Analysing Europe's Top 4 Leagues – Is Serie A Boring and Defensive?

'The idea that Serie A is defensive is completely out of date. Anyone who's seen Roma, Napoli, Inter or Lazio recently wouldn't call it defensive.'

'One of the greatest untruths touted about a football league is that Serie A is boring. But the mud seems to have stuck regarding Serie A'.

Replies to the thread 'Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga – Differences?' on boards.ie, December 2012.

Stereotypes

As mentioned in the previous article  and as alluded to in the quotes above, Serie A seems to have gained a reputation as being a 'boring' and defensive league. Articles such as this from bornoffside.net refer to a 'defensive mindset [which] seems to be drilled into the psyche of the players'. When English teams face Serie A opposition in the Champions League, commentators will often warn viewers that the Italians will likely be difficult to break down due to the supposedly unshakeable national trait of prioritising defensiveness solidity at the expense of attacking or fluid football.

Teams are defensive, emphasis is on tactics, keeping a clean sheet and attempting to score on the counterattack. The Italians brought the style of Catenaccio to football, so it is perhaps natural to assume that this style prevails in their national league's footballing identity.

However, we have already seen the folly of believing stereotypes about leagues based on only watching a select few teams from a league, believing what 'experts' tell us, confusing the footballing style of a country's national team with that of its league or believing that a league's style does not change or evolve over time. The quotes above, if they are to be believed, would suggest that similar misrepresentations are being made about Serie A – they claim it is now an exciting and attacking league, and the days of Catenaccio are long gone.

Like in the last article, I will analyse statistics from the Top 4 leagues to ascertain the truth of these assertions about Serie A, while also attempting to draw any interesting conclusions from the other top European leagues in the process.

But first we must clarify an important term.

What is 'Boring'?

What does the term 'boring' mean in football? It might seem a difficult question to answer as the term is subjective. In general, something is not inherently boring. For example, the statement 'The Godfather is a boring film' is not a statement of fact, rather a subjective opinion. We have seen this in football also with the recent debate about Spain's dominant International side – some see their football as fantastic to watch, while others see it as slow, boring, repetitive and unadventurous.

So how can we possibly measure how statictically 'boring' a league is? How can we prove or disprove the subjective claim that Serie A boring?

Well, we have to transform 'boring' from a subjective term to an objective, measureable statistic by inferring what the majority of football fans, pundits, writers and commentators mean when they use the term. There is a clue in the other word that is also often dispariginly pinned to Serie A – 'defensive'.

The bottom line when we talk about excitement and boringness in football is goals. It goes without saying that goals are usually the most exciting moments of a football match. A lot of goals? Exciting football. A nil-nil draw or a one-nil win? Boring. This is the way football is predominantly viewed. 'One-nil to the Arsenal' was sung by Arsenal fans, while opposition fans chanted 'Boring, boring Arsenal'. The last World Cup in 2010 was widely received as a 'boring' World Cup due to its low goals tally of 2.27 goals per game. Chelsea and Liverpool's low-scoring Champions League clashes last decade were frequently labelled 'boring' and groans of despair could be heard across the football world when they were once again drawn against each other in 2009. These are just a few examples of many that reveal the common acceptance that a lack of goals generally means a lack of entertainment.

I have reservations about equating goals with excitement. For me football is about more than just goals, and at times a nil nil draw can be an incredibly engrossing and interesting match. However, for many this is probably not the case, and it is true that frequently a goalless game can be disappointing for the spectator and that usually the most memorable moments and highlights from a match are the goals. In any case, as we have seen, there are countless examples that suggest that when the term 'boring' is used in football it refers to a lack of goals. A low goal tally could also be seen as an indicator of defensive football, as a greater emphasis on defending by teams throughout a league should typically result in more low-scoring games.

So to determine whether or not Serie A is a particularly boring and defensive league, we need to examine the amount of goals scored in that league in comparision to the other top leagues across Europe.

Goals per Game

Like in the last article, we'll look at the statistics from the last full season, 2011-12, as they contain the most current and relevant complete data. If the stereotypes are true, we should expect a relatively low goals per game tally in Serie A. Here are the results.

Based on last season, there would seem to be some credibility to the stereotypes about Serie A.

They have the lowest goal-per-game tally across the four leagues, with the Bundesliga pipping the Premier League and La Liga, which all have significantly higher tallies.

