Basic HTML Version
F
Feature
Is the use of Prozone ruining the
entertainment value of sport?
For those of you that, like me, are proud Englishmen with a
perennial optimism that England will succeed in a major
international football tournament, the England v Germany
World Cup game was a severe disappointment. Remember
how comprehensively outplayed our insipid lions were by the
young enterprising Germans? But, did you also recognise that
England had more shots, twice as many crosses, more corners,
more penalty area and final third entries, and more successful
passes?
Funny how statistics can be misleading isn’t it? And to think many
of the biggest clubs in the world swear by this technology.
Prozone is a now ubiquitous system that trains eight cameras on
every player on the field and tracks their movements every 10th
of a second, recording an average of 2,500 actions per game, to
provide in depth statistics on everything from passing patterns and
mapping runs to fitness levels, referee’s contributions and even
highlighting transfer targets.
It is easy to see the benefits
of statistical analysis when
reviewing performances and
preparing set piece routines,
but has Prozone had a positive
affect on football?
Many teams at the top level
now subscribe to the Prozone
product, which is justifiable
when the pressure to succeed in a multi-million pound industry
now takes the game far beyond a recreation sport.
Matches that pitch the top teams against one another increasingly
end as stalemates as a result of the time spent drafting tactics to
prevent the opposition from playing. The utilisation of Prozone is
more often used to hamper teams rather than create, highlighting
a team’s key passer for example and then blocking his distribution
routes throughout the game. If you look back to the past footballing
greats, how many of these legends would shine in today’s premier
league when hounded by Javier Mascherano clipping away at
their heels for 90 minutes?
In recent years there has been a growing interest in the lower levels
of football in this country – many believe it to be more exciting
and unpredictable owing to the air of mystery still surrounding
the opposition. We occasionally witness this excitement on the
global stage when previously unknown players mark their arrival
at world cups, but where is the fun in seeing a winger face a
defender who’s already second guessed every change of direction
because he’s seen the Prozone patterns?
This is perhaps the crux of the argument. The game is about the
fans after all (the wage payers) so any technology that inhibits the
scoring of goals is surely to the detriment of the game? This is
maybe why more fans have taken up supporting teams from the
lower leagues; this however, could also be attributable to a more
down to earth approach rather than the fantasy bubble at the top
Prozone – the technology that analyses every aspect of team and player performance via a range
of interactive platforms is increasingly being used by more and more sports and clubs. But are the
results a beneficial technological advance or contributing to a less exciting viewing spectacle?
Chris Hootton
explores the pro and cons of ever greater analysis of every aspect of player performance in sport.
level. It is difficult to argue against Prozone though when you
consider the pressure weighing upon teams to achieve results
– whether that be at the cost of beautiful football or otherwise.
Prozone is not just limited to focusing on the players on the
pitch, referees contributions have come under scrutiny in recent
seasons – most notably when Sir Alex Ferguson claimed Alan
Wiley was ‘unfit’ to referee (in reference to Wiley’s position on the
field to make a decision) following some contentious decisions
during Manchester United’s match against Sunderland in 2009.
Contrary to Fergy’s comments however, the Prozone analysis
revealed that Wiley had covered more distance during the game
than all but four United players. The statistics showed that Wiley
was an average of 17.7 metres from the ball throughout the
game; Elite referees in England are allowed an average of up to
20 metres.
Perhaps these statistical services are improving the standard of
sport then? Clearly there is benefit to analysing opposing tennis
players’ weakest areas of the court, or the left back incapable of
playing the offside trap or the batsman who cannot cope when his
corridor of uncertainty is attacked. Yet computers cannot
"Perhaps these statistical
services are improving
the standard of sport..."
touchline