Charles, Richard, Neil and Simon: the stories we craft

Tom Fenton and Rob Carroll have published a story about Charles Reep (link). It is titled Football’s Pioneer – The Charles Reep story.

Earlier this year, Richard Pollard published Invalid Interpretation of Passing Sequence Data to Assess Team Performance in Football: Repairing the Tarnished Legacy of Charles Reep in the Open Sports Sciences Journal (link).

Both posts have encouraged me to think about how we craft stories. Tom’s introduction indicates that Charles’ achievements have been forgotten and marginalised (link). Richard suggests that a 2005 paper makes “erroneous and misleading statements” about Charles and that “a basic misunderstanding of how to interpret and assess the effectiveness of passing sequences of different lengths” is at the heart of the issue (link).

Tom concludes:

Whatever you think of Charles Reep’s tactical influence, his legacy on Sport Analytics is not only undeniable, it is simply invaluable, for the industry we see and admire today, would not be the same without him and his priceless notes.

Richard ends his paper with this comment:

The way in which the 2005 paper has been used by others to discredit Reep, while at the same time claiming definitive proof that direct football is less effective than keeping possession, is a salutary warning as to how easily false information can disseminate itself.

Much of my professional life has sought to integrate qualitative observation, the analysis of performance, teaching and coaching. I have spent a great deal of time thinking about ethnography and autoethnography and my PhD thesis completed in 1989 (link) was an ethnographic account of the teaching of physical education in two schools located next to each other.

In writing that thesis, I became very interested in the ways stories are socially constructed. Ctlifford Geerz had an enormous impact on me and once I had read about his work in ‘thick description’ (link) I saw the process of observation, the art of teaching and coaching quite differently. From then on, I took culture to be “a web of analysis” and an interpretive science “in search of meaning”.

This search of meaning led me to see story sharing as a way of talking about practice (link). Stories were built with careful observation and written in ways that embraced language, reader receptivity and poetics. At that time, I was emboldened by the publication of John Van Maanen’s approach in Tales From The Field (link). In looking at different kind of tales, John notes that conveying social reality requires authorial voice. His book explores how this voice is crafted in realist, confessional and impressionist tales.

In an Epilogue to a 2010 print edition of the Tales (link), John wrote:

Our writing is both explicitly and implicitly designed to persuade others that we know what we’re talking about and they ought therefore to pay attention to what we are saying. (2010:147)

Re-reading this after looking at Tom, Rob and Richard’s accounts of Charles Reep took me back to think about authorial voice and how we might construct a life history and a socially constructed account of a very special time in sport analytics.

Richard Pollard

Richard, Neil and Simon knew Charles very well at that point in time and are primary sources of Charles’s life. I have corresponded with Richard and Neil about their experiences with Charles and their own careers as analysts. I have not spoken with Simon Hartley and I think about this absence has on the story I would like to construct about the life and times of all four of them.

Richard, for example, has kept every letter Charles sent him dating back to 1960, and has stored Charles’ match analyses and other documents shared over the years. He also has two years of Simon’s analyses of Watford performance. Richard has kept all his correspondence with Bernard Benjamin about the authorship of both papers on Skill and Chance (link) (link).

Richard completed his thesis in 1989 at the University of the South Pacific. It was titled Measuring the effectiveness of playing strategies at soccer (link). Information about this thesis was contained in a paper written by Richard and Charles that appeared in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society in 1997 (link).

Neil Lanham

Neil has shared some of his experiences with me in email correspondence and these emails have become important insights for me as I try to fit Neil’s story into Charles’, Richard’s and Simon’s stories. Neil’s memoirs were to be published this year. They will make for fascinating reading.

I have written about Neil’s work but have yet to provide an account of his work with Wimbledon, Dave Bassett and Graham Taylor. I have not addressed Neil’s early use of computers in 1985 and the impact this had on his work. I hope to explore Neil’s contact with Charles over a long period of time. In one personal correspondence to me, Neil observes “to know Reep you need to have trod in his footsteps”.

Treading in Charles, Richard, Neil and Simon’s footsteps will be a fascinating journey and one that raises important questions about authorial voice. As an action researcher I am keen to share these stories with them before I post public blogs about them. I see the production of stories as an iterative and participatory process.

Charles Reep

This process will require an understanding of documents. Jean-François Rouet and colleagues (1996) (link) note that historians “must carefully select information from documents and evaluate it in the context of who wrote the document, what type of document it is, and how the document relates to other documents on the same topic”. This requires us to reason about documents and reason with documents.

This reasoning acknowledges, as Sam Wineburg (1998) (link) points out, that “historians do not go into the archive to find carefully excerpted documents, serially presented, each with an explanatory sentence at the top”.

These challenges require the writer to be a critical friend in the story gathering, story crafting and story sharing aspects in the search of meaning. Erin Comollo (2019) (link), amongst others, points out that we can “engage in joint construction of knowledge through conversation and other forms of collaborative analysis and interpretation”.

In doing so, I believe, the art of writing provides the opportunity for the critical friend, as Arthur Costa and Bena Kallick (1993) indicate, to be “a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critique of a person’s work as a friend” (link).

To date, we have had partial stories about Charles, Richard, Neil and Simon. There is an opportunity to extend these stories and provide thick description of a pivotal moment of sport analytics in England. It requires a comprehensive, co-operative story-making effort. The outcome could be an inclusive and participatory account that is reflective and critical. Perhaps a story that addresses concerns raised by Richard and Neil in their various responses to accounts of Charles, his practices and impacts. It would be important to have Simon’s take on this too.

There is so much to write about and share.

