One of the most important statistics in football, tackle and short-pants, is "time of possession." Managers cite it, fans refer to it, commentators comment upon it. From my experience time of possession is an accurate indicator of the run of play and a pretty good predictor of future behavior in American tackle football. You can't keep your defense on the field too long, is the verbal analog. Those big ol' hogs get tired out there. If you don't give them a blow they're going to wilt.
I can't tell you how many times, again, in my experience, time of possession has been useless to guage play or worse, counter-predictive in soccer.
You'd think, from that, that the Livers won 7-0 or, if Burnley somehow prevailed it was only because its goalkeeper had morphed into a wall 8 feet tall and 24 feet wide.
Yet, not only did the Livers lose 2-0 but
"...at no point during the 90 minutes did they ever look like scoring...
http://www.espnfc.us/club/liverpool/364/blog/post/2934129/wijnaldum-henderson-and-firmino-flop-in-liverpool-loss-at-burnley
I speculate that in part this is because in soccer you don't have two separate units of players as you do in tackle football. The same guys play offense and defense and tire playing both. I speculate that in part this is because it is more draining to play with possession in soccer, the reverse of what it is in tackle football. Or in boxing. George Foreman got arm-weary slamming body blows into a rope-a-dope playing Muhammad Ali. Because of effective counter-attacks so important these days in soccer: possession changes in an instant; if you have a guy behind the offense, lying in wait, and can direct a long-pass his way in that instant when you regain possession, he has a break-away. Because there are no close-but-no-cigars in soccer. You either score a goal or you don't. In tackle football if you get, not even close, if you get within 35 yards of the goal line you can kick a field goal for three points. Not as good as the six you get for a touchdown, but beats the hell out of this here: 0
Speculation. I don't know why time of possession seems to be inaccurate, at best, in soccer, and why it is cited so frequently by those who don't speculate.
I can't tell you how many times, again, in my experience, time of possession has been useless to guage play or worse, counter-predictive in soccer.
Possession
You'd think, from that, that the Livers won 7-0 or, if Burnley somehow prevailed it was only because its goalkeeper had morphed into a wall 8 feet tall and 24 feet wide.
Yet, not only did the Livers lose 2-0 but
"...at no point during the 90 minutes did they ever look like scoring...
http://www.espnfc.us/club/liverpool/364/blog/post/2934129/wijnaldum-henderson-and-firmino-flop-in-liverpool-loss-at-burnley
I speculate that in part this is because in soccer you don't have two separate units of players as you do in tackle football. The same guys play offense and defense and tire playing both. I speculate that in part this is because it is more draining to play with possession in soccer, the reverse of what it is in tackle football. Or in boxing. George Foreman got arm-weary slamming body blows into a rope-a-dope playing Muhammad Ali. Because of effective counter-attacks so important these days in soccer: possession changes in an instant; if you have a guy behind the offense, lying in wait, and can direct a long-pass his way in that instant when you regain possession, he has a break-away. Because there are no close-but-no-cigars in soccer. You either score a goal or you don't. In tackle football if you get, not even close, if you get within 35 yards of the goal line you can kick a field goal for three points. Not as good as the six you get for a touchdown, but beats the hell out of this here: 0
Speculation. I don't know why time of possession seems to be inaccurate, at best, in soccer, and why it is cited so frequently by those who don't speculate.