So based on this evidence, it would be fair to conclude that last season Serie A was the most boring (in the previously outlined interpretation of the word) league amongst the top European leagues. However, the discussion does not end here. The labelling of Serie A as a boring league is not something new – it has been heard throughout the years. While last season is of course the most recent and therefore most relevant data, it is worth looking at an average across recent years to see if these figures represent an ongoing trend, season on season.

In this ten year representation of goals Serie A, once again, comes out at the bottom of the pile. Their ten-year-average is just .02 goals more than last season's tally suggesting it was typical for Serie A in relation to recent trends. We can also see that the Bundesliga has consistently provided the most 'exciting' football in terms of goals scored, and that last season was nothing new or exceptional.

What is more interesting is the tallies of La Liga and, in particular, the Premier League. We can see that last seasons tallies were significantly higher than the ten-year average.

In fact the Premier League and La Liga have experienced a goal explosion recently. The two most recent seasons in the Premier League have been the highest since its inception, and the one previous was also relatively high (2.77 gpg). La Liga has also seen a marked increase in goals in the last four seasons. So then why are their ten-year averages so comparably low?

The obvious answer is that their have been some comparably low-scoring seasons in this ten year period. The three seasons between 2004 and 2007 in the Premier League saw a combined average of just 2.5 goals – less than Serie A's average tally or their tally last year. La Liga had a similar tally during these three seasons – 2.51. So if Serie A is a boring league, then the Premier League and La Liga were for several seasons too, and have only recently become more entertaining.

Yet Serie A continued to have its boring reputation during these years (as was stated earlier, this is not a new tag ascribed to Italian football) when it was in fact slightly more 'exciting' than the English and Spanish leagues during these seasons.

What's more, despite Serie A coming out bottom over the ten year period, the differences between the leagues (high-scoring Bundesliga aside) are relatively trivial – just a .05 difference between Serie A and the Premier League and a further .03 between the Premier League and La Liga.

So again – if Serie A is boring, the Premier League and La Liga are barely more exciting. In the last decade there appears to be no statistical evidence to support the claim that Serie A, in particular, is exceptionally boring. So where do these claims come from?

One potential answer is suggested in a quote at the beginning of this article, which describes the idea that Serie A is boring and defensive as 'out of date'. There is a suggestion here that Serie A indeed was a boring league in the past, but has become more exciting in recent years, yet its reputation as boring has continued to pervade – or, in other words, as the other quote states, 'the mud has stuck'.

Looking at the average goal per game data from past decades should reveal whether this theory is correct.

We can see a colossal difference in the amount of goals per game in the 70s and 80s compared with the 90s and 2000s. The 1970s and 80s saw the goal per game rate barely exceed two goals – something incredibly rare in football. Indeed, this twenty-year period saw seven seasons drop below the 2 goals-per-game mark. Having looked at data across a range of leagues and years, these years are unparallelled in their consistent scarcity of goals. Serie A during these years was an exceptionally boring league.

In other words, Serie A now is nothing like it once was, and there seems to be considerable evidence to support the quotee's claim that the ideas about it are out of date – it was vastly more boring in the 70s and 80s than it is now.

One might argue that just because it was exceptionally boring in the past, that does not exclude it from being at least a bit boring now. However, we have already seen that in recent years Serie A does not stand out from the Premier League and La Liga. To further counter this claim, let's have a look at Serie A's most recent decade alongside other widely watched leagues and competitions.

In order to see if their total of 2.58 for the last decade stands out as exceptionally low, I have included probably the most prestiguous, widely watched and highest quality competitions (excluding those already examined) alongside Serie A: The World Cup and European Championships (in which, due to their infrequency and to provide a greater representation, I have included tournaments from the last twenty years), the Champions League, the Europa League (due to a lack of easily available data and it's recent change of format I've only included the last 5 seasons) and France's Ligue 1 (which is often included as part of a 'top 5' of Euorpean Leagues, but which I have left out of my detailed analysis due to the fact I think it is significantly weaker than the 'top 4' leagues).

This table puts an end to the debate about Serie A being a boring and defensive league. It sees more goals than the modern era of the most famous and prestiguous tournament in the world – the World Cup. It also has a significantly higher goal rate than the European Championships. Its goal rate is comparable to Europe's premier club competition and pinnacle of club football, the Champions League. We can see that the real boring league of Europe is France's Ligue 1 which has a far lower goal rate of just 2.29.

