Attack and defence

The Devil’s Advocate™ →Go uptown In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights. Index — Click ᐅ to expand: The Devil’s Advocate Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

“On 18 December 2022, he fouled Randal Kolo Muani to give away the penalty for France’s opening goal in the final, where Argentina eventually won 4–2 in the penalty shoot-out after the match ended 3–3 at extra-time, to win the World Cup.”

— Wikipedia, Nicolás Otamendi

“Mbappé became only the second player in history to score a hat-trick in a World Cup final, scoring three goals against Argentina in the 2022 World Cup final. Argentina led 2–0 with just over ten minutes remaining before Mbappé scored twice in two minutes, the second from a volley after playing a one-two.”

— Wikipedia, Kilian Mbappé

It is amazing what you remember.

It struck the JC while watching the 2022 World Cup Final that there is a large asymmetry between how we evaluate attack and defence. The final will be remembered for Lionel Messi, yes, but also for Kilian Mbappé’s hat-trick — the first in a World Cup final since you-know-when.

It is interesting to compare coverage of Mbappé’s performance — breathless — with that of Argentine defender Nicolás Otamendi’s — qualified.

The common consensus: Otamendi had a solid game, but made one big mistake, giving away the penalty that brought France back into the game. Mbappé, on the other hand was more or less invisible for 80 minutes, but sparked to life ten minutes from the end, scoring a hat-trick to take the match to penalties.

Yet Otamendi’s rating were around 5; Mbappé’s between 9 and 10. That two of Mbappé’s three goals were penalties did not dim the papers’ appreciation, and has already dropped out of Wikipiedia’s executive summary. The fact that the Argentine defence so dominated France that half of its forward line was replaced before half-time seems not to have helped Otamendi.

Interesting note: despite the widespread use of “Enhanced Football Intelligence” — every player in the tournament was GPS tracked and data exists for number, location and success rate of passes, tackles and touch rates — not one of the media ratings made reference to it.

If you aren’t on the park, you can’t stick the ball in the net — but you can still get booked, as the hapless Giroud found out later.

Relative cost

The ten top-paid defenders in the world earn between £12m and £18m a year. The top paid footballers earn between £20m and £35m, and most are strikers. Not one is a defender.

The point here is not to challenge these ratings but note the different success criteria for attackers compared to defenders. The payoffs are asymmetrical: A defender must put in a 90 minutes shift. A striker can piss about for half the game as long as she is canny enough to get on the end of at least one cross before the final whistle she will still be remembered as a hero.

You can — as the Argentinians did — shut the brightest star in football’s firmament out of a world cup final for 80 minutes and get 4; you can be shut out for that time by a not-especially notable centre back (who is apparently playing poorly!) and get a ten.

It seems like there should be an arbitrage here: one should pay more for quality defending — it’s cheaper, and definitely better value for money than a fancy-Dan striker who doesn’t do much for most of the game.

On attack and defence

Yes; this is an anecdote; but it a representative one. It translates to other scenarios with an “attack” and “defence” component. Like financial services. But here the payoff is asymmetrical the other way: If the business of banking is picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. Then “attack” is the actually unglamorous business of picking up pennies; “defence” is the risk management job of making sure you are not hit by a steamroller.

If you are Kilian Mbappé one well-timed volley can bring you immortality, this is almost never going to happen to a salesguy. Unless he blows up. You would most likely not have heard of Nick Leeson, John Meriwether, Jeff Skilling, Bernie Madoff, Bill Huang or Gabe Plotkin had they not blown up. Credit Suisse made USD$20m per year from Archegos; they lost $US$5.5bn on it overnight.

The business of preventing Mbappé’s immortality requires a ninety minute shift and consistent but unglamorous execution and no-one is likely to remember you, either. Unless you fuck up. And then you may be assured Michael Lewis will be optioning books about you to Hollywood.

Post script: spare a thought for poor old Olivier Giroud, substituted off after 40 minutes.

Extending the metaphor

Strikes us that this metaphor colon of defence being judged by by consistent perfection, and attack being judged by momentary inspiration, translates.

A criminal defendant will be severely prejudiced if there are any lapses in her behaviour or story. The prosecutor, however, needs just one moment of inspiration, to breakdown that story, and the prosecutions case can hold.

A regulated financial services institution, likewise, must be flawless in its conduct of its regulatory compliance program. That it may be unfailingly virtuous, altruistic, and motivated towards public good in 99% of its affairs will count for nothing if a bad apple is laundering money in an unregarded corner. By contrast, its supervising regulator, less so. What regulatory oversights it misses do not, generally form part of the public record: “what the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with”. It is not so closely monitored, nor held to account, and — to great extent — it does not matter how ineffectual its regulatory coverage or investigation was in any other regard: if it finds one regulatory breach it can extract a fine and knee slide to the gallery.

There are notable exceptions, of course but these prove the rule by their relative absence the excoriation hand out to the Securities and Exchange Commission over Madoff, and the public criticism of BaFin over the Wirecard affair — but even here the relative punishments are in no way comparable.

See also

• Roll of honour

Those media ratings in full

Professional sports journalists rate a striker and a defender

Media	Otamendi	Mbappé	Comment
Guardian	6	9	Otamendi: Like his team, he had looked comfortable until Kolo Muani sorely exposed him in a one-on-one. Mbappé: Out of the game until turning it on its head and becoming first final hat-trick scorer since Geoff Hurst.
Sky Sports	6	9	Otamendi: Was playing so well - and then gave away a daft penalty to allow France back into the game. Mbappé: It felt a false start for 80 minutes but then the Grandmaster produced another work of art.
Express	5	9	Otamendi: Clumsy late penalty cost a straightforward win - the needless arm grapple gave Kolo Muani reason to tumble. Mbappé: Squeezed his first penalty past Martinez then came alive. Second brilliantly taken, the hat-trick emphatic.
Telegraph	4	10	Otamendi: Stupid mistake to give away the penalty against Muani as the 34-year-old had barely been troubled for 60 minutes by the French attack. Mbappé: One of the finest World Cup performances in history. Struggling to generate a spark for 60 minutes, then the supercharger came on and he hit a hat-trick.
Sun	6	9	Otamendi: His brain-fade moment turned a victory cruise into a desperate fight for survival and opened the door for one of the greatest games of all time. Mbappé: Zero to hero. Incredible. Was he playing in the first half? Looked like he’d picked the biggest game of his career to have the worst day of his life. Then….remarkable.
Average	5.5	9.2	Otamendi: Good game, one error, but what a doozy. Mbappé: Not sure he was even playing for an hour and a half, but came right at the end.

References