Premier League running distances show only a weak link to results
Commentators often cite distance covered as evidence that a team lacks effort, but last season’s Premier League figures show only a weak relationship between running and results. The article argues that raw physical statistics are too nuanced to serve as a catch-all explanation for success or failure.
The top 10 teams averaged 4,363km covered over the season, compared with 4,332km for the bottom 10; their high-intensity distance was about 3% higher. Teams that beat their Opta supercomputer pre-season league prediction by at least one place averaged 4,369km, against 4,308km for those who underperformed. Yet Sunderland and Manchester United exceeded expectations without ranking in the top 10 for distance, while Crystal Palace and Newcastle covered plenty of ground but fell short.
- More running showed only a small link with league success.
- Top 10 teams covered 31km more on average than the bottom 10.
- Sunderland and Manchester United outperformed expectations without being among the top runners.
New here? Start with this
The Premier League is England’s top men’s football league, where 20 clubs play a season of matches to decide their final positions. Teams track how far players run, including the distance covered at high speed, as a measure of physical work during games.
Distance can be affected by a team’s tactics, possession and the demands of particular matches, so it does not show effort or quality on its own. Results also depend on factors such as scoring chances, defending and individual decisions.
Opta uses statistical models to estimate where clubs might finish before a season begins. Comparing those predictions with final positions can show which teams did better or worse than expected, but running figures alone cannot explain why.
Football Geopolitics Politics Sport
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Guardian as “Do Premier League teams really need to run more to win matches?”.