All great players seem to be gifted with an innate ability to read the game better than anyone else—effortlessly finding open space while making passes without so much as a glance. Science teaches us it comes from a combination of exceptional peripheral vision and superior perceptual intelligence to read the game, and nowhere is this more evident than at the 2014 FIFA World Cup.

But is this something that can be taught or are certain players born with it? Is it just luck when certain players find themselves in acres of space or is it scientifically proven to be a skill? Some argue players like 35-year-old Andrea Pirlo get better with age, yet Cristiano Ronaldo was able to dismantle a strong USA side with only one healthy leg and extraordinary footballing vision at 29.

Here we analyse the objective scientific evidence from the sports laboratory and combine it with real life case studies from the 2014 FIFA World Cup so far.

Firstly, although Italy were unable to make it out of the group stages, few people would argue with the immense contribution of Andrea Pirlo. However, it has to be noted that his contribution didn’t come in the form of miles covered or sprints made. In fact, it was quite the opposite. According to FIFA’s official statistics, Pirlo was the slowest player on the pitch against England in Manaus. What’s worse, his top speed of 20.2km/h was even surpassed by both goalkeepers: Joe Hart clocked 24.05km/h and Salvatore Sirigu reached 20.63km/h.

If being slower than your goalkeeper isn’t bad enough, how about managing only five sprints in total during the entire match. That was by far the fewest of any outfield player, even England’s Adam Lallana managed six sprints and he only played 15 minutes.

So where did this immense contribution come from?

They say a picture speaks a thousand words but this particular Vine of Pirlo’s dummy against England equally does quite a good job of illustrating my point.

Pirlo’s mental advantage is directly related to the fact he is more accurate and faster in his decision-making process on the pitch. Research published in the International Journal of Sport Psychology supports this theory, as they set out to determine the difference in perceptual strategies and response adequacy in experts and novices.

What they discovered was experts, compared to novices, “tend to reduce visual search time and select more meaningful information.” So, put simply, Pirlo’s dummy that led to Italy’s first goal of the tournament transpired because the entire England team spent that split second too long analysing too many visual cues.

While it was a stroke of genius, based on this theory, if Joe Hart had selected “more meaningful information," he would have seen Claudio Marchisio lurking behind Pirlo and maybe positioned himself better to save the first goal.

The next example of perceptual intelligence comes in the form of the controversial Luis Suarez. He missed the first group fixture against Costa Rica due to a knee injury, as reported in the Telegraph, but he single-handedly dismantled England in their second group game by simply reading the game better than anyone else.

In the 85th minute, while the England defence stood still, Suarez anticipated the ball would come off Steven Gerrard’s head and fall into his path to give him the chance to score Uruguay’s second goal.

While many may consider this goal a stroke of luck, sports scientists from the Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences at Liverpool John Moores University claim this was no accident. They reviewed key components of perceptual skill in footballers and identified that the more skilled players can “recall and recognize patterns of play more effectively than their less skilled counterparts.”

What this means is that Suarez has a unique ability to encode, retrieve and recognise sport-specific information from long-term memory structures to anticipate the game better than anyone else. The researchers added:

Experts essentially use their knowledge of situational probabilities to anticipate future events. They have a better than average idea of what is likely to happen given a particular set of circumstances.

Put more simply, based on this evidence, Suarez knew that ball was coming off Gerrard’s head before the English defence, and as a result started his run early to put a second goal past Hart and England out of the World Cup.

The final 2014 World Cup case study comes in the form of Cristiano Ronaldo, who reportedly played against USA with one healthy leg, according to Fox Sports. But this didn’t stop him using his expert spatial awareness to dance around the American midfield like this.

Interestingly, it is the research published in a Military Psychology Journal that makes sense of Ronaldo’s ability to glide past tackles one by one. It states:

In military and sports tasks, individuals are often required to perform in a complex and dynamic environment and obtain a tactical advantage over an opponent even when only partial or incomplete information is available. Successful performance in both domains is typically dependent upon the ability to work both independently and as a team in an effective manner by combining perceptual, cognitive, motor, and social skills, often under stressful circumstances.

