The Best Team Unlikely to Win the World Cup (and so is England)

At the recent World Cup qualifier in Ukraine a poll among the English journalists present showed that one third believe that Brazil will eventually win the trophy, one third predict that England will lift the cup and one third think that someone else will. To most self-appointed analysts outside England (including this correspondent) this is a ridiculous exaggeration of England’s prospects. It now turns out that science has (kind of) proved that the sceptics are correct.

In a paper published in the October issue of Journal of Applied Statistics G. K. Skinner and G. H. Freeman conclude that the best team (which I would say is Spain, few would say it’s England) has a probability of only 28% of winning the cup, if it reaches the last 16. In reality the probability is lower since there is always a danger of being knocked out at the group stage. And the probability of England winning is again even lower, but the study doesn’t specify just how low.

The basis for their conclusions is the simple fact that the outcome of any football match is uncertain. The best team doesn’t always win. And in the knock-out stages you need to win four straight games to win the cup. In the latest World Cup only 5 games out of 64 had scores that indicated that you (or a gathering of statisticians) could be pretty certain (better than 90% confidence) that the best team won.

Are soccer matches badly designed experiments? by G. K. Skinner and G. H. Freeman (Journal of Applied Statistics).

 

Two Penalties that Changed the World

It might seem unlikely that two particular penalty kicks should dramatically improve the chances of other penalty takers scoring in the future. Yet, this is what probably happened in the mid 70′s, according to a scientific study by Wolfgang Leininger and Axel Ockenfels (“The Penalty-Duel and Institutional Design”) at the Universities of Dortmund and Cologne. The study is included in the recently published book “Myths and Facts About Football” (to be reviewed shortly).

The argument goes something like this. From the beginning of time up until the summer of 1974 it was generally perceived that both kicker and goalkeeper had two alternatives, i.e. kick/dive to the left/right. This gave the keeper a 50% chance of diving in the right direction.

Then suddenly, in the second minute of the World Cup Final, the Netherlands were awarded a penalty, and Johan Neeskens scored by whacking the ball straight to the middle while Sepp Maier dived for his right corner. Two years later the point was made even more emphatically in the final of the European Championships when Antonin Panenka delicately chipped the last penalty of the shoot-out to the middle of the goal, in what is generally acknowledged as the coolest penalty of all time. This time Sepp Maier dived to his left.

These two high-profile penalties didn’t, of course, change the actual possibilities when taking a penalty. It was always possible to hit it down the middle. But it changed players’ perceptions of the strategies you could expect from kicker and goalkeeper. They both now have three basic choices; left, right or centre. Accordingly the keeper now has only a 33% chance of getting in the right position to save a penalty.

This game theoretic analysis is backed by empirical data from the German Bundesliga, where the scoring rate of penalty kicks was on average 69 % from 1963 to 1973 (pre-Neeskens) and on average 77% from 1977 to 1987 (post-Panenka).

The model is extremely simplified, but it seems that Neeskens and Panenka forever improved the chances of scoring a penalty.

Scouting Report: Ronaldo and Nani in Sweden

Last night I was priviliged to be present at the Rasunda stadium in Solna, Sweden to watch Ronaldo and Nani in the World Cup qualifier between Sweden and Portugal (0-0). Well, priviliged is probably too strong a word, at least when it refers to watching the performances of the two United players. They were very disappointing.

Ronaldo looked far from the player he was last season. Part of this is probably a lack of match fitness, but it seems his confidence has also been affected. In a telling incident in the second half he advanced one-on-one towards Sweden’s central defender Majstorovic, and you felt that this was his opportunity to win the game. I expected Ronaldo to go straight for goal, but instead he hesitated and then hesitated some more and it all came to nothing. For much of the game he complained to the referee in familiar fashion, even though I don’t think the treatment from the Swedish defenders was particularly rough compared to the average Premier League game.

When Nani plays for United I’m often impressed by his ability to create space for himself, but then equally frustrated when he wastes the opportunity by mis-hitting a pass or a cross. Last night he didn’t even get the first part right. He saw quite a lot of the ball but rarely managed anything more creative than a back-pass to Bosingwa.

Former United assistant manager Carlos Queiroz has inherited a squad strong enough, at least on paper, to have a reasonable chance of winning the World Cup in South Africa. But on last night’s evidence they have an awful lot of work to do, and might not even qualify. Sweden managed to contain Portugal’s normally very dangerous attacks down the flanks. Not only Nani and Ronaldo but also Bosingwa failed to cause any real problems. Tactically this meant that the Swedes risked gifting Portugal control of central midfield, but this never happened, largely due to sterling work from central midfielder Daniel Andersson, who was unspectacular but perfectly positioned throughout.

Who ate all the pies?

Great atmosphere in the stadium. The hot-dogs were top class. No pies available, thank goodness.