출처 : https://www.ft.com/content/3a95c49d-5fc9-4d63-b16b-c8cf0d30b7b8
Selection and decision-making are often framed in terms of “art versus science”, with the assumption that, in our digital age, “science” is increasingly marginalising the human factor. But making decisions — and this applies in any area, not just sport — demands weighing and reconciling different kinds of information, and drawing on differing types of intelligence. In the age of data, the question remains: where does the human dimension fit in?
(중략)
But selectors can - and this is close to the heart of the matter in all professions - diverge from conventional wisdom about where they perceive value. And here, of course, better data is extremely helpful. If you can measure player impact more accurately, then you are getting nearer to identifying "talent that whispers", not just "talent that shouts" (in the excellent phrasing of Rasmus Ankersen, who was co-director of football at Brentford before moving to Southampton).
This is not to suggest that data holds all the answers (the theme of many recent sports books) and that human judgment is on the road to oblivion. Yes, sport is in the midst of a data revolution, and you'd be insane not to seek better information to inform decisions. But rather than using data instead of human intelligence, the challenge is using data in tandem with the human dimension.
And here decisions in sport reflect decisions in life.
"What the data says" is too often a convenient way of passing the buck. Better to come out in plain sight: it's a judgment.
Innovation and tradition rubbed shoulders. That is, of course, a tricky balancing act, with risks on all sides, and while I did not know it at the time, that was probably the attraction.