'' Again, put more simply, Ronaldo was able to avoid three tackles from various directions in a very short space of time by displaying outstanding perceptual, cognitive and motor skills while under pressure. According to the research, a less skilled player would not have been able to cope with this amount of stimuli and would likely have lost the ball. ''

So, based on both the anecdotal evidence from the World Cup and the scientific evidence from both sports and military journals, it seems certain players will always have a distinct advantage over the opposition: For Pirlo, it was his superior perceptual intelligence; for Suarez, it was his ability to anticipate the game; and for Ronaldo, it’s his greater spatial awareness.

Furthermore, looking at Pirlo’s dummy and Suarez’s second goal, it’s clear that this form of footballing intelligence can change the game in an instant. Therefore, it’s quite possible that the team that wins the 2014 FIFA World Cup won’t be the quickest, the strongest or the most skilled, but they might be the most perceptually intelligent.

By Ross Edglay, B/R columnist.

I loved this article, i though it was interesting to share, only fe here talked about the mental aspect, the vision and the intelligence which are very important in modern Football.

Some tiny players but with higher perceptual vision and speed in execution can outplay the most confirmed athleetes in Football because in this sport Muscles or physical performences/aptitudes arent the only criterias to judge a player, the intelligence is one of the most important factors for success...

The best players werent known for their amazing physical performences, but for their vision and intelligence and their aptitude to do the right move in the right time...

What this article had inspired you ?

@Ramaboy
If you dont read the article, then dont comment it.

@The rest : Thanks guys, for Ronaldo, the fact he is injured could be just to get some pressure of of him, im not a fan of playing someone claiming he isnt at 100 per cent.

See, the problem with Bleacher Report is that they honestly tend to just make stuff up, in order to pad out their articles. Here's a case in point:

"yet Cristiano Ronaldo was able to dismantle a strong USA side with only one healthy leg and extraordinary footballing vision at 29."

Er, what? Portugal were lucky to get a draw. When did this 'dismantling' take place?

"They say a picture speaks a thousand words but this particular Vine of Pirlo’s dummy against England equally does quite a good job of illustrating my point."

It does no such thing. What it shows is that PIrlo did the unexpected, which is itself a mark of genius sure enough, but how exactly does it 'prove his point'? Well, he tries to bullshit us with this part:

"While it was a stroke of genius, based on this theory, if Joe Hart had selected “more meaningful information," he would have seen Claudio Marchisio lurking behind Pirlo and maybe positioned himself better to save the first goal."

What utter nonsense. Joe Hart, along with the entire England defense, AFTER Pirlo's step-over, all moved, instantly, to get in the way of Marchisio's sho, which is precisely what they should do. A shot which had to literally travel through 4 pairs of England legs before it even reached Hart;s view-line, and he even almost saved it, regardless. 9 times out of 10? That's going to bounce off an English knee, or a boot, or even Hart's glove, and end up being yet another harmless effort from range which characterized the entire first half. Marchisio took the chance. and luck smiled on him.

This nonsense about it being down to 'faster thought' is ignoring the actual content very GIF he's trying to use to prove his case.

Seriously, go LOOK at that GIF. Watch it. Watch 5 times, or watch it 50 times, the same thing is right there, and doesn't show what he's trying to prove at all. In fact, it shows the opposite.

"While many may consider this goal a stroke of luck, sports scientists from the Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences at Liverpool John Moores University claim this was no accident."

More absolute bollocks. If he wants to claim this, he'd better show us some actual quotes of theirs referring to this incident, rather than simply deciding that it applies here because he wants to. They made no such claim, and he's simply making crap up to bolster his argument. And what IS his argument, again? Oh, yeah, it's this:

*"*Put more simply, based on this evidence, Suarez knew that ball was coming off Gerrard’s head before the English defense, and as a result started his run early to put a second goal past Hart and England out of the World Cup."