Photo Credit

Champions of the world (The Football Times)

 A Football Pink report of the Swindon Town v Bristol Rovers game, played on Saturday, 18 March 1950.

Richard Pollard (Personal Correspondence)

Neil Lanham (Personal Correspondence)

Charles Reep (The Sun)

Watford v Southampton 1980 (YouTube)

Seeing the wind: notating and analysing football performance

Back in October 2016, I wrote about a Charles Reep project:

I have been doing some research following a lead from Simon Gleave. The project has been given some urgency by a post by Joe Sykes and Neil Paine.

I was surprised that they thought Charles was responsible for the ruin of English football … and that his maths were to blame (“based on a fatally flawed premise”).

My research has enabled me to be in contact with Neil Lanham. I am sorry that sometimes my eagerness to share Neil’s experience of football analysis and his connections with Charles Reep (Neil met Charles in 1962) has led me to be ahead of myself and the important messages Neil has to share.

This post is an attempt to address this. The title of the post comes from a quote from a football manager who worked with Neil (“One manager said that it makes it possible to see the wind, that is, the invisibles.”)

I draw upon personal correspondence received from Neil on 15 January 2017.

I share Neil’s observations here with his permission. I quote him verbatim. In the correspondence he notes “I feel that I should deny the false information placed on two websites”.

Firstly, a response to Greg Johnson’s discussion on Squawka of Graham Taylor (12 January 2017)

Neil has written to Squawka about this discussion. As a matter of record, Neil was “the sole analysis for Graham during the period of his England management” and shared documentary evidence of his role.  He writes:

In your article on Graham Taylor your writer Greg Johnson states that Graham Taylor employed Charles Hughes as consultant. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was Charles Hughes who was curious about what Taylor was doing at Watford and the mechanics behind it and seemed desperate to learn. Under Charles Reep’s guidance my colleague Simon Hartley was Taylor’s then analyst and Hughes asked him to advise his assistant how to log every touch in shorthand as both he and I did. Hughes then wrote a book purportedly based on 100 games analysis. Reep based his findings on 3,000 games and myself 5,000.

I was the sole analyst working for Graham Taylor when he was England Manager putting every touch of the ball through my bespoke software for a greater understanding than had ever been reached before, I believe Reep’s analysis was thorough and ‘more accurate than it need be ‘ to quote the great man. I believe my analysis based on much of Reep’s findings is of higher meaningful quality than any other then or now even and I have no doubt that the professor of statistics Richard Pollard, also a Reepian football analyst, will confirm that.

It amuses me to hear people talk of ‘flawed conclusion’ in respect of Reep’s work. It was the basis of what I subsequently did and the 12 or so promotions/avoiding certain relegations that I was involved in, and which paid  me handsome dividends

No it is yourselves who are lacking in quality information.

The three volumes containing Neil Lanham’s analysis of every touch of the ball in all 52 World Cup 1990 games, team summaries and probabilities that he sold to Graham Taylor at the FA.

Neil has responded to the Joe Sykes and Neil Payne post about Charles Reep on fivethirtyeight.com:

Charles Reep had nothing whatsoever to do with the rise of Wimbledon Football club. I was the sole analyst and together with Dave Bassett the manager the method of play was formed (The Crazy Gang, 2015:186).

Reep furthermore had absolutely no influence on any England Team Manager or the way the team played. I worked for Graham Taylor as analyst during his period as England manager and the method of play was very different to anything that Reep would have recommended.

To say that ‘the long Ball was England’s official footballing policy’ is absolute poppycock – completely unfounded mythology bearing no truth whatsoever.

As for maintaining possession – for an average team at every level, however they play the ball changes sides 180 on average in between their goals. To base any method of play on passing moves alone is flawed thinking I believe.

I do hope this contributes to the wider conversations about football analysis and the roles Neil and Charles played in a football era that is hotly contested.

I trust that this post does give a clear voice to Neil’s experience and helps us piece together an authentic account of the period and its subsequent impact.

Photo Credits

Shrewsbury v Rochdale Football Match 1950 (Geoff Charles Collection at the National Library of Wales, no known copyright restrictions)

Two photographs courtesy of Neil Lanham.

Some Neil Lanham Treasures

Foreword

I have changed the title of this post in response to Neil Lanham’s concerns. I mistakenly used the word artefacts to describe the resources he shared with me.

Neil’s point is “I do not like the word artefacts in this respect. What I do is organic and alive. Artefacts is dead”.

I apologise for this original error.

I have chosen to use ‘treasure’ instead. I hope this connotes their past, present and future significance.

I have rectified another error in the post. Neil’s analysis of the 1990 World Cup was in three volumes.

Neil Lanham at a football game ready to notate performance

I have been in contact with Neil Lanham to clarify his role in the early years on notating football performance.

Neil has kindly shared a number of treasures with me. With his permission I include some of them here as a contribution to a more detailed history of football notation during the ‘Charles Reep years’.

A hand notation:

Neil Lanham's hand notation of a football game

Neil’s report to the FA (in three volumes) on the 1990 World Cup:

Report of 1990 World Cup

Neil also shared a contract letter from Dave Bassett for the 1986-1987 First Division season with Wimbledon Football Club.

The letter contains these stipulations:

whilst in our employment or in the event of termination of our agreement that you are unable to reveal to any person or persons any of the analysis secrets of our confidential operations …

the same applies to any other football knowledge gained during your time with me and Wimbledon Football Club which will be kept with complete secrecy on all confidential information entrusted to you …

The early computer system, Neil and his wife Hazel.

Neil built up a database of 5,000 games to enable him to predict with confidence season outcomes.

Neil and Hazel Lanham

Photo Credits

All photographs courtesy of Neil Lanham