23,8 (18th) | 115/15 (20th/20th) | 186/26 (19th/17th) |
| Brighton 21/22 | 9th | 3,3 (7th) | 171/23 (4th/6th) | 141/22 (5th/7th) |
| Sporting 18/19 (pre-Amorim) | 3rd | 23,8 (3rd) | 148/21 (3rd/4th) | 102/14 (3rd/4th) |
| Sporting 22/23 | 4th | 41,5 (3rd) | 190/28 (2nd/3rd) | 82/11 (1st/2nd) |
| Sporting 23/24 (23 matches) | 1st | 31,1 (1st) | 171/32 (4th/2nd) | 86/10 (1st/1st) |
| Man Utd 17/18 (JMs last full) | 2nd | 15 (6th) | 187/24 (6th/6th) | 142/20 (7th/7th) |
| Man Utd 20/21 (OGS last) | 2nd | 18,6 (4th) | 193/24 (3rd/5th) | 132/18 (5th/6th) |
| Man Utd 22/23 (EtH) | 3rd | 17,3 (3rd) | 173/27 (6th/6th) | 146/26 (9th/15th) |
After looking through the data I do think that Amorim, Nagelsmann and Potter looks like decent options. I was less impressed by Mottas Bologna (who I have not included in here). It is almost a bit of a surprise just how good Brighton actually were under Potter in terms of dominating possession high up the pitch compared to teams like Leipzig and Sporting in Bundesliga and Primiera Liga.
