It is explainable by the fact that English players have subpar footballing individual technique compared to continentals.

But in a way Reep wasn’t utterly wrong: the more team gets locked into passing the more a defence has time to organise. If professional football relies on one thing it is organised defences, which is why the likes of Messi would command such a high transfer fee as individual brilliance and one perfect pass can penetrate even the most well-organised defence. In a traditionally low scoring game one goal can, and does, win a game.

The more a team passes the ball the greater the chance of error, either inaccuracy, mis-control, interception or tackle. My contention is that football now has become obsessed with tip-tap short pass football in midfield, and stats that ‘prove’ a team has more possession are waved round like they are impeccable indications of quality, or even winning, play.

I am no fan of the long ball game, but surprise can catch an opponent off guard as opposed to trying to break down a team content to pull players back into defence and who then waiting patiently for the inevitable breakdown.

Three passes, in a sport of high exchange and potential positional or control error, may be roughly accurate leading to a goal scored. But seeing a team make twenty passes in midfield and then lose the ball is neither entertaining nor effective. Football, as always, should be about mixing things up and looking for the one advantage that will tilt the game. And if you start putting faith in stats, then an own-goal probably counts as one pass for a goal just as a penalty does. My view is entertaining though they may be, you can’t always trust football stats no matter how seemingly comprehensive they may seem.