Except he DIDN'T start his run early, and the GIF clearly shows this, in fact (that is, the GIFs that tiki has shared, not the ones that appear on his article page, which are different). Instead, he hung around on the edge of offside, and the moment the ball traveled through, he started chasing it. Claiming that he knew it was going to hit Gerrard's head and offer him this run is simply speculative, made-up silliness that he's hoping the reader will simply swallow because they're not paying attention to how bogus his claims are.

"But this didn’t stop him using his expert spatial awareness to dance around the American midfield like this."

Yeah, ONCE, and it didn't go anywhere. The rest of the game? He was pretty absent, so how exactly does this instance show the author's point?

Well, it doesn't. It just shows that Ronaldo did some cool skills, as he's rather renowned for doing, and managed to keep the ball. Does this show that Ronaldo is a fantastic player? Sure. Does it show he is an intelligent player? Sure. But does it show that this author's premise that such qualities will lead to game-changing moments, is valid? Well, no, because it was a relatively meaningless moment in a game in which Ronaldo did not perform very well (of course hardly helped by his injury).

So, why on Earth does he include it? Or at least: why doesn't he point out how bad Ronaldo's performance over the rest of the game was? Oh, yeah, because that would totally undermine his claim about Ronaldo 'dismantling' the USA's midfield. ;)

Methinks this guy (who it turns out is someone who is actively trying to flog his protein business, and who also writes for the wonderful Daily Star :p ( http://bleacherreport.com/users/3989944-ross-edgley )), is simply trying to pass off half-baked nonsense so that he can draw attention to himself.

Not a bad thing, of course, but it does open up his analysis to criticism and counter-analysis, and a very swift analysis of his article reveals some pretty big glaring errors. Errors about things he's actually basing his entire argument upon.

If he wants to write an article about intelligence being important, and how it runs the game, then he should be able to do a lot better than making stuff up about the games, making stuff up about what scientists have said, and failing to even look at the very video footage he claims is showcasing his point.

Not impressed, but, it's Bleacher Report.

See, the problem with Bleacher Report is that they honestly tend to just make stuff up, in order to pad out their articles. Here's a case in point:

"yet Cristiano Ronaldo was able to dismantle a strong USA side with only one healthy leg and extraordinary footballing vision at 29."

Er, what? Portugal were lucky to get a draw. When did this 'dismantling' take place?

"They say a picture speaks a thousand words but this particular Vine of Pirlo’s dummy against England equally does quite a good job of illustrating my point."

It does no such thing. What it shows is that Pirlo did the unexpected, which is itself a mark of genius sure enough, but how exactly does it 'prove his point'? Well, he tries to bullshit us with this part:

"While it was a stroke of genius, based on this theory, if Joe Hart had selected “more meaningful information," he would have seen Claudio Marchisio lurking behind Pirlo and maybe positioned himself better to save the first goal."

What utter nonsense. Joe Hart, along with the entire England defense, AFTER Pirlo's step-over, all moved, instantly, to get in the way of Marchisio's shot, which is precisely what they should do. A shot which had to literally travel through 4 pairs of England legs before it even reached Hart;s view-line, and he even almost saved it, regardless. 9 times out of 10? That's going to bounce off an English knee, or a boot, or even Hart's glove, and end up being yet another harmless effort from range which characterized the entire first half. Marchisio took the chance. and luck smiled on him.

This nonsense about it being down to 'faster thought' is ignoring the actual content very GIF he's trying to use to prove his case.

Seriously, go LOOK at that GIF. Watch it. Watch 5 times, or watch it 50 times, the same thing is right there, and doesn't show what he's trying to prove at all. In fact, it shows the opposite.

"While many may consider this goal a stroke of luck, sports scientists from the Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences at Liverpool John Moores University claim this was no accident."

More absolute bollocks. If he wants to claim this, he'd better show us some actual quotes of theirs referring to this incident, rather than simply deciding that it applies here because he wants to. They made no such claim, and he's simply making crap up to bolster his argument. And what IS his argument, again? Oh, yeah, it's this:

*"*Put more simply, based on this evidence, Suarez knew that ball was coming off Gerrard’s head before the English defense, and as a result started his run early to put a second goal past Hart and England out of the World Cup."

