Well that was interesting. Morrison Stadium was alive and vibrant in a way Werner Park has maybe never been, but I’m not convinced I want to go back after the results. I’ve got a crazy week, so let’s dive in!
1) The good.
Sure, we lost this game BUT we did that despite:
- Possession: 58.5% – season high
- Crosses: 27 – T-2nd most on the season
- Opponents Chances: 3 – T-Lowest on the Season (at Tucson 7/24)
- Passing accuracy: 83.6% – season high
- Our xG: 2.30 – 2nd most on the season (0.01 less than home to NTSC 7/31)
- Our xG minus Opponents xG: 1.15 – 3rd highest on the season
Those are all really good stats and, to me, prove what a stout job of defending Tucson did in this game.
2) The ignoble.
The missed penalty hurt us. Sure you never want to rely on a penalty to earn points, but you often assume that when you get one, you are going to score. Interestingly enough, that’s not quite true. I found some research that indicates the global make rate is around 75.49% of penalties go in. (The research is here and has data by zodiac signs as well, so feel free to take with a grain of salt.) This was the clubs first miss on 4 attempts in regular and preseason games.
Also, according to this research we’ve witnessed the rarest type of penalty miss: hitting the post which occurs in around 2.87% of penalties. So…hooray?
3) Guest post from Timothy aka Ranting Blue Penguin: Fouling the Owls
Physicality is a part of soccer. It’s not just a matter of trying to get every advantage you can, but eventually, you get into the mind of your opponent. Living rent free inside your opposite number’s head is a prime way to make sure that they don’t get to play their game. This is especially true if the referees are allowing it to go on.
This isn’t designed to be a rant on the referee’s though (that could come later and fill volumes). Instead, I wanted to take a very quick surface look at the effect of fouling on the team this year.
It’s worth noting, before we get started, that simply looking at foul numbers isn’t going to be a perfect identifier of a physical game. Advantage numbers aren’t tallied into the stats. Nor does it identify touchy fouls or no-calls. It obviously doesn’t account for really hard, but fair, challenges that can have an effect on a player’s thought process going forward.
However, over the course of a match, foul tally can provide an indicator of how physical a match is. (Eventually, the referee has to call something, right?) So despite the imperfections, I wanted to look at this as a potential indicator–and maybe something to watch for the next time we’re in a physical match.
I started out by looking back at all of our matches for the year from the USL1 League website. The only matches not indicated are our abandoned match with Madison (no official stats). In the 21 matches, I looked at our opponent’s called fouls vs. our called fouls and came up with this:
| Opponent | Date | Home/Away | Opp. Fouls | UO Fouls |
| TUC | 7/24/2021 | A | 23 | 18 |
| TRM | 4/24/2021 | H | 17 | 23 |
| CHA | 8/21/2021 | A | 17 | 19 |
| TUC | 9/25/2021 | H | 17 | 15 |
| TUC | 8/14/2021 | A | 17 | 14 |
| NC | 9/4/2021 | A | 15 | 11 |
| MAD | 5/26/2021 | A | 13 | 12 |
| MAD | 7/16/2021 | H | 13 | 13 |
| NTX | 8/28/2021 | H | 13 | 10 |
| NTX | 9/19/2021 | A | 13 | 10 |
| RIC | 6/19/2021 | A | 12 | 16 |
| TUC | 6/26/2021 | H | 12 | 17 |
| TFC2 | 9/11/2021 | H | 11 | 16 |
| NE2 | 5/12/2021 | A | 10 | 14 |
| MAD | 6/6/2021 | A | 10 | 18 |
| CHA | 7/3/2021 | H | 9 | 14 |
| NTX | 7/31/2021 | H | 9 | 10 |
| NE2 | 6/12/2021 | H | 8 | 13 |
| FTL | 5/7/2021 | A | 7 | 9 |
| TFC2 | 6/2/2021 | A | 6 | 10 |
| GVL | 5/16/2021 | A | 5 | 16 |
You’ll notice, there are only 7 times out of 21 that our opponents out-fouled us:
| Opponent | Date | Home/Away | Opp. Fouls | UO Fouls |
| TUC | 7/24/2021 | A | 23 | 18 |
| TUC | 9/25/2021 | H | 17 | 15 |
| TUC | 8/14/2021 | A | 17 | 14 |
| NC | 9/4/2021 | A | 15 | 11 |
| MAD | 5/26/2021 | A | 13 | 12 |
| NTX | 8/28/2021 | H | 13 | 10 |
| NTX | 9/19/2021 | A | 13 | 10 |
In those matches, UO is 3-2-2, but those matches include 2 of our three losses (Home to Tucson, Away to Madison), as well as 3 of our 4 shutouts on the year (Home to Tucson, Away to Madison, and a Home Draw with North Texas).
Our shot totals seem to go lower as well. In those 7 matches, we have a total of 82 shots (11.7 per match) with 24 on target for a 29.3% accuracy rate and 9 goals (1.28 per match). In our other matches, we have 189 shots (13.5 per match), with 61 of those on target for a 32.3% accuracy rate and 20 goals (1.43 per match). Those totals sound negligible, but every little bit helps over the course of a season.
To wrap this foul data up, I also noticed one final trend. Even when UO out-fouls (or is even), they are 4-3-3 when the opponent is called for 13 or more fouls. In those matches, we have 116 shots, 34 on target (31.9% accuracy) with 11 goals (1.1 per match) and all four of our shutouts. UO is 6-0-5 with 155 shots, 51 on target (32.9%) with 17 goals (1.55 per match) when the opponent has 12 or less fouls.
None of this data is conclusive to anything, of course. Physical games aren’t necessarily measured in the fouls called. And the Owls always fight hard, with passion, and don’t back down from anyone. However, it’s worth monitoring the next time we play a physical team. Frustration is often evident. It’s possible that some in the league have figured out that the fire that drives our team can also be the key to its undoing.
Stats compiled from a week-by-week pull at https://www.uslleagueone.com/league-scores, accessed 26 Sep 21
Special thanks to Tim! I’ll be traveling next week so I’ll see you when I see you!
Who Gives A Hoot? 