Conclusions

Taking the word 'boring' to mean a paucity of goals, statistics show that the quotes at the start of this article are accurate in their appraisals – the stereotypes about Serie A being boring and defensive are as false as those that label the Premier League as a predominantly long-ball league.

The introduction of 3 points for a win in 199 4 marked the end for a defensive style which was already showing signs of being abandoned in the late 80s and early 90s. Since then Serie A has been much the same as La Liga and the Premier League, with most seasons falling into the standard range of between 2.5 and 2.7 goals per game.

Those who wish to hang on to their dismissive claims towards Italian football will be reassured by the fact that Serie A had a lower goals tally last year compared to the other top leagues, and also the lowest of the four leagues over a ten-year period. However, this is, as has been shown, a limited view of the statistics.

It would appear that many are confusing today's Serie A with the Serie A of the 70s and 80s. This is very strange considering Italian football was nowhere near as accessible to a foreign audience during this period compared to now. Also many who today spout claims about the league being boring would have been very young or not alive at all in these decades. In short, when Serie A was boring, not many non-Italians were watching it.

This serves as a possible indicator about where false footballing stereotypes predominantly originate – namely, word of mouth and repetition. We have already discussed the possible varying sources of stereotypes, but the example of Serie A seems to suggest the number one reason is uncomplicated – the stereotypes are just assumed truths, presented as a sort of footballing 'common knowledge', shared and repeated so many times that they are unchallenged and taken for fact. Despite the highly popular Gazetta Football Italia in the 90s and greater access to live matches and highlights through satellite TV and the internet in the last decade (not to mention the fact that recent decades should logically be fresher in the memory) it is somehow the Italian football style of previous decades which has remained at the forefront of the imagination of many when they think about Serie A.

In other words, it appears these claims are not based on any kind of football-watching at all. However it is worth discussing the other suggested reasons for the perpetuation of footballing stereotypes in relation to Serie A.

The comments of commentators and 'experts' can be seen as an extension of the previous point – few if any of these pundits watch or even casually follow Serie A, but they need to say something and thus revert to the easy stereotypes about 'tight' defences. These comments certainly perpetuate these false beliefs, as they are coming from supposed experts so can be repeated by fans with a sense of authority attached to them.

Another explanation could be the categorisation of an entire league based on the biggest and most successful clubs within it. We saw this with La Liga falsely gaining a reputation as a 'tiki-taka' league based predominantly on the example of Barcelona, and something similar might have wrongly influenced some opinions with regards to Serie A. The Champions League is the arena in which most fans watch teams from other countries, so many might have formed opinions (or more likely reaffirmed what they already believed) after the all-Italian final of 2003 which finished goalless after extra-time, taking this as evidence of typically defensive and boring Italian football. Some might also call to mind Fabio Capello's great AC Milan team of 1994 which won both the European Cup and Serie A. Founding their success on an incredibly strong defence, Milan somehow won the league with a paltry 36 goals in 34 matches, and their matches in the league that season averaged out at an unprecedentedly low 1.5 goals per game. The logic for many then might have been along the same lines of what is happening with Barcelona now – as the best and most famous team in their respective countries, they are the best representative of the assumed style in that country. Therefore, those following Serie A in 1994 might have logically (in their minds at least) made the invalid argument that, because Milan are boring, Serie A is too. This would ignore the fact that an average of 2.47 goals-per-game were scored by the other clubs of Serie A that season, not at all a low tally considering 3 points for a win had not yet been introduced.

A final possible reason for the false beliefs about Serie A was mentioned in the last article – a propensity to confuse the style of the national team with that of its national league. This is possibly at play with England and Spain with regards to passing style, but it is perhaps with Italy that this confusion prevails most strongly. The most successful Italian team of recent times was the 2006 World Cup winning squad, which had an incredibly strong defence. They conceded just 2 goals in 7 games on their way to victory and their games averaged just 2 goals per game. The national team has been seemingly quite defensive in the major tournaments in the modern era (since 1990), with their matches averaging out at 2.03 goals-per-game in their 59 matches (although it should be noted that the dynamics of knock-out matches where avoiding defeat is paramount are very different to league matches where the incentive of 3 points for the win encourages a more risky approach). Add to the fact that, as Fabio Cannavaro states, Italy 'have always been good at defending and shouldn't be ashamed of that' (link), and have historically produced great defenders (Baresi, Maldini, Cannavaro, Nesta to name just a few), it is perhaps understandable that people associate Italy (and by association Serie A) with defending.