Except he DIDN'T start his run early, and the GIF clearly shows this, in fact (that is, the GIFs that tiki has shared, not the ones that appear on his article page, which are different). Instead, he hung around on the edge of offside, and the moment the ball traveled through, he started chasing it. Claiming that he knew it was going to hit Gerrard's head and offer him this run is simply speculative, made-up silliness that he's hoping the reader will simply swallow because they're not paying attention to how bogus his claims are.

"But this didn’t stop him using his expert spatial awareness to dance around the American midfield like this."

Yeah, ONCE, and it didn't go anywhere. The rest of the game? He was pretty absent, so how exactly does this instance show the author's point?

Well, it doesn't. It just shows that Ronaldo did some cool skills, as he's rather renowned for doing, and managed to keep the ball. Does this show that Ronaldo is a fantastic player? Sure. Does it show he is an intelligent player? Sure. But does it show that this author's premise that such qualities will lead to game-changing moments, is valid? Well, no, because it was a relatively meaningless moment in a game in which Ronaldo did not perform very well (of course hardly helped by his injury).

So, why on Earth does he include it? Or at least: why doesn't he point out how bad Ronaldo's performance over the rest of the game was, or how meaningless that show of skill was? Oh, yeah, because that would totally undermine his claim about Ronaldo 'dismantling' the USA's midfield. ;)

Methinks this guy (who it turns out is someone who is actively trying to flog his protein business, and who also writes for the wonderful Daily Star :p ( http://bleacherreport.com/users/3989944-ross-edgley )), is simply trying to pass off half-baked nonsense so that he can draw attention to himself.

Not a bad thing, of course, but it does open up his analysis to criticism and counter-analysis, and a very swift analysis of his article reveals some pretty big glaring errors. Errors about things he's actually basing his entire argument upon.

If he wants to write an article about intelligence being important, and how it runs the game, then he should be able to do a lot better than making stuff up about the games, making stuff up about what scientists have said, and failing to even look at the very video footage he claims is showcasing his point.

Not impressed, but, it's Bleacher Report.

Can't take this article seriously because some of the examples shown may have been over-analysed if you ask me.

"According to the research, a less skilled player would not have been able to cope with this amount of stimuli and would likely have lost the ball. ''

Basically saying that a player with more skills possesses more skills.

I'm not saying that it's a bad article, but I can't take the analyses seriously due to the fact that a lot of theories can be made. I mean, for example, for Suarez's case, he may have rightly anticipated the ball being bounced off towards him after Gerrard's heading because one can say that Gerrard repeatedly made those heading mistakes during a few Liverpool training sessions last season, giving Suarez enough confidence about one of Gerrard's flaws and making the most out of it to his advantage during the game (just a theory though).

For Pirlo's case, obviously on the GIF shown, there are 10 English players inside the box, while 1 outside marking Pirlo - leaving Marchisio completely unmarked and behind him, making the passing quite doable for any human playing football AS LONG AS it is a planned out corner strategy, see what I mean? The corner strategy itself could have been practiced dozens of times during Italy's training beforehand, and England's "over-analyzing for visual cues" may not be the case because if it was, then every Italian would be one-man marked, they didn't because it might just be a habit to have all your men guarding the net inside the box, like how normal football usually goes, and plus Marchisio was so far off their box so there was minimal threat from him in comparison to the Italians that were inside England's box waiting to header a cross. It's all about outsmarting the opponents, and although Pirlo played a part in it, I don't think Italy's goal was purely made by him.

Ronaldo's spatial awareness sounds about right though so I'll give the writer that, haha. But I'm just saying, don't rely too much on an expert's advice, when clearly they aren't the players (in the examples) themselves.

Can't take this article seriously because some of the examples shown may have been over-analysed if you ask me.

"According to the research, a less skilled player would not have been able to cope with this amount of stimuli and would likely have lost the ball. ''

Basically saying that a player with more skills possesses more skills.

