In their new book “Soccernomics,” to be published in the United States on Tuesday, the author Simon Kuper and the economist Stefan Szymanski do for soccer what “Moneyball” did for baseball. It puts the game under an analytical microscrope using statistics, economics, psychology and intuition to try and transform a dogmatic sport.
“The heart of the matter,” Kuper said in a telephone interview from his home in Paris, “is that the thinking in soccer is outdated, backward and tradition-based. It needs a fresh look based on data. There’s a new global map, with countries like the U.S. and Japan already rising. And they will continue to rise at the expense of Europe as knowledge gets disbursed. And it’s happening very quickly.”
“Soccernomics” (Nation Books) presents some surprising findings.
- The country that loves soccer the most: Norway.
- One of the most-maligned national teams often beset by news media hysteria that has actually punched a bit above its weight the past 20 years: England.
- The domestic dominance of Lyon, a club that previously had limited success playing in a provincial French city, found stability and success not with short-term coaches, but with a long-term sporting director, Bernard Lacombe.
- When it comes to acquiring players, buy low (as Lyon did with Michael Essien and Karem Benzema; and Nottingham Forest did with Roy Keane) and sell high.
- Avoid the urge to acquire players after big international tournaments because you are likely to overpay.
- After studying penalty-kick tendencies on video, a researcher correctly predicted where and how Chelsea players would take their penalties during the 2008 Champions League final, won in a shootout by Manchester United in Moscow.
“Of course the specifics are different than baseball, where there is more data, but what Bill James does for me is to look at sports from the outside,” Kuper said. “The importance of data in soccer has been underestimated. You need to get rid of the mystique and look at it in a cold way. There’s a reason the Oakland A’s don’t let their managers make picks in the amateur draft. The coach/manager is a middle manager, not concerned with the long term.”
Perhaps the authors’ most contentious assertion is that the balance of power in global soccer is about to change because of three factors — population, wealth and experience. And that, Kuper said, means that countries like the United States, China and even India have the potential to be among the sport’s elite.
“The 2002 World Cup was revolutionary,” Kuper said. “South Korea and Turkey in the semifinals, the U.S. within a missed hand-ball call of getting to the semis. The Europeans’ home ground was taken away. The U.S. did well in the Confederations Cup. But for all the predictions about the rise of Africa, that’s not likely. Income, population and experience. Africa is nowhere on the first two and it’s only one thing to go and hire a coach. Poverty stops them.”
“The U.S., China and India are shooting up in income and population, they may have little experience, in terms of coaching, but they can get it quickly,” Kuper said. “That’s one reason I think the U.S. has not done better. Some people take the view that the U.S. needs an American coach. I don’t think that’s correct. The best coaching week in and week out is in Western Europe, and the U.S. needs to adopt the best practices. And if you want to win, send all your best players to play in Europe and hire all your coaches from Europe.”
And read this book.
Comments are no longer being accepted.