Seems like just a few weeks ago we were playing Tucson at Tucson. Oh wait, we were actually. While I have no problems with an unbalanced schedule based on “proximity,” the rate at which we are facing these opponents is odd. I think it really accentuates the impact of these games by having them so close to each other. Anyway, I’m feeling a little under the weather, so let’s dive in to a short-ish data dump.
1) First half vs. second half.
As my new Twitter friend, Ross Davenport, pointed out during the game, Union Omaha had a ton of possession in the first half. Check out this incredibly inaccurate halftime pic.
So all the other stats are wrong, but I do think the possession numbers are right. Why?
Check out first half (above) heatmap vs second half (below) heatmap.
We ended with the expected 48.1% possession you normally see from a UO win. Clearly, this was because we let Tucson possess the ball in the second half.
2) Strategic lineup choices?
Who knows why Tucson’s coach kept the teams more established stars on the bench until the second half. Was he trying something new? Sending a message? My theory is that he was trying out a new strategy to take points from our beloved Union Omaha.
We are a team that starts very strong and holds on. Additionally, we aren’t very deep defensively, and Jay tends to not make defensive substitutions. Dalytn, Dami, and Ferrety are our leaders in minutes. Ferrety, 3rd place, has played 115 minutes more than Conor Doyle, 4th place.
Also, our team travelled to the desert to play this game. We’ve scored more than 2 goals in 1 game this season, and we’ve scored 1 goal in 9 games. We’re just not the type of team to blow someone out early, so why not try out some new things and bring on Tucson’s most dangerous players to compete with fresh legs against our fatigued backline.
I think that was the idea behind the lineup choices from Tucson. And after they brought on Adams, Calixtro, and Dennis they really gave us the business.
GameFlow also backs this up. After our best chance of the game (the goalmouth scramble) the last quarter of the game is all one way traffic from Tucson.
The results weren’t there for Tucson, but I think the idea was a correct one. We lost the “xG battle” but won the game for only the 2nd time this season (vs Tormenta). I’ll talk next about what we did to counteract this tactic in this game, but I do think we’re vulnerable to quality substitutes brought on for the last 1/3 of the game. We come out steaming, score a goal, go off the boil a little bit, and end the game on the back foot. Further proof we need to be that “two goal team.”
3) Five in the back!
Did it feel like deja vu? We played five in the back again! I hate this strategy in general. Unless this is something done in practice regularly, crunch time it seems like a horrible to break it out. I was however a little relieved that we were doing something to slow down their attack. Looking at the data above, it didn’t really slow the tide of attack from Tucson. But again, hard to argue with the results since we won and kept a clean sheet.
Who Gives A Hoot? 