Tiago Estêvão who is a scouting and recruitment analyst at AC Milan spoke to the podcast 'A Podcast about Tactics'. Here are his words:
On a Guardiola quote 'the only thing I can do is take my team to the last third of the pitch, from there to then it's up to them to score':
"Those who scout are asked for a certain role, a certain type of player or certain characteristics, and you start from there. And, in most teams, it's true that forwards have freedoms that the rest of the team don't, but you are still given guidelines for the kind of profile the club wants. For example, if the target is a number 9, you need to figure out if you want someone who focuses a lot on coming to meet and playing back to goal or if you want one who cuts behind and goes deep, or if you want one who maybe does both which is why Vlahovic cost what he cost. For the wingers you have to consider if you want a classic winger or you want one that cuts inside nowadays many teams want both, that is, one who knows how to play in the open field but also in half-spaces. In addition, you get a lot of requests based on the role but also based on how to integrate the players you need with the ones you already have, so if you have to take a winger the choice also depends a lot on which centre-forward you have, who is the full-back he will have behind him, the type of midfield etc."
can you push yourself with the decisions you make? I mean, in the choice you make today of a player / position, can you also consider who you will take in the future, for example if you believe that at some point you will change the type of game a little and switch to an inverted full-back? Can you take this into account?
"These types of decisions are made by those who are building the team, they are the ones who trace the path to follow. If you are that person who has this task, so you don't think only about the short term but the medium and long-term. I really think that the answer is yes, you have to take into consideration those aspects too, that is, you can go and take profiles today that will be those that will serve in the future. As for me or for those who have roles similar to mine, the focus is on the present. In addition, the players sign 4-5 year contracts, so how a player can be integrated in future evolutions, that is how versatile he is or linked to the current game scheme, it is something that also affects whether to renew a contract or not and at what salary to do it."
A manager arrives at a club with specific ideas and game mode, how much does this affect the scouts?
"I think there are more and more coaches who have a dynamic play model and an adaptive play system, and who want to experiment. If this is not the case, then if a manager arrives who is very rigid on the scheme and the way of playing, if your club is well managed they will be very clear/ explicit in the requests, all those involved will understand that from that moment on is a specific need for certain things. But, as I said before, lately there is a strong growth of the other type of coaches, those who experiment and adapt, and this is where the versatility of the players comes into play. And I'm not just talking about the ability to play in multiple positions, on the contrary I think the concept of position is a bit overrated in some respects, I'm talking about the ability to play in different systems and perform different tasks, this is the really important thing."
So is the flexibility of a player something you consider? For example, a player who is currently not exactly the ideal player for a certain role but who has the ability to become one in the future:
"I think you have to try to understand what characteristics a player has as innate / inherited and which ones he can develop and acquire, a big part of a scout's job is this. In general, what you need to look at when in possession of the ball, apart from the technical skills of course, is above all decision-making. This is a feature that can be developed as the player gets used to being in difficult situations. Obviously always up to a certain point/ limit. , but I think it is the thing that can be developed more in the possession phase. On the other hand, when he is off the ball, you look at the general behavior, the movements, the positioning, both in defense and in attack. One thing about a player that you cannot develop is speed, because it never changes (unless of course throughout the years) while it can greatly increase muscle mass. You also need to know the manager and his staff well, this can greatly affect the percentage of improvement a particular player can have. For example, if you have a manager who is very good at improving the defensive phase of the players, you can bet on a full-back who is offensively crazy even if he is not very defensive because you know that he will be made to improve. This concept is valid not only with the manager and his staff, but also with very experienced players in certain team roles, especially center-forward and central defender. If you give a young striker 6 months of training with an experienced striker with the same characteristics, he will help him a lot with movements in the area, runs without the ball, etc. Same thing for the central defenders."
As a scout, do you also look at KPI (Key Performance indicators) outputs and things like that?
"I have discussed this for a long time with Ben (Ben Torvaney, they work together at Milan) because I think it is a very interesting idea, but I also think it is very difficult to apply to football. The point is that systems are not static, but rather tend to adapt to the context and therefore inevitably change. I still think it's not something to be avoided completely, but it's an interesting idea. Perhaps this type of strategy can be considered in a context where you are a small team, with big budget constraints and players to draw from. In such scenarios, it may be worth considering replacing players who have certain outputs with other players who have similar outputs. Today, however, it is much more something to discuss rather than something I work with on a daily basis", said Estevao.
So you don't do like in "Moneyball" where you sit down, take a player who can do 3 things and replace him with 3 players who can each do one of those 3 things?
"From this point of view it is not so bad, there is a certain logic behind it and I repeat, there are scenarios where maybe it even makes sense to apply it. However, I don't think this has ever been experienced in football. Or at least, I've never done it."
Estevao on the evolution of wingers:
"Scouting about these positions, or anyway in general it applies to all positions, is more about the role / task you need than the position. There have been times when to play a winger we were asked for a profile that starts wide and aims for the goal coming into the field, while other times we were asked for someone a little less pure winger but much more "between the lines" player. Obviously, in the last few years there have been changes and modern wingers have evolved, just as in reality all other positions have also evolved. For me, however, not much changes because I don't approach my work in terms of positions."
You talked about evolution and evolving positions, in this regard, do you consider age as an important factor? I mean, are you less worried about signing a young player, as by this time he will surely have played in more flexible football than older / more experienced players? For example, it's something that I see with technology and my parents, obviously they struggle because they grew up in a world where there was no technology...
"Look, first of all I think if you are looking for a "classic" winger nowadays, he will probably be 55 years old. Already in the 2000s there were many reversed-footed wingers ... in any case I think that what you say can make sense, even if you have not explained it very well.
