The power and problem of "performance" data...and the C/D borderline players!

Steve your article and the comments below bring up good points. It's interesting to read and hopefully the following is a useful further perspective. We deliver custom tools and technology to help elite sports improve performance. Our background is motorsports/automotive engineering where the use of objectivity, simulation and performance data has been through several "growing pains" way before the term "big data" was even coined. We've come out the other side these days and the limitations of where it can (and can't) add value is fairly clear. The issue we all face is that what we can measure, or model, or calculate unfortunately doesn't always match what will directly be useful to our decision-making (what is the best training schedule for this individual, who should we have in the squad, who's at risk of injury and what should we do about it etc). This is made more complex as things change all the time, events are often one-off and/or some combination of environmental factors might never be the same, so as to make straight comparisons questionable. What I understand from your post is possibly a frustration that you (still) don't know if you (or people responsible) have managed to get the most from each player; could they have achieved more? Decisions are made which sometimes don't make sense from all perspectives, and the use of objectivity and data can be selectively applied to suit other agendas. Clearly I'm guessing but that's the sentiment I get. Personally I believe the following three things might be worth people considering: 1) The coach should take ownership of performance data (from what I see this is too often practitioner led), 2) People should think about performance data as informing a continuous learning exercise (there needs to be clear aim behind what your measuring, with understood limitations and a clear expectation set that this might not ultimately add value - even short or long term - but if it does its worth trying), 3) All performance data needs to be more rigorously managed and organised across the whole team (yes it's boring but its fundamental to having any hope for getting the most from it - disclaimer: clearly I have a vested interest here). The challenge is that many people feel threatened by data. I therefore believe there is benefit if people lower their expectations of what data will deliver them - rather than thinking it will deliver some secret source no-ones ever known before and undermine 30 years of experience (all your big data headline stuff), perhaps a more sustainable competitive advantage is to more actively understand what would add value to the day-to-day, set analysts/data generators much more specific challenges and develop organisational data management processes so the whole team has frictionless data access, to simply empower them to do what they do best. One final thought I wholly agree with Peter's comment about only needing to be good enough - famous quote from Jackie Stewart is he used to drive as slow as he could to win.

Thanks for comments Dave, Peter and Sully. Some excellent perspectives from various forms. Peter Vint, Ph.D. the comment about being good enough for that level and the one above is worth reflecting on. I would call this "contextualized learning". So basically how does this relate to the reality of the first team maybe? I like it and understand it. Harder for academy players at prem level also. However what happens in our clubs, is not always what happens in other clubs or countries for that matter. So what is perceived as good for one may not correlate with another. So the moral duty to educate our players on this is priceless, to give them belief that"we" may not always be right.

Great read Steve Sallis and some interesting feedback from others.

Great Piece Steve. Much respect and agreement.

Nice article, Steve. I've seen all too often where perception becomes reality. There is massive opportunity to be more completely informed. Arvind Panessar raises some important points that I've seen play out in many different environments and industries. The notion that every dimension of human performance needs to be "higher, stronger, faster" is nice but flawed and is rarely, if ever, reality. Rather than ask "where is an athlete (or employee) relative to the attribute maximum (or even average)?", the better question is "where is the athlete (or employee) relative to what is necessary?" Rather than asking, is he fastest? It's more interesting (and relevant) to ask, is he adequately fast to compete at this level or the next? This is not the way most sport scientists are trained and it's not the most intuitive way to think about performance. It is, however, one of those "inconvenient truths" that experienced professionals have come to realise. In the world of elite performance, rarely is a world leading performer "maximum" on every attribute of performance. Rather, they are "adequately good" on a number of attributes and exceptional on a few (or several). The best golfers in the world aren't the best in every aspect of the game. Pick a sport and name an example - Wayne Gretzky in hockey. Tom Brady in American football. Ironically, or not, things we can most easily measure or see become the things that tend to mislead us away the most from the other attributes that may matter more (being in the right place at the right time, making the right decisions, being driven and motivated and determined to succeed). Interesting thread...thanks to all who have contributed.