Looking solely at goals-per-game as the one variable to decide such a broad, subjective and difficult concept of what exactly 'boring' means in football may seem limited. The word is often also used in relation to other factors, such as competivity (or a lack of it) and we will look at this in the next article. However, as has been discussed, goals are the essence of what we mean when we use this term. In this sense Serie A is not boring. At the time of writing Serie A seems to be following the previously mentioned 'goal explosion' trend that has recently appeared across top European leagues, notching up a high tally of 2.73 goals-per-game so far this season.

One could ignore all the goals now flying in in Serie A, stick to their guns and say that they think it's boring and that's their opinion, and it would be difficult to argue with that – however no one who makes such a claim would have watched even a small percentage of the thousands of matches played across Europe in recent years, while statistics capture the data in its entirety. I know who I trust more.

Follow me on Twitter @ErwinMorzadec

An analysis of Liverpool's Attacking and Defensive effectiveness so far

Ben Mayhew (@experimental361) has made very interesting representative graphs of shot effectiveness amongst all team in Europe's top 5 leagues.  The cross where the two lines meet is the statistical average, and he has classified the four separate quadrants as follows:  Ineffectual, Languidly Clinical, Energentically Wasteful and Constant Threat.  

It should probably come as no surprise to Liverpool fans where they stand in this graph:



http://experimental361.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/top-5-att.png  (Follow the link to study in greater detail)

They are unsurprisingly in the 'energetically wasteful' quadrant (top-right).

However, so far this season, they have significantly increased their shots per game and take about 4 more shots each game compared to last season. Their efficiency has improved slightly - it now takes 10 shots for them to score, as opposed to 11 last year.

So what does this tell us?

Well, basically they are still wasteful in front of goal. However they are improving on all fronts. Liverpool are very very close to breaking into the ideal 'Constant Threat' quadrant (i.e. a team which takes a lot of shots and converts them into goals more often). Similarly they have almost reached the average shot conversion rate across all leagues, which is an improvement and should result in more goals with the amount of shots they take.

Which brings us to the next point - Liverpool take more shots than any other team in the Premiership and are 5th highest across Europe. Now of course a shot doesn't necessarily mean a chance and it could be a case that they're shooting from range too much. But in general, fashioning a shooting chance is a suggestion of something positive, that they are having a lot of the ball in attacking areas. Juventus, Madrid, Bayern and Roma are the only teams ahead of them, and they are teams that generally dominate matches (and in the case of Juve and Bayern are running away with their leagues.)

So Liverpool are being both more productive and more clinical in their attacking this year - but they still need to be more clinical and are still failing somewhat in this area. (Or perhaps they need to shoot less and try to wait to fashion better goalscoring opportunities). This is the biggest difference between Liverpool and the teams challenging at the top of the table.



Ben Mayhew has done a similar analysis with defending:



http://experimental361.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/top-5-def.png  (Follow the link to study in greater detail)

Liverpool are in the bottom left quadrant here, described as 'Avoiding the Issue' - they restrict opponents chances (facing just over 10 shots per game on average) but the defence is easily breached (it only takes about 8 shots for an opponent to score). 

So similar to their attack, it would suggest that Liverpool are 'dominating' games, but when it comes to crucial moments they are not being effective. 

This could be read as a tactical issue as well - if you look at other teams in their quadrant (such as Spurs and Barcelona), these are teams that press high up the field, thus dominating possession, restricting the opponents' ability to play in their half, but leaving a lot of space in behind, which, if penetrated, is clearly going to allow better chances.

So as with the attacking, it's probably a trade-off - it's probably not possible to drastically improve one area while leaving the other steady. 

But certainly it could be improved moderately. Liverpool are not too far from the average, and moving into the 'Formidable' quadrant. 



So, to conclude, it seems like Liverpool are doing the 'right' things on the pitch, preventing shots against them and shooting lots against their opponents.

However, their opponents are being more clinical - they need 8.25 shots to score against Liverpool, while Liverpool need 10 to score against their opponents. 

Liverpool need to be more clinical in front of goal, and more effective at repelling the relatively few attacks that come there way.

Rodgers may also need to rethink tactics, or the players reconsider their decision-making, as as I suggested it's probably difficult to improve one area significantly without the other dropping off. 