But it's not a question of young / old, it's more a question of what experience they have had, where they come from. All young players in general are more malleable / trainable, for the more experienced ones you have to see if they have had experience in different types of systems, this is a plus, or people who up to 25/26 only played a role and only a system, this is absolutely not a plus but rather it is worrying, especially if you buy it to make it do something different. In short, not all "old" players are the same, what is valuable are the experiences they have had. And experience is a value that I have underestimated in the past and that instead I am gradually taking into account more and more, both from a tactical and a personal point of view."
Now let's talk about more central players, and about physical vs technical, because I believe that the importance of physical qualities in players has grown in parallel with the growth of game systems based on intensive pressing. I am perhaps a little biased because I have spent a lot of time watching Leeds lately, so I exaggerated in giving importance to the intensity of the pressing, but I still believe that by now the attacking players, especially those in the central area of the field, cannot just be a creative, imaginative player, and don't add anything to the no-ball part of the game. Does this impact your scouting work?
"Honestly, I think it's not just about the players in central positions, it's also crucial for the sides. Indeed, I could also tell you that for the wingers, it is just as important as it is for the center forwards, or at least it is important in our system. You were talking about technique vs physique, I actually don't think that a little basic technique is a compromise for a player's ability to press. It is full of technical players who are very good and very smart in pressing."
"You can find 3 types of technical players:
- Those who are very good at pressing;
- Those who have the physique and athleticism suitable to be able to press but who do not. In particular, and this can be seen from both the data and the naked eye, when you talk about players who have an average or slightly below average pressing output but are very athletic / physical players who play in a context where you don't press, you can be quite confident that if you put them in a context of pressing then they will improve their pressing output and will be much above average;
- Those who have a pressing output so low that it is simply part of them, you will not be able to transform them into players who press, the best case is to be able to bring them with an average pressing-output.
Obviously with the latter you have to be very careful, and in general it depends on the context in which you operate. If you have a system where pressing doesn't have much value then it's okay to get one like that. If, on the other hand, you are in a context where pressing has a lot of value, then you have to start considering whether to accept the compromise in case you need what he gives you in the possession phase. And we have players like that, so it's absolutely a possible compromise, it's not something that completely prevents you from signing someone but it's definitely an important part to consider.."
How much does the eye test also influence in judging the pressing? Do you watch videos or do you rely only on data?
"It depends on the role, if you need to take a player who arrives and is immediately a starter in a position where work without the ball and pressing is fundamental, then it is important to really understand how good he is beyond what the numbers say, so look also at videos. As for a young player taken to be a substitute, or in any case a young player taken to grow with the team who after a few months can be a substitute, then it is not very important if he does not have a good pressing phase, because we are a team that presses well. If I were in a context where I did not have confidence in the ability of the staff to improve a player's pressing phase, then I would probably be more careful. By now, however, most of the coaches are very attentive on the pressing phase."
This topic is very interesting, because taking a player and teaching him to press is much more feasible than developing / improving his technical skills. It is as if, in the event that they have certain physical / athletic characteristics and are mobile, through the scouting of this type of players, it is possible to obtain added value for the team:
"Yes, and as regards the offensive players, if they are in a context where there is no pressure and therefore have few opportunities to press in the attacking zone, for example we are talking about a winger and you see that he helps a lot the full-back of his side follows the opposing wing, etc. this is already a good sign, it already makes you realize that he has the right attitude. Because the point is that a lot of the pressing phase is done by the player's will to do it, obviously assuming that he has the athletic / physical qualities."
Estevao on attackers and finishing:
"The finishing is tough. there is a spectrum, there are people who are at one end of this spectrum, who are finishing purists, that is, those who believe this is a skill, and then there are people at the other end who are the ones of "xG is my life". If I were to position myself in this spectrum I would say that I am close to the middle but tending towards the analytic part. I think in general the players who consistently score are the ones who are consistently in position to score, but you need a large sample (of data) to say for sure. If you have access to information about the player's personality, the mentality he has, if he is cold, etc. I believe this plays its part in finishing. But everything that concerns the personality of the footballer is dealt with by the director of the technical area, it is he who has access to this information, who meets with the player, who meets with agents, who meets with old coaches, etc. If you don't have access to these things there are other things you can look at. For example, the shooting technique should have a certain weight, there is a slice of players who have a very good shooting technique from outside the area. Then you have to evaluate what kind of scoring chances they are in: there are players who consistently score more than their xG, but this may be because they are especially good from a certain position in a certain type of shot. An example that is often given for this type of player is Son of Tottenham, there is a specific type of shot where he is legitimately the best player in the world. I think this isn't necessarily a bad thing indeed, he has value as long as you understand the repeatability of that type of shot. The player is not a magician, there is simply a certain area of the pitch where he has developed a muscle memory that makes him an excellent finisher. Also I think that if a player is particularly good at being in positions where he has a good chance of scoring (and there are players like that) and at the same time he is not very good at finishing (and there are players like that) you can fix it. You can actually solve the other way around too, but it's more difficult. I mean, there are more chances of transforming from below average finishing player to average finishing player one who is consistently in good position to score compared to an excellent finisher who, however, cannot put himself in situations to score continuously, because this is a bad habit that is difficult to change. However in general it is complicated because it depends on too many things, there are many studies about it..."
Estevao again on Vlahovic:
"Most of the arguments that have been made about Vlahovic and the cost of his card have been about whether he finishes more than his xGs and whether he could keep this in the new team as well, and very little has been said about the fact. that this guy is top-notch in two things: cutting deep behind the defense and coming across to pick up the team. And all this by having one of the best physicists in the world for a center forward. All of these things are much more important than xG, especially if you are a dominant team that dictates their game, because in dominant teams there will certainly be other scoring sources and your striker generally does a lot of things besides the last touch to score."
