A Data-Less Analysis: When Every Conclusion Is Impossible

I spent an entire evening returning to a document labelled “tactical analysis”. Every row, column and section repeated one phrase like a broken machine: “N/A – insufficient information”. No data, no player names, no tournament details, even the risk analysis was empty. An eight-chapter analysis contains no concrete figure. That reminded me of a line I wrote when stadiums were empty: “A pitch is wider when there is no noise. I see it more clearly than ever.” Today there was nothing to see.

During the summer transfer window, clubs are busy analysing rivals and valuing players. I received a professionally structured document with clear sections such as game analysis, player data, tournament system, competitive landscape, risk analysis and public narrative. The layout made it look like a multi-layered study. But when I reached the details, every conclusion was the same: insufficient information, impossible to assess. No specific match was mentioned. No player was located by Elo or ranking. No tournament format was analysed. So the critical question is not what it says, but whether the author is hiding an empty analysis behind the letters N/A.

In nine years of watching chess and football, I have never trusted an analysis without numbers. Watching match footage in silence with muted volume taught me that geometry on the pitch cannot be read without data. A team can keep 65% possession yet make only meaningless sideways passes. A player can win many games but face weak opponents, unless rankings are cross-checked. A goalkeeper may be blamed for one mistake, but xG and defensive positioning often reveal a systemic fault. That is why an analysis full of N/A is not innocent. It is a deliberate cover-up of missing evidence, more damaging than a wrong judgement.

The consequences go beyond reader confusion. When data disappears, transfer decisions become emotional gambling. The bubble in young player values has already expanded: dozens of millions of euros for a player with only a few appearances. If scouting reports say “not enough information”, where do directors turn? They listen to agents, watch edited clips, and bet blindly. In contrast, a genuine academy talent can be overlooked if there is no movement map, no expected assists report, and nobody willing to prove his worth. I have seen such cases in Vietnam, where the public values reputation while quiet players are underestimated.

My writing began with the criticism: “People say girls know nothing about tactics. So I write for them to read.” My first article attracted more than forty mocking comments. I cried, then learned to attach data to every argument. Tactics never lie; only the people reading it are wrong. A writer must be honest when facing data gaps. If there is insufficient evidence, say so, do not fill the page with N/A tables. Reports of this kind impress with length and complexity, but offer no new knowledge and violate journalism’s core principle: information must be verifiable.

When I analysed Belgium vs Brazil at the 2026 World Cup, I did not need thirty numbers. I chose one situation: Kevin De Bruyne moved from the right flank into the centre, stretched Brazil’s midfield and created space for Eden Hazard. One subsequent pass exposed the entire tactical plan. To judge a chess player, I compare Elo ratings, results by time control, and head-to-head records. Data protects analysis; it is not a weapon to humiliate anyone. But when a document gives me no figures, I stay silent instead of building a story from nothing. Sometimes you must stand in silence longer than others can endure to understand the game.

The contrarian point here is that N/A is never objective. Many believe withholding judgement is safe and cautious. But publishing an analysis where every entry says “insufficient information” is like printing a blank newspaper and calling it news. The audience cannot verify, cannot debate, cannot make decisions; they rely on vague feelings. For female football fans, who are often told they know nothing about tactics, such an analysis pushes them further to the margins. That is why I remind myself to write for everyone, especially those never acknowledged, and to be transparent even when I do not know.

It is time to build a filter for football and chess analysis. Before sharing any tactical piece, ask: Does the author cite sources, provide concrete numbers, describe match context, or name opponents? If everything is a pile of N/A, it is rubbish. A good article may be incomplete, but it must be honest about what remains unknown. Better to write: “I cannot find data to confirm this”, than to present a table full of “insufficient information”. That honesty builds a bridge between writer and reader, just as a coach tells his players he needs more video before changing the line-up.

Vietnamese fans deserve analyses backed by real data, passion and responsibility. The N/A reports will disappear only when readers demand better. When reading an article, check the numbers, ask for sources, reject hollow commentary. Remember: “A pass can answer every doubt.” But that answer arrives only when someone is patient enough to see it. Fans do not need cheap jargon; they need pitch geometry interpreted with data. Next time an analysis gives you no data, put it down. That is a blank page in technological clothing.