So perhaps they need to stop shooting from range quite so much, hold on to the ball and create a more convertible shooting chance in attack - Barcelona are perhaps the ideal model to follow here as they score a goal every 4 shots (an incredibly clinical conversion rate), and it is rare that you see them shooting from range, preferring to hold onto the ball for sustained periods in order to create the perfect chance.

Likewise, in defence, Liverpool could perhaps allow more space for their opponents in front of the defence and in midfield areas in order to prevent easier scoring opportunities being created against them.

That said, better finishing in attack and less errors from Reina and the defence could achieve this more clinical shift without Rodgers having to sacrifice the generally very productive play too much.

To summarise, I would say the signs are good for Liverpool from looking at the graphs. 

If they can be more clinical and effective they could be formidable in both attack and defence.

Analysing Europe's Top 4 League - Passing

Analysing Europe's Top 4 Leagues - Passing

“There's something very entertaining about the speed of the Premier League, but it doesn't compare with the technical brilliance of La Liga [...] La Liga's pass and move football's better than the Premier League's blood and thunder approach. It's more cultured, clever and creative; it's the way football was always meant to be played.”

- Top Rated Answer to the question 'Which is the better way to play football: La Liga style or EPL style?' on Yahoo Answer, March 2012

These articles attempts to examine the extent to which the four top European Leagues (the English Premier League, Spain's La Liga, the Italian Serie A and the German Bundesliga) differ, using statistics from the most recent league season (the 2011/2012 Season). Analysis will focus predominantly on the Premier League and La Liga.  

The question (and answer) quoted above about 'which is the better way to play football' defines the styles of the EPL and La Liga as distinct from one another, and is an example of the general assumption that each league has its own way of playing, its own footballing identity unique to that country's league.

Stereotypes and Expectations

A quick google search of 'style of play' preceded by each of the four countries, reveals the styles that are most commonly attributed to each league. For La Liga, the first result is a wikipedia article on Tiki-Taka, for England a wiki article on Long Ball, for Italy a wiki article on Catenaccio. There is no single playing style stereotypically associated with German football, but the word 'efficient' seems to be frequently used on discussion forums and question and answer websites, and of the three it is probably most associated with the perceived direct and fast-paced style of English football. These tags more or less sum up the type of football usually deemed typical of each nation's league by fans and even by TV pundits:

Premier League: very fast-paced, open, direct passing, 'blood and thunder' approach, with more emphasis on the physical than the technical or tactical.

La Liga: creativity, short passes, technical brilliance, more 'cultured', a strong emphasis on the technical over the physical.

Serie A: defensive, cautious, slow-paced, tight, counter-attacks, an emphasis on the tactical.

Bundesliga: fast-paced, high-scoring games, similar to the Premier League but perhaps less extreme (in other words slightly less physical and more technical).

If the stereotypes are to believed, the four leagues are quite different and distinct in their styles, and one would expect these differences to be reflected in the statistics from each league. In particular a notable difference between the English and Spanish leagues would be expected, with the supposed 'blood and thunder' directness of the Premier League contrasting with the 'cultured' passing of La Liga. In this article I will use the statistics from the 2011/2012 season to attempt to answer the following questions:

- Are there major statistical differences between the four leagues? If so, what are they and what do they tell us about the overall playing style in each league?

- To what extent are the stereotypes associated with each league's playing style true?

We'll start by examining the statistical variable which I believe to be most indicative of playing style – Passing Stats.

Tiki-Taka and Hoof-Ball: Barcelona and Stoke as Opposing Models of Passing Style

When we talk about differences in playing style, usually the first thing that comes to mind is the way in which a team passes the ball. This is logical – the most noticable difference between the way teams play is in the way they use the ball when in possession. When we hear terms like 'tiki-taka', 'possession football' or 'cultured' to describe La Liga, or 'Long-Ball', 'Direct' or even (to some extent) 'physical' to describe the Premier League, it is the passing style that is being referred to. Anyone who follows these leagues knows that Barcelona (Tiki-Taka) and Stoke City (Long Ball, or what is commonly derogatorily referred to as 'Hoof-Ball') epitomise these two approaches; Barcelona play a lot of short passes to retain possession and dominate the ball, while Stoke tend to 'hoof' the ball long and play a lot of crosses, hoping to use their physical superiority and aerial power to full effect.

We don't need statistics to tell us that Barcelona and Stoke are worlds apart in terms of style. However, by analysing the passing of the two teams we can statistically verify that these differences are reflected in the way each team passes the ball, and also discover what proportions of certain types of passes make up the typical composition of tiki-taka and long-ball approaches. In other words, these two extreme examples of each style can serve as blueprints of each style, which we can later use to compare the average passing statistics of each league.

The stats register all attempted passes, thus both completed and uncompleted passes are registered. The passes are broken down into four categories:

- Short Passes, Long Passes, Crosses, and Through Balls.

Below are pie-chart representations of both teams' passing stats, with percentages.

We can see that even a long-ball team will still play more short passes than long – this makes practical sense and should come as no surprise. However it is clear from looking at the pie-chart representation that the obvious difference in playing styles is significantly reflected in the teams passing stats; as expected Barcelona play more short passes and through balls than Stoke and Stoke play more long balls and crosses. Stoke play roughly 3 times more long balls and crosses, while Barcelona play an incredibly high 13 through-balls per game on average, compared to Stoke's 1 per game. The difference in the quantity of short passes between the two teams is not fully visible in this proportional representation, but on average Barca play 436 more short passes a game than Stoke – close to 3 times as many.

These passing stats, then, can be seen to be representative of the contrasting styles of each team. However perhaps they don't fully represent the extent of the differences, as many of Barca's long passes might be raking lateral passes designed to switch the play, which don't really constitute a 'long ball' game. Likewise Stoke might clear a lot of balls long instead of taking the ball in to pass – this won't be registered as a long pass but still constitutes part of their 'no-nonsense' defensive play. There is another stat which may further reflect the differences in playing style between Tiki-Taka and Long Ball – Aerial Duels Contested.

It stands to reason that a team playing a lot of long balls up the field (whether they be picked-out passes or just hoofed clearances) will contest a lot of aeriel duels. Here we can perhaps further distinguish between the two sides, as we would expect Stoke to contest a far higher amount of aerial duels in their matches. Here we can see that Stoke contest more than double the amount of aerial duels than Barcelona.

Thus the amount of Aerial Duels contested in a league over the course of a season can serve as an indication of that league's playing style, and we should be expecting to see the most amount of aerial duels in the Premier League.

One might reasonably argue that these differences in passing stats is more reflective of quality rather than style, considering that Stoke are typically a low-to-mid-table club with a modest budget while Barcelona are arguably the best team in Europe with a squad littered with top quality players. To counter this claim I will add the passing style of a team comparable in quality and stature to Stoke, a team which finished with just 2 points more than Stoke last year, but who attempted to adopt the 'tiki-taka' style usually associated with Spanish football – Swansea City.

Swansea's manager last season, Brendan Rodgers, has openly stated his admiration for the Spanish 'tiki-taka' style and attempted to implement a version of the possession-based football at the Welsh club. Looking at the pie-chart for passing, we can see that their passing statistics are much more similar to Barcelona's than Stoke's. If Swansea were indeed trying to emmulate Barcelona's passing style, the statistics would show they did a pretty decent job. The main difference would be their relatively high proportion of long balls (11.1%) compared to the 'ideal' Barcelona model (just 7.3%), as well as a relatively low percentage of through balls compared to the Catalan pass-masters. These differences can be explained by the gulf in class between the two teams, as it is generally accepted that playing an exceptionally large proportion of short passes is more difficult and requires a higher degree of composure and technical ability than playing it long, and that playing a high quantity of through balls requires the type of excellent vision and execution (as well as intelligent movement off the ball) that only top class midfielders and forwards possess. Barcelona played by far the most amount of through balls last season throughout Europe (averaging out 13 per game), while other teams which played a high quantity of through balls were Arsenal, Manchester City, Juventus (all 8 per game), Real Madrid, Napoli and AC Milan (7 per game), confirming the hypothesis that attempting a lot of through balls generally requires a very high level of passing quality and movement usually only possessed by top clubs.

Despite these shortfalls, overall Swansea's passing stats, when compared to a team of similar quality (Stoke) and similar style (Barcelona), suggest that while a team's passing statistics can be influenced by the teams quality, they are much more indicative of playing style. Looking at Swansea's Aerial Duels per Game figure reinforces this contention – their 14.9 contested aerials per game is far closer to Barca's low number (11.6) than Stoke's high number (26.1).

In other words, as we might have expected, a team's passing statistics and aerial duels contested are representative of that team's playing style.

Extending this conclusion to assume that a league's passing statistics are representative of that league's prevailing style, we can examine the passing statistics across the four leagues in order to see whether they live up to their expectations and stereotypes.

Of course, it has to be noted that the above examples are extreme examples, and thus we should not expect to see such extreme differences between each league as we do between Stoke and Barcelona; there are teams that play a mix of styles that can not be as rigidly defined as Stoke, Barcelona and Swansea can, and the differing styles of different teams within the same league should level out the statistical representation somewhat.

However, if the stereotypes are to be believed and there is indeed a prevailing influence of certain styles in each league, then we would expect to note at least a modest difference between the passing stats, and in particular more long passes in the Premier League, and more short passes in La Liga.

The Results

At a glance, looking at the pie-charts, we can see that the passing styles amongst the four leagues are very similar, with all leagues playing in and around 80% of their passes short and about 14% long. Crosses make up between 4 and 5% of total passes, while throughballs are around 1% or less.

As we can see from looking at all four charts together, the passing styles are not as distinct as the stereotypes would have us believe and there is little significant difference between each league.

In particular, one might have expected the blue Short Passes piece of the La Liga pie to be larger than the corresponding blue sections of the other pies. Likewise, if we are to believe that 'hoofball' and direct passing still predominate in the Premier League, we might have expected the Long Pass section of its pie to stand out from its European counterparts.

This does not appear to be the case and the much recycled lines about the 'culture' of La Liga and the 'hustle and bustle' of the Premier League appear to have little substance, at least as much as passing is concerned, and passing styles in general appear to be largely homogeneous throughout all the leagues.

However, a quick glance is perhaps not enough, and we should look closer at the actual figures before drawing any definitive conclusions.

Short Passes: It is perhaps surprisingly the English Premier League which plays the highest proportion of Short Passes (82.4%). An average of 23 more short passes a game are played in England compared to the continental leagues. These statistics show that, despite a few teams still adhering to the long-ball style, the league as a whole more closely resembles Swansea's short passing model rather than Stoke's long-ball style.

Long Passes: With 15.3% of their passes going long the German Bundesliga play the most long-passes, meaning it can perhaps be classified as the most direct league. However, the differences across the leagues are not very substantial. It's interesting to note that again the general perception of the difference between La Liga and the Premier League is reversed, with more long passes being played in Spain (13.5%) than in England (12.4%).

Crosses: The highest proportion of crosses take place in Italy's Serie A, but again the differences across the leagues are minimal.

Through Balls: This category takes up such a minimal slice of the pie in each league that one might be forgiven for dismissing its statistical importance. It is here, however that we perhaps see the biggest difference between each league's passing stats. As mentioned earlier, playing a through ball (defined as a 'defence-splitting pass') is a difficult skill to accomplish, so will not be attempted frequently, and will usually only be attempted at the end of some build up play consisting of other types of passes, hence it's small proportional reflection here. Even the through-ball masters Barcelona play less than 2% of their passes as through balls. As they make up such a small percentage, the differences between the leagues are difficult to guage proportionally and would be best looked at by the average per-game amount of through balls played in each league last season.

Serie A sees the most amount of through balls, with Bundesliga playing the least. If attempting a defence-splitting pass is an indication of a high level of passing ability, intelligent movement and creativity, then it is perhaps here that finally we see some indication of La Liga's supposed superior passing 'culture' compared to the Premier League – roughly 3 more through balls are played a match. However, despite containing the team with by far the highest quantity of through balls, La Liga still falls short of Serie A's 10.1 through balls per game, suggesting that the most creative passing takes place in Italy, although there are of course other factors at play here - the amount of time on the ball generally permitted to players, or the depth of defensive lines could effect this statistic.

When we looked at the difference between the stats represented by a typical long-ball team and a tiki-taka team, we noted that, as logic would dictate, long-ball teams contest far more aerial duels than teams that play short passes. So it is worth looking at this stat to further illustrate the passing style of the four big leagues.

Again we see that the stereotypes don't hold up – in fact they are reversed. La Liga contest the most amount of aerial duels with an average of 25 per game (suggesting the ball spends a lot of time in the air) while the Premier League has nearly 4 less, meaning it is the league in which the ball perhaps spends most time on the ground. An even more startling representation of aerial duels which shows just how wrong the stereotypes are, and the folly of basing them on just one or two teams, is when we look at Stoke City in comparison to 9 (!) Spanish clubs which contested more aerial duels last season.

As we can see from statistics, almost half of the supposedly 'cultured' La Liga teams contest more aerial duels than the oft referred to 'cavemen' of Stoke. I have added in the low tallies of Real Madrid and Barcelona as an indication of a possible source for the misguided beliefs about the passing style in La Liga – as much of our viewing of La Liga is restricted to these two teams, our opinion of the league as a whole is formed by them and them alone.

Conclusions

There are some small differences in the passing style of the four major leagues, but they do not contrast as strongly as stereotypes often suggest. The variance in the quality and style of each team within each league levels out the passing statistics so that overall it is not possible to ascribe a certain passing style with a particular league – the idea of a league having a particular passing style is a myth.

If we take passing stats as a strong indicator of overall playing style, then we can perhaps suggest that it is also false that there are significant differences between each league's overall playing approach and philosophy. Teams vary (often due to the variance in quality) – leagues as a whole don't (at least not to any great extent).

If we do look at the small differences the stereotypes are negated even further. The idea that the English style is predominantly long-ball is redundant and ill-informed. If we assume that a high proportion of short passes and a low amount of aerial duels is representative of a short passing style then it is the Premier League which plays the 'purest' football. Likewise the belief that there is an overriding tiki-taka approach taken in Spain and that La Liga sees 'purer' or more 'cultured' football is a myth – Barcelona are the exception not the rule.

There could be several reasons for the perpetuation of these false beliefs. Like any false stereotype, laziness is a big factor. Fans and pundits alike repeat what they have heard and don't bother to challenge it by looking at the facts. It's easier to accept these general truths, especially when 'experts' regurgitate these same ideas, giving them further credence.

People like to compartmentalise, so it's natural that tags such as 'cultured' and 'blood and thunder' will stick to certain leagues, as it becomes easier for the fan or pundit to understand a whole league without resorting to watching 15 hours of football every week – and this takes me to my next more concrete explanation.

If you were to truly understand the style of each of the entire 4 leagues (and not just a few select teams in it) you would have to watch 57 hours of domestic football every week. Clearly nobody has the time to do this. In fact most would find it difficult to fit more than 3 or 4 games into their weekly schedule, and many more would watch even less. How can one expect to describe a style of a league of which they are only seeing 30% or less of the matches? Highlight shows will help to a small extent but it is impossible to draw many detailed conclusions from highlights alone.

How many people watch Osasuna take on Mallorca in La Liga? If they did they would likely see a huge amount of long balls being played and many aerial battles. Yet these teams are ignored when we label the league as predominantly a short passing league and only Barcelona and Real Madrid (and perhaps to a lesser extent other Champions League regulars such as Valencia) are considered.

Another possible reason is a knock-on effect from national teams. The Spanish national team have been the pioneers of tiki-taka alongside Barcelona and they tend to dominate the ball in every game – in Euro 2012 they averaged a very high 65.2% possession and played 88.4% of their passes short. England, on the other hand, have often conformed to their 'long-ball' stereotype. Their failures in recent tournaments have often been attributed to a lack of a ball-playing midfielder who can dominate possession. At the moment their manager is Roy Hodgson, an advocate of a direct playing style – in Euro 2012 they had one of the lowest possession stats with an average of just 39.8% possession. Italy's national team have historically based their success on a solid defence and have produced arguably the greatest defenders in the world over the last few generations. Their last international success at the 2006 World Cup was predominantly based on a very solid backline. This is a possible source for the idea that Serie A is a defensive and tactical league (but we will come to this in a later article).

So while the national teams might conform somewhat to the expectations, the domestic leagues (at least in terms of passing style) don't. This is no surprise given the high quantity of foreign players (and in the case of the Premier League, foreign managers) in each league.

Of course when we talk about differences in each league, there is more than just passing to discuss. In the next article I will look at other stats across the four leagues to further determine the extent of their differences and what these differences consist of.

However, I believe passing statistics are probably the strongest indicators of differences in style, and the results from the 2011/12 season show that many of the typical beliefs about these differences are false.

All statistics are taken (or have been calculated) from www.whoscored.com (which uses Opta stats) and have been rounded to one decimal point.

Follow me on Twitter:  @ErwinMorzadec