sam of the south wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:58 am
His recent interview on Gary Neville’s thing did nothing to dispel this for me; he was all eye test, fuck analytics, proper football man bollocks.
Or am I being harsh and a bit negative?
Whether the input is qualitative (e.g. the eye test) or quantitative, it’s not a massive deal as long as the output is intentional and carefully considered.
Clough/Taylor could be considered analytical darlings for the way they identified players who had one or two warts that made them undervalued and then coached around/through those alleged defects but I doubt that they were using methods that we’d consider analytical today.
However he sees himself, Moyes is methodical and what he does generally has a clear purpose. It can sometimes be to his detriment, I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers him persisting with a broken team for 2-3 matches to be certain it’s broken before adjusting (one of the reasons he’s not fit for a potential league winner like United). But largely it generates teams that are effective at nullifying the opposition and have a few effective ways of creating chances themselves. And then there’s his general excellence at identifying talent at other clubs and buying low to acquire it.
The eye test is still data, just a bit more prone to bias than things that are quantitative if you’re not careful. Moyes is analytical whether he sees himself that way or not. There’s a reason he’s had more longevity at clubs than the dinosaurs many would lump him in with.
Edit: Hope you had a laugh at the straggling “He’s anal” if you saw this before I caught my editing error.
