Haverford Men's Soccer

10-3 record, 17th toughest schedule in NCAA DIII (out of 407)

...Solid...solid.

Oh, Dear

Even very good players make terrible mistakes.  Witness the Princeton/American Univ. match of Sept. 29th.  When an attacker is hitting a shot from this angle, don't stand there!  The still shows the shooter from 26 yards or so hitting a half-volley, the GK is on the left of the image, the white lines show the angle from ball to each post...whoopsie.  Video of the event below the still:

Finishing

The Pointy End of the Spear

Some fun'n'games with NCAA Division III data...all 2014 data, but things that keep popping into mind as I tinker with the rapidly piling-up 2015 data at Haverford College.

The national average for conversion rate (all shots divided by goals) was 12% in 2014.  That's a tad higher than the pro level (typically 10%):

The number of shots needed to score a goal is always interesting, too.  A higher conversion rate means a lower number of shots needed to score:

Lastly, you can't score if you don't shoot, total shots below:

Boy, those Sweet 16 teams are aggressive...

Shots At Goal

Blocked Shots Effect On 

Goal Scoring Averages

I published these charts here a while back, but wanted to dust them off for a little review prior to the fall season.  While you watch your favorite team, or play, consider the shift in the number of shots on target if your team blocks shooting attempts at the rates of the EPL.  And notice the subtle relative shift of the top 4...while they keep just a few more of their un-blocked shots on target, they also appear to be blocked ever so slightly less, too.  Such are the margins within which titles are won.

Goals per game on the vertical axis; percent of all shots NOT on target on the horizontal axis:

Ditto on the axes, but here we count all blocked shots as ON target (not absolutely true, of course, but defenders aren't going to block shots they don't believe will be on target, so it's close to the same thing).  We see a massive shift in the percentages of shots not on target as a group, but we also see that the yellow clump is just a tad ahead of the rest.  So it's clearly extremely difficult to get shots, get them on target, and beat the GK...but the best teams have just that slight edge, to the tune of a half goal per game advantage over the sweaty masses below them:

From a closer-to-home realm, that of NCAA Division III, here are the top 9 conferences :

Goals Per Game Average = Vertical Axis
Shots Not On Target = Horizontal Axis

The 2014 NCAA tourney finalists are in yellow, Sweet 16 teams in green and my beloved Haverford in red. What's most interesting is the clumping of the Sweet 16 teams...that's a pretty tight scatter, with OWU way the heck out to the right. F&M was a little off the pace too, so it appears that last year, the top performers missed the target on .5 to .56 of their efforts. NCAA stats are notoriously poor, of course, so we have to take all this with a big grain of salt....but it's better than nothing. That does not change the interesting nature of the picture above that does seem to indicate the best teams reside in a "sweet spot" of missing the target at a ratio that does not harm them; and they probably take a sufficient number of shots to compensate for the surprisingly high number of shots that flat out miss the 192 square feet of goal!

Now, check out the teams from the final and Sweet 16, plus the 19 teams who were roughly inside or on the circle made by the 8 Sweet 16 teams (Oneonta/Wartburg/MC -Muhlenberg - /Brandeis/Amherst/Cortland/Whitworth/Messiah)...the "close but not quite" crowd.  Knowing that they are close in terms of goals scored and shots not on target, I wanted to see how they compared defensively, and for that quick check, it appears there were three teams we might consider just unlucky to have not made the NCAAs, or advanced if they did (or they played too weak a schedule and earned the positive numbers against inferior opposition)...the other 16 were too porous defensively:

(Goals Against Average = Horizontal Axis

&

Goals Per Game Average = Vertical Axis)

So what of blocked shots?  They alone could have made the difference for the 16 teams who fell outside the sweet spot on the chart...block a few more shots, prevent a couple of those goals that skewed the averages, and maybe, just maybe, you're a sweet 16 team instead of a spectator.  Hmmm.

Blocking and GK Angle Play

Watching the Union versus the Revs on the 29th of August, there were some rumblings about Blake's positioning on the Revs game-winning goal.  While there's always enough blame to spread it around, there is an aspect of team play that goes all too often overlooked, and the failure to get that right cost the Union more than one player's actions.

As Fagundez dribbles centrally having received a flick from the throw-in (!) the center back steps up and runs with him...while you hate to see something so simple as a throw in achieve penetration to this degree, it's so far, so good for the Union:

 The CB is covering the right post of the goal, and showing the attacker toward a teammate, as well as enjoying some cover from the GK.  But he commits the cardinal sin of "over pursuing" and just as he does, Fagundez very wisely takes advantage.  Blake, as we can see in the second photo, has shifted to the left under the assumption that Marquez has covered the (defense's) right side of the goal:

 We see here in the final picture that Marquez has overrun Fagundez, and a shot even two and a half yards inside the right post is enough to beat Blake:

While "letting" an attacker shoot isn't very palatable, defenders have to understand the angles of the covering defenders, whether another outfield player, or a GK.  All credit to Fagundez for a good, quickly taken, low hard shot (a perfect storm of uh-oh for a GK under the best of circumstances) but had Marquez stayed on his left hip, that ball should clatter harmlessly off the CB's shinpads.  Clearly, Blake has opted to cover from Marquez to the left post, and as such is hopelessly out of position for the shot taken.

COVERED:

Not Covered:

Here's the film: