Hey Reader,

I've never played professional football.

Sunday league was my peak. Yet I scout professionally now, and have done for years.

Six years ago, I got my first proper scouting assignment at Wigan Athletic. We needed a left-back. League One level. I had a player rating model I'd built, and it flagged someone perfect.

Attacking output? Excellent. Defensive solidity? The numbers looked good. Contract ending soon? Even better.

I was buzzing. This was it. My chance to prove the model worked.

Then I watched him play.

The gap between data and reality

He was awful.

Completely exposed defensively. Couldn't handle the pace. Every time the opposition got at him, he looked lost.

I went home and wrote a negative report. Then I tore apart my rating model.

The problem wasn't the player. It was my weighting system.

Progressive runs, dribbles, dribbling success rate - I'd been measuring variations of the same thing. He had one or two standout abilities, but my model had exaggerated them across multiple metrics. The correlation made him look more complete than he actually was.

The club didn't sign him. Other staff had seen him too and reached the same conclusion. But that moment taught me something nobody had explained before.

What data actually does

Data tells you who to watch. It doesn't tell you who to sign.

Before Wigan, I'd spent six years at Sky Bet as a football trader. I had a degree in sports coaching and FA coaching badges. I understood performance patterns and how to observe what players were tasked to do.

But I'd never trusted that it was enough. I kept thinking: "Who am I to judge players? I've never played professionally."

That left-back changed everything.

My analyst background wasn't the weakness. My hesitation was.

Here's the process I use now: data flags players through a rating model aligned with our philosophy and style of play. That creates a long list. Then I watch them - mostly video, some live. The shortlist emerges from what I see, not just what the numbers say.

Once we're down to serious targets, I go back to the data. Deeper context this time. How they fit the system. Current performance levels. Team dynamics.

Data is the first point and the end point. But the middle? That's where the eye test lives.

The thing nobody tells you

Ex-pros have playing experience. But if you're like me, you've got technical skills and experiences they don't - skills that came from your own background.

Mine came from six years in betting markets and coaching qualifications. Yours might come from finance, video production, software development, journalism - anywhere that taught you how to spot patterns, break down systems, or communicate clearly.

Neither background disqualifies you. But waiting to feel "ready" will.

I see people stuck in the same loop. Collecting courses. Building models. Watching matches privately. Never putting themselves forward because they think their lack of professional playing experience means they're not qualified.

You're not unqualified. You're just not starting.

That first scouting assignment at Wigan? I was terrified. Imposter syndrome hit hard. But I went anyway, watched the player, wrote the report, fixed the model.

Six years later, I'm still here. Still scouting. Still learning.

The difference between analysts who transition into scouting and those who don't isn't talent or background. It's willingness to be wrong in public and adjust.

Start watching. Start writing reports, even if nobody's asked for them. Start now.

Your hesitation is the only thing holding you back.

Liam