Tweet
This is something that has been poignant for us in the last few years with the revolving door policy we've seen for players. On my flight back from Lebanon today, I got back into reading "The Numbers Game" and the particular chapter that stood out to me was a chapter regarding "O-Ring Theory".
Simply put, O-Ring Theory is derived from the Challenger Disaster, where NASA spent millions developing their state of the art space shuttle but the O-Rings (a fairly valueless element relative to everything else), which had frozen overnight prior to launch and thus, leaked burning gas straight onto the fuel tank, causing the separation of the shuttle and the death of all 7 crew members. This single, cheap element caused the death of these people and thus an economic theory was put forward by Michael Kremer which simply states that you're only as good as your weakest link.
This has been proven through statistical analysis by the people involved in producing "The Numbers Game" to have the same effect in football. The calculated that replacing the 11th best player in any with someone 10% better brought about bigger points, goals and shots gains than replacing your best player with someone 10% better.
Ultimately, if you want proof that this theory stands tall, just look at the 2011 Play Off Final between Reading and Swansea. Zurab Khizanishvili, a Reading centre back, who many consider to be at fault for 3 goals that day. Reading didn't play particularly badly in the 4 - 2 defeat, but ultimately, they were outdone by their weakest link.
A team is only as good as it's worst player is something that I personally believe every club should adhere to with regards to transfers. Replace your worst players and work your way up if you need to. You cannot carry a bad player to success, it doesn't work like that in football, look at the Galacticos project as a fine example of that.
Some might see this as being obvious, some might disagree with this approach. But my curiosity with all this is, what sort of transfer policy have we actually adopted? And where should we take it from here?
Simply put, O-Ring Theory is derived from the Challenger Disaster, where NASA spent millions developing their state of the art space shuttle but the O-Rings (a fairly valueless element relative to everything else), which had frozen overnight prior to launch and thus, leaked burning gas straight onto the fuel tank, causing the separation of the shuttle and the death of all 7 crew members. This single, cheap element caused the death of these people and thus an economic theory was put forward by Michael Kremer which simply states that you're only as good as your weakest link.
This has been proven through statistical analysis by the people involved in producing "The Numbers Game" to have the same effect in football. The calculated that replacing the 11th best player in any with someone 10% better brought about bigger points, goals and shots gains than replacing your best player with someone 10% better.
Ultimately, if you want proof that this theory stands tall, just look at the 2011 Play Off Final between Reading and Swansea. Zurab Khizanishvili, a Reading centre back, who many consider to be at fault for 3 goals that day. Reading didn't play particularly badly in the 4 - 2 defeat, but ultimately, they were outdone by their weakest link.
A team is only as good as it's worst player is something that I personally believe every club should adhere to with regards to transfers. Replace your worst players and work your way up if you need to. You cannot carry a bad player to success, it doesn't work like that in football, look at the Galacticos project as a fine example of that.
Some might see this as being obvious, some might disagree with this approach. But my curiosity with all this is, what sort of transfer policy have we actually adopted? And where should we take it from here?
Comment