I'm not saying that it's a bad article, but I can't take the analyses seriously due to the fact that a lot of theories can be made. I mean, for example, for Suarez's case, he may have rightly anticipated the ball being bounced off towards him after Gerrard's heading because one can say that Gerrard repeatedly made those heading mistakes during a few Liverpool training sessions last season, giving Suarez enough confidence of making the most out of Gerrard's to his advantage during the game (just a theory though).

For Pirlo's case, obviously on the GIF shown, there are 10 English players inside the box, while 1 outside marking Pirlo - leaving Marchisio completely unmarked and behind him, making the passing quite doable for any human playing football AS LONG AS it is a planned out corner strategy, see what I mean? The corner strategy itself could have been practiced dozens of times during Italy's training beforehand, and England's "over-analyzing for visual cues" may not be the case because if it was, then every Italian would be one-man marked. They didn't do it though because it might just be a habit to have all your men guarding the net inside the box, like how normal football usually goes, and plus Marchisio was so far off their box so there was minimal threat from him in comparison to the Italians that were inside England's box waiting to header a cross. It's all about outsmarting the opponents, and although Pirlo played a part in it, I don't think Italy's goal was purely made due to his brilliant knowledge of the game.

Ronaldo's spatial awareness sounds about right though so I'll give the writer that, haha. But I'm just saying, don't rely too much on an expert's advice, when clearly they aren't the players (in the examples) themselves.

Can't take this article seriously because some of the examples shown may have been over-analysed if you ask me.

"According to the research, a less skilled player would not have been able to cope with this amount of stimuli and would likely have lost the ball. ''

Basically saying that a player with more skills possesses more skills.

I'm not saying that it's a bad article, but I can't take the analyses seriously due to the fact that a lot of theories can be made. I mean, for example, for Suarez's case, he may have rightly anticipated the ball being bounced off towards him after Gerrard's heading because one can say that Gerrard repeatedly made those heading mistakes during a few Liverpool training sessions last season, giving Suarez enough confidence of making the most out of Gerrard's to his advantage during the game (just a theory though).

For Pirlo's case, obviously on the GIF shown, there are 10 English players inside the box, while 1 outside marking Pirlo - leaving Marchisio completely unmarked and behind him, making the passing quite doable for any human playing football AS LONG AS it is a planned out corner strategy, see what I mean? The corner strategy itself could have been practiced dozens of times during Italy's training beforehand, and England's "over-analyzing for visual cues" may not be the case because if it was, then every Italian would be one-man marked. They didn't do it though because it might just be a habit to have all your men guarding the net inside the box, like how normal football usually goes, and plus Marchisio was so far off their box so there was minimal threat from him in comparison to the Italians that were inside England's box waiting to header a cross. It's all about outsmarting the opponents, and although Pirlo played a part in it, I don't think Italy's goal was purely made due to his brilliant knowledge of the game.

Ronaldo's spatial awareness sounds about right though so I'll give the writer that, haha. But I'm just saying, don't rely too much on an expert's advice, when clearly they aren't the players (in the examples) themselves. It's an okay article, but that was it. Thanks for sharing anyway.

Can't take this article seriously because some of the examples shown may have been over-analysed if you ask me.

"According to the research, a less skilled player would not have been able to cope with this amount of stimuli and would likely have lost the ball. ''

Basically saying that a player with more skills possesses more skills.

I'm not saying that it's a bad article, but I can't take the analyses seriously due to the fact that a lot of theories can be made. I mean, for example, for Suarez's case, he may have rightly anticipated the ball being bounced off towards him after Gerrard's heading because one can say that Gerrard repeatedly made those heading mistakes during a few Liverpool training sessions last season, giving Suarez enough confidence of making the most out of Gerrard's to his advantage during the game (just a theory though).

