Whenever a leading Premier League side slips up, a familiar narrative tends to follow: pundits point to the running statistics as proof of a lack of effort. The latest example came after Manchester United dropped points against Tottenham, with observers quick to note that Spurs had covered significantly more ground.

On Sky Sports, Jamie Redknapp articulated this view bluntly. "There's a pattern I don't really like when I watch teams, and that's when – and the stats don't lie – the other team runs more than you," he said. "In the Premier League right now, I feel there are a couple of non-negotiables: you've got to run more than the other team if you want to win, or at least get close enough that it doesn't make that much of a difference. Tottenham ran five kilometres more than Manchester United."

It's a tidy explanation, and one that's become increasingly common as physical data - distance covered, sprint counts, high-intensity running - has become widely available. Big clubs underperforming, from Liverpool to Chelsea in previous campaigns, have all faced similar scrutiny. But does the evidence actually support the idea that outrunning your opponent is the key to winning football matches?

A look at last season's Premier League table against distance-covered rankings suggests otherwise. Arsenal and Manchester City, both high achievers, also ranked highly for distance, but clubs finishing third through eighth produced only middling physical numbers. Teams in the top half of the table averaged 4,363km across the season, compared to 4,332km for the bottom half - a gap of just 31km, barely significant in context. The difference in high-intensity distance was similarly marginal, with top-10 sides averaging 338.7km against 328.4km for the bottom 10, roughly a 3% difference.

Comparing performance to Opta's supercomputer pre-season predictions tells a similar story. Clubs that outperformed their expected finishing position averaged 4,369km, while underperformers averaged 4,308km - again, only a 1.4% difference. Notably, Sunderland and Manchester United, the two biggest overachievers relative to expectations, were not among the top teams for distance covered, while Crystal Palace and Newcastle, both disappointing relative to projections, ranked highly for ground covered.

Examining expected points (xPts) data reinforces the point. Teams ranking in the bottom half for distance covered actually exceeded their xPts tally by 0.38 points on average, while top-half teams for that metric fell short of their xPts by 1.88 points on average.

One metric did show a stronger relationship with league position: distance covered in possession. Teams that ran more with the ball tended to finish higher, though this likely reflects superior quality and greater share of possession rather than running itself driving results.

At match level, the picture is a bit different. Since the start of last season, there have been 86 Premier League games in which one team covered at least 5km less than their opponent. Those sides have won just 10 times - an 11.6% win rate. Excluding matches involving a red card leaves 66 games and eight wins, a win rate of 12.1%. When the gap narrows to between 2.5km and 4.99km, the win rate rises to 25.8%, though the loss rate in such matches remains high at 46%.

The data suggests a weak link at best, and certainly not the decisive factor often implied by pundits. Jürgen Klopp addressed this early in his Liverpool tenure: "We don't have to run 115km per match to be successful. You don't have to run like crazy if you have the ball... We must know how to turn the screws in the right moment; better thinking, better timing. But if we play a much better team and you are not ready to run more than them, then you are crazy."

Pep Guardiola offered a similar sentiment during his final season at Manchester City: "It's about when you have to run. Running just to run? I can go to the track and ask the marathon guys to play for us. It's not about that, it's when you have to do it... The most important thing is the combination of both things."

Ultimately, raw running totals appear to be a blunt and often misleading tool for judging a team's effort or explaining results. Timing and intensity, rather than sheer volume, seem to matter far more than the simplicity of distance statistics would suggest.

Based on reporting from Guardian Football (Opta Analyst).