In modern football, running statistics are often used by critics and experts as a key indicator of a team's poor performance. A prime example arose after Manchester United's 1-1 draw with Tottenham, when former Spurs midfielder and Sky Sports pundit Jamie Redknapp asserted that an unbreakable rule in the Premier League is that to win, you must run more than your opponent. He noted that Tottenham covered 5km more than United.
Similar scrutiny regarding physical metrics has been directed at Liverpool and Chelsea in the past, but it seems particularly relevant in discussions surrounding Michael Carrick's team. However, how valid are such accusations, and is there a real link between high running distances and success?
1. Comparing the Premier League table and running rankings (2025/26 season)
A basic analysis reveals that the final Premier League table hardly reflects the running distances or high-intensity figures:
- The top 10 teams averaged 4,363 km run over the season, while the bottom 10 managed 4,332 km. The difference is a mere 31 km, which is insignificant in the grand scheme of the season.
- The average distance covered at high intensity by the top 10 was 338.7 km, compared to 328.4 km for the bottom half (a difference of only 3.0%).
- Noteworthy examples include Arsenal and Manchester City, who indeed ranked high on overall physical metrics, but teams finishing 3rd to 8th were only average in their running stats.
2. Comparison with pre-season predictions by Opta supercomputer
Analyst Yash Takur notes that success can also be measured against expectations:
- The 10 teams from last season that finished above the supercomputer's forecasts averaged 4,369 km run, while 9 clubs who underperformed were at 4,308 km (only a 1.4% difference).
- Extreme cases are telling: Sunderland (+13 places from forecast) and Manchester United (+9 places) were not in the top 10 for distance run but exceeded expectations the most. Conversely, Crystal Palace (-8 places) and Newcastle (-6 places) ranked in the top 10 for covered distance but were among the biggest disappointments.
- Teams in the bottom half for running distance exceeded their expected points (xPts) by an average of 0.38, while clubs in the top half underperformed their xPts by 1.88 points.
3. Where is there actually a correlation?
The only physical metric from the 2025/26 season that showed any correlation with final standing was distance covered in possession. However, experts argue this is a consequence of stronger teams simply controlling the ball longer due to having better players, not that they win because they run more with the ball.
4. Match-level analysis
On a shorter timeframe (within a specific match), significant differences in running distance do hold more weight, but the numbers remain telling:
- Since the beginning of last season, there have been 86 matches where one team ran at least 5 km less than the opponent.
- The team that ran significantly less won only 10 of those matches (an 11.6% win rate). Even excluding the 20 games involving red cards, the win rate only slightly increased to 12.1% (8 wins in 66 matches).
- If the difference was between 2.5 to 4.99 km (excluding red cards), the win rate of the team trailing in running improved to 25.8%, but the percentage of defeats remained high at 46.0%.
5. Opinions from top coaches
The article includes quotes from renowned coaches explaining the essence of physical exertion:
- Jurgen Klopp: We don't need to run 115 km [per match] to be successful. You don't need to run like a madman if you have the ball. It's just the basis. We have to know when to really put the pressure on: better thinking, better timing. But if we are playing against a much stronger team, and you are not prepared to run more than them, you're crazy.
- Pep Guardiola: It's about when to run. Just running for the sake of it? I could go on a treadmill and get marathon runners to play for us. It's not about that, but about knowing when it's necessary. Last season, when some players were just running, it was pointless.
The main takeaway
The statistics show that long-term success is not achieved by merely pushing teams harder in training or demanding they run more at any cost. Typical fans tend to link defeats with a lack of effort (intensity), but in practice, 'just running more' has never been the universal answer—intention, timing, and the right mindset on the pitch are what truly matter.
