Creating a Playing Identity Using Evidence-Based Data

Think of the high profile T20 coaches around the world, and then think of what their clear playing style and identity is. Can you name many? Here are a few that I can think of, with some reference to the teams which they have coached.

Tom Moody’s ‘bowling-strong’ set up at Sunrisers Hyderabad which yielded great results in the latter half of the 2010s.

Dan Vettori’s attacking, boundary-hitting style which has been a hallmark of Birmingham Phoenix since the start of The Hundred (working with me on that project), and has also transformed Sunrisers after a number of years of poor results between Moody’s departure and Vettori’s appointment.

Andy Flower, who clearly likes to set up his teams with strong batting depth with several all-rounders in the ‘Daniel Sams’ type of player.

In addition, the Notts team coached by Peter Moores that was dominant in the T20 Blast in the latter half of the 2010s had a clear attacking batting, boundary-hitting identity.

The playing styles of these successful teams coached by these four coaches all make sense based on historical evidence, at least to some extent.

Bowling-strong teams, like Moody’s SRH, historically have a very high qualification percentage for most franchise leagues. They also have historically had a greater chance of overturning the ‘net boundary percentage rule’, which is rare, but is pretty much never overturned by batting-strong teams.

Aggressive batting teams, such as those set up by Vettori and Moores, cause real problems for opposition teams because around 85% of teams in T20 win the match when they outscore the opposition on the boundary percentage count. Of course, they need at least some competent bowlers to prevent the opposition players hitting as many boundaries, but their teams have also generally had those too.

The point is clear - these playing styles and identities have historical evidence on their side. There are even some metrics which are even more closely aligned with team success, or can contribute along with boundary percentage to be a very powerful driver of who wins matches - I’ll have to keep them to myself though due to commercial reasons.

A lot of people in the past have thought that I just want ‘intent merchants’ in my teams, but that’s not the case at all. There’s a lot of nuance to the discussion. I am acutely aware of what drives success in T20 matches and T20 tournaments, and want to recruit players whose playing style aligns to those drivers of success - it doesn’t make any sense to recruit a player who might be a good player in isolation, but doesn’t fit into the identity that is trying to be built. When I get offered players by agents, my most common reply is ‘good player, but not for me currently’.

On that subject, I have created ‘blueprints for success’ documents to market to teams and coaches, which I have created in order to better inform decision-making in recruitment and team strategy. Anyone interested in discussing how I can help their organisation with strategic management, data-driven analysis and long-term planning can get in touch at sportsanalyticsadvantage@gmail.com.

While the quartet of coaches above have exhibited a clear playing style and identity, how many other coaches can you think of who have shown a consistent playing style? I can’t think of many others, which is quite incredible considering the huge volume of T20 franchise cricket being played around the world on a consistent basis.

Now compare this to Premier League football coaches - most of the current ones and many of the previous ones have a clear playing style and identity.

This can range from one extreme to another. For example, in the past at teams without huge financial resources, Sam Allardyce and Tony Pulis successfully advocated and displayed a physical, long-ball style (even considering how to minimize the number of minutes the ball is in play for), while at the other end of the spectrum is Pep Guardiola’s possession-based model with fluid movement and high pressure which has been so successful at his teams throughout his coaching career.

Then there’s the likes of Jurgen Klopp’s ‘Gegenpressing’, and Ange Postecoglou’s deep build up, attacking style, albeit a style which also has raised criticism about how open Tottenham are defensively and how many goals they concede from set pieces.

Finally, there are also coaches such as Vincent Kompany and Russell Martin who stayed true to their principles at Burnley and Southampton, and ended up being relegated (Southampton haven’t yet, but with 6 points from 20 games currently, and with a goal difference of -32, it looks as guaranteed as it gets). Some observers have suggested that their continued adherence to their playing style will get them jobs at higher-profile teams in the future, or that could have been their modus operandi - showcase their style at small teams regardless of results. In Kompany’s case it has worked, given that he’s now manager of Bayern Munich despite that relegation with Burnley.

If I was able to pose a question to coaches such as Ange Postecoglou and Russell Martin, it would focus on whether they’ve done historical analysis on whether their style is the optimal style aligned with success, and also whether it is the optimal style aligned with success at their current club with their current playing group. Essentially, are they irrationally wedded to a playing style which is suboptimal at their current club with their current squad?

Finally, it’s worth quickly discussing the role of the Sporting Director (or Director of Football or Director of Cricket) in creating a playing identity. The Sporting Director should be the overwhelming driver of the club’s clear playing philosophy, backed up by historical evidence that it drives success, and then can easily be accountable to owners and board members. The Sporting Director ensures that they recruit the coaching staff and players who fit that model.

Then, with good succession planning, if a coach leaves for whatever reason, then the club doesn’t have to need a big turnover of players because the incoming coach is already aligned to that style of play. This hasn’t quite become the case with most cricket teams yet but there’s definitely scope for teams to gain a competitive advantage if they do so.

In my view, we are going to see the suboptimal version of this situation play out very soon with Manchester United. Having now bought in Ruben Amorim as head coach to replace Erik Ten Haag, there will be considerable turnover of players in order to give Amorim the tools which he wants for his playing style and identity. However, with good planning from a strong Sporting Director, the transition from one head coach to another should be much more seamless.

Anyone interested in discussing how I can help their organisation with strategic management, data-driven analysis and long-term planning can get in touch at sportsanalyticsadvantage@gmail.com.