Do Premier League Teams Really Need to Run More to Win? Analyst
These days, running stats are regularly wheeled out and portrayed as key identifiers of underperforming teams, but there's little evidence to suggest covering more ground means you're a better team in the long run. Manchester United dropped points again in Saturday's 1-1 draw with Tottenham and critics were quick to question their effort and application, using the team's physical stats to make certain points.
Former Tottenham midfielder Jamie Redknapp, working as a pundit on Sky Sports, said: "There's a pattern I don't really like when I watch teams, and that's when - and the stats don't lie - the other team runs more than you. In the Premier League right now, I feel there are a couple of non-negotiables: you've got to run more than the other team if you want to win, or at least get close enough that it doesn't make that much of a difference.
[On Saturday] Tottenham ran five kilometres more than Man Utd." Physical metrics such as distance run and number of sprints are increasingly accessible in modern football, and given they're hardly complex to understand in essence, it stands to reason that they might fall into common use. Man Utd fans may be more acutely aware of this than supporters of any other club in recent weeks.
It's become a common theme that when United fail to meet expectations, pundits, commentators, social media personalities et cetera will look to their running metrics in search of one catch-all explanation. This obviously isn't only used for United, in fairness.
Liverpool and Chelsea were also the targets of similar judgement last season, so we aren't trying to suggest there's some kind of conspiracy here. It just feels particularly pertinent given the discourse often surrounding Michael Carrick's team.
How much of a correlation actually is there between a team running lots and that team being successful? While the numbers may not be complex at face value, answering this question is, which probably highlights that such metrics are so nuanced in a team sport that it likely isn't best practice to tie too much significance to the topline figures.
Either way, it's a question worth digging into. The first way we can assess it is by comparing the Premier League table to the rankings of distance run and high-intensity distance - yes, this is pretty simple and rudimentary, but it's a place to start.
As you can see below, last season's Premier League table hardly mirrors the rankings for distance covered or high-intensity distance per game. Sure, Arsenal and Manchester City were high for overall distance, but the teams who came third to eighth had middling - at best - outputs in this respect.
The teams who finished in the top 10 averaged 4,363km over the course of the season; those who finished in the bottom 10 averaged 4,332km.