Either approach requires you to whittle down which players to go and look at.
The “analogue” method limits you to players you have seen or been told about from contacts, or experience. That is in itself data. For smaller clubs it might simply be limited to how far your Scouting team can travel in a day. It also leaves you open to the possibility that you are signing a player based on one (or maybe a few) judges of players abilities.
With the Data database approach, it can (potentially) open the pool of players to look at to being much much bigger from all across the country, Europe or even the world (depending on how big your database and budget is) and open you up to the possibilities of finding players no one else has picked up on.
Now, the elephant in the room is who inputting the requirements to whittle down the players to a shortlist and/or making the final selection/signing.
That last bit is reliant on having someone (or some people in the recruitment team) good in that role. But the data approach itself isn’t inherently bad or wrong.
Isn’t the suggestion that we bought those Danes on the back of a recommendation from a head coach who then turned us down? That doesn’t just feel analogue to me but actually cuckoo (clock).
I think that, if it is at all true then that’s covered by my last sentence in regards to having someone in position that is good at analysing data and making good decisions.
And as I have only seen posts on here asserting that the reason we bought the Danes is as you describe and no other proof other than rumours and scuttlebutt, I’m taking those claims with a pinch of salt. Mostly because the first one was signed while MB was still here (for 5 days)
I know it’s rude, @thedancingyak, but I got as far as you’re third paragraph and that was enough.
The main difference between data Dan’s approach and “the old system” is that, with the former, the person presumably in charge of player recruitment seemed singularly ill equipped, on the evidence of the January fiasco, to be in that position.
Other considerations pale into complete insignificance.
No, because he did exactly the same thing at Sunderland. He managed them for half a season and his team was infinitely worse and less attack-minded than either of his predecessors.
Failed to score in well over half their games and picked upalmost no points.
So, no. The issue is he’s a defensive-minded youth team coach promoted way beyobd his ability.
Look at QPR’s transfer window last summer. Spent a fortune on a Danish CM based on stats only to find that all other teams had seen the same stats, but ledt him alone because he’s not physical enough for our league. QPR took a risk. He was shit, BUT… then worked on his strength and towards the end of the season he started coming good.
Data is only as good as its analysis and use - as looking at xG in isolation proves.
There is ALWAYS the risk that the man (or men/people) in charge of recruitment may (or may not) be ill equipped for the Job. And even someone that is (seemingly) well equipped for the job might make poor decisions.
Even the much fawned over Scott Mitchell was part of the team that signed Hartridge and Richard Keogh, for example.
There’s also a rush to make a judgement on someone suitability based on one Window in the midst of a lot of (mostly self inflicted, admittedly) upheaval in the club, with people that have been in there roles less than 12 months and going into their first window solo.
Mistakes will be made. I don’t actually mind mistakes, if they aren’t repeated.
I agree. It’s how they respond in this window that really matters now. Lowry and Berry clearly have potential too so who knows what a pre season and potential system change will do for them.