Spain just defeated England 2-1 to win the UEFA European Championship. I watched a fair amount of the last two European championships and the previous Men’s and Women’s World Cups, and one thing that stood out is the dichotomy in playing styles amongst the top 4-6 teams in their relative risk aversion. Putting aside the bottom teams whose relative talent level make it difficult to play anything but highly defensive soccer (bunkering in with 11 players behind the ball AKA parking the bus), it nonetheless remains shocking their seeming chasm in aggression between teams.
Watching England and Spain over the previous month, it is uncanny how much more willing to lose the Spanish sides were. Pressing hard, playing incisive but risky passes, each and every game they ran the risk of losing to a team that was fortunate enough to score off of an poorly placed pass or chaotic bounce. England, in point of contrast, played incredibly conservatively, themselves looking to win a close match by converting a small number of scoring opportunities at a higher rate through their superior talent and/or settling the match in a penalty shootout.
Playing conservatively is a valid strategy. Jose Mourinho bored countless millions of viewers while coaching superior teams to trophies that should have 1-0 etched onto them for eternity. But while watching these games and the those in the English Premiere League I’ve become aware of the compulsion English announcers have to for ascribing nearly every goal to an error made by the defense rather than an achievement of the offense. Spain scored two stunning goals today and the English commentator could not help but attribute at least (maybe both?) to the English team “falling asleep”.
This to me is another opportunity to ask yourself and others “What we are maximizing or minimizing?” Spain was maximizing the chance of winning the tournament. That meant focusing on nothing but the probability of winning each game. They were maximizing the mean. England, on the other hand, was minimizing the probability of losing to an inferior team. They were minimizing the variance. For two-thirds of the final, they continued to minimize the variance and eventually ended up down 1-0. They then subbed their obviously injured captain (who happens to be the best penalty kick taker in the world, maybe ever), put on a younger player, and were immediately more aggressive. They scored and then were scored upon. The bore the fruits and the costs of greater risk. I don’t know what would have happened if they had taken more risk the whole game, but I suspect their probability of winning would have increased.
When you see an organization that is minimizing variance that is often a good thing. It means they are valuing downside risk in a proper manner. In many sports contexts, however, over emphasis on minimizing downside risk is, to my eyes, an example of actors minimizing expected criticism. If England is looking for an explanation why they, the oft-proclaimed inventors of football, have not won a major international tournament in 58 years, the intense risk aversion within team managers seems a first order concern. Yes, I know, Italy has won plenty of tournaments being boring, but I would note that as offensive tactics have reduced the expected mean outcome of conservative play, they have themselves adapted, while England appears to be “fighting the last war”, so to speak.
I’m not English and have no particularly rooting interest, other than a hatred for boring sports (Audere est Facere). Boring, however, doesn’t offend me quite much as suboptimal outcome maximization and resource deployment. For that I must applaud the Spanish national team on their victory. May they stand as an example of the rewards for bravery, rational bravery, in any market.
Economist Writing Every Day 