For Pirlo's case, obviously on the GIF shown, there are 10 English players inside the box, while 1 outside marking Pirlo - leaving Marchisio completely unmarked and behind him, making the passing quite doable for any human playing football AS LONG AS it is a planned out corner strategy, see what I mean? The corner strategy itself could have been practiced dozens of times during Italy's training beforehand, and England's "over-analyzing for visual cues" may not be the case because if it was, then every Italian would be one-man marked. They didn't do it though because it might just be a habit to have all your men guarding the net inside the box, like how normal football usually goes, and plus Marchisio was so far off their box so there was minimal threat from him in comparison to the Italians that were inside England's box waiting to header a cross. It's all about outsmarting the opponents, and although Pirlo played a part in it, I don't think Italy's goal was purely made due to his brilliant knowledge of the game.

Ronaldo's spatial awareness sounds about right though so I'll give the writer that, haha. But I'm just saying, don't rely too much on an expert's advice. It's an okay article, but that was it. Thanks for sharing anyway.

@Tiki +1

BUT frankly, i appreciated more your last paragraph, the one written by you, than the whole article, which is... better keep that for myself.

"Some argue players like 35-year-old Andrea Pirlo get better with age, yet Cristiano Ronaldo was able to dismantle a strong USA side with only one healthy leg and extraordinary footballing vision at 29."

^here i was really tempted to stop reading. Ronaldo's dribblings isn't "football vision", Pirlo's dummy was a scheme...(yep, sorry to spoil that for you) and Suarez was just keeping doing his FW movement. that simple, no need to call in "military psychology journals" and "whatever research institute of university X". smh. i don't like sensationalistic journalism, especially when they call in "scientists" and "experts" to make it all look more legit and pro. not-gonna-fool-anyone.

+1 @TheGame for the vid. and Lodatz, tht's some serious wall of text in here :D

^ I think you'll find that it's worth it. :)

^ I think you'll find that it's text full of worthy analysis. :)

@Lodatz i know, i just need to schedule the read XD

@Lodatz i know, i just need to schedule the read XD

@Heis
"Basically saying that a player with more skills possesses more skills."

^exactly lol, it's a don't-you-say fest.

@Lodatz i know, i just need to schedule the read XD

@Heis
"Basically saying that a player with more skills possesses more skills."

^exactly lol, it's a don't-you-say fest.

@shpalman, pretty much. Takes me back to my high school English classes when we had to over-analyse every boring scene in a movie just to write a bloody essay for the finals.

@shpalman, pretty much. Takes me back to my high school English classes when we had to over-analyse every boring scene in a movie just to write a bloody essay about it for the finals.

Agree with Lodatz on the most part. Ronaldo's showboating did not have any meaningful contribution to the game asides from keeping possession within his own half, Suarez did what a poacher would be expected to do (lurk around back line to hope for a lucky deflection.... which he got), Hart did move to adjust his body but Marchisio's shot was screened by a large number of bodies in front of him, and Pirlo's dummy looked like a practiced set-piece from the very beginning (notice that Marchisio took the shot really quickly and was in the perfect position to receive the powerful pass.... implying that this wasn't the first time the team did this move).

@Lodatz
i've finally read, you sir take my +1. i don't quite agree on Marchisio being lucky tho'. the plan on that set piece was ending in a goal with the dummy scheme. if you want to bring luck into it, then the English defenders needed it, but they didn't have it. if they would have somewhat managed to deflect that shot, then you could say that luck took part into that whole action.

i agree on the rest, we basically said the same things.

@tuan_jinn
good call on Mueller, i can't stand his dramaqueen attitude, but when it's about positioning/reading he's one of the best in europe.

@shpalman:

"i don't quite agree on Marchisio being lucky tho'. the plan on that set piece was ending in a goal with the dummy scheme. "

Oh, I certainly agree with that. As Dynast noted, that move had the smooth execution of a play that has been done in training, many times, as a weapon in their arsenal. Clearly I'm not saying the move was lucky, just the fact that Marchisio's shot traveled through 4 sets of legs before narrowly beating the keeper.

" if they would have somewhat managed to deflect that shot, then you could say that luck took part into that whole action."

Well, I would say that it was simply one of the 9 times out of 10 that would happen, but we can agree to disagree. :) It's not the focal point of the topic, for sure.