Efficiency of the Offense

I crunched some numbers for the offense this season, counting all games except the first round playoff vs Texas SA (since they were so over matched).

In those 22 games:

UP scored 39 goals on 220 shots on target from 346 shots total.
Efficiency of 64% (on target/shot); 11% (goals/shot); 18% (goals/on target shots)

Opponents scored 11 goals on 83 shots on target from 137 shots total.
Efficiency of 61%; 8%; 13%.

But since many opponents were shut out & who knows how many more shots would be required to score a goal, I also computed efficiency for opponents that did score a goal.
These opponents scored 11 goals on 47 shots on target from 77 shots total.
Efficiency of 61%; 14%; 23%

So UP's offense was more accurate 64% v 61%; but only 79% as efficient in turning shots into goals; or 76% as efficient in turning shots on target into goals. If UP was as efficient as these opponents that would have resulted in 10-12 more goals during the season.

Yesterday's playoff game vs UW tied the seasons low point in efficiency: Still 67% of shots were on target; but 4% goals/shots and 6% goals/shots on target... this low point was hit 3 times this year: UW, PSU, and Texas A&M. At UP's average efficiency they would have scored 1 or 2 more goals yesterday.

I'm not sure if there is any meaning in these numbers, but I thought I would throw them out there... but against top opponents being 20% less efficient on offense puts a very heavy load on the defense to produce shutouts.

Interesting stats. I would be interested in other posters' opinions as to why the Pilots scored so much less this year. I thought that after losing only Michelle (and Kendra, as it turned out) from last year's offense, and with everyone a year better and with all the new freshmen coming in, that this year would see as many or even more goals than last year. Obviously, I was wrong.

I think I probably underestimated how hard it was going to be to replace Michelle. Remember how she used to push the ball past a defender into space and then run the long way around the defender's back and still beat her to the ball? As good as the Pilots were this year, and they really were good, we just didn't have anyone who could break down a defense by herself like Michelle could. We had to break down the defense this year with passing, and that gets very very tough in the final third of the field. It wasn't so much that Michelle scored a lot - she actually didn't. What she did was break down the defenses, force them to make choices and pay too much attention to her, and then find the open player. Much of the time it was Danielle, who was/is a superb finisher. Michelle just opened up the whole offense for everyone else.

I think I saw hints of Michelle's ability in Michaela. Some of you might be better able to remember Michelle in her freshman year and offer an opinion as to whether Michaela is as far along now as Michelle was then, and if she has that same potential. I think she does - I hope so.

Michelle Enyeart -- ah, memories. Anyone know how is she doing? I hope she is healthy and strong after surgery.

Capelle is feisty, a scrapper, not one to back down. She was able to score more often than anyone could have reasonably expected her to do this year. In my eyes she is not the same style of player as Enyeart, who could flat-out scorch past the defenders and had a powerful shot (also accurate). Another Michelle -- Cruz -- seems more in the Enyeart mold with her speed. All such comparisions are unfair and not too relevant because each player has to become her own best self.

Help Wanted: Fast Freshmen. For 2011, there is clearly room up front or at midfield for the attacker who can turn on the jets and blow by the D.

Great converters like Sinclair have a gift in soccer, however, I think we're getting into over analysis here. For example, last year if you look at our numbers, I bet we won the shots on goal battle in every game of the playoffs until we were eliminated.

Instead of over analizing this, isn't it okay to just simply state we had an off game? I'd contend that 80-90% of the time when we win the shots on goal stat, we win the game. This was simply an off game at an unfortunate time in a game with a lot of parity. It's more remarkable to me that teams like UP, Notre Dame, and UNC can be so remarkably consistent in this sport year after year.

PH - You're right about Enyeart having a different style than Capelle. I don't think I've ever seen a female player as fast WITH THE BALL as Michelle was, and she was powerful. Michaela is more of a quickness player. My point was, do you think she will develop into a player who can break down a defense by herself, different style or not, like Michelle and Meghan could?

One touch - I agree with everything you said. My point, however, was that we scored many fewer goals this year than last, with almost the same team, and I was wondering why? Without checking it out for sure, I bet we outshot practically every team we played this year - maybe two exceptions? - and yet we had five 1-0 wins, three 2-1 wins and a 1-1 tie, and with lots of opponent's shots hitting the various goal bars. It seemed as if the Washington loss was almost like an accident waiting to happen. It just picked a terrible time to happen.

The only game in which the Pilots were out shot was Stanford. In that game Stanford had 10 more shots resulting in one more goal. On average the Pilots had 10 more shots/game than their opponents and 1.3 more goals.

In the UW playoff game the pilots took 21 more shots than UW... on a typical day that would have meant a 2 goal margin of victory.

It was just an unfortunate time for the Pilot shooters to have their worse day in finishing all year.

dave97239 wrote:The only game in which the Pilots were out shot was Stanford. In that game Stanford had 10 more shots resulting in one more goal. On average the Pilots had 10 more shots/game than their opponents and 1.3 more goals.

In the UW playoff game the pilots took 21 more shots than UW... on a typical day that would have meant a 2 goal margin of victory.

It was just an unfortunate time for the Pilot shooters to have their worse day in finishing all year.

The thing I think some folks are looking at is not how we compared to Stanford, but how we compared to last year's UP team.

That team scored at a clip of almost 1 goal every 5 shots (.217 GPS)
Dani scored at a .4 GPS rate ( one goal every 2.5 shots)
That might be the best clip we have ever scored at.

I guess the question is what did we do last year that we didn't do this year? And how do we start doing that again?

Last year is instructive, but last year's lessons and efficiency will need to be learned by a number of players who were not here last year. Speaking of next year, does anyone care to project a starting lineup? Jessica and Elli's replacements are something of a mystery to me--I believe I saw Sarah Bridges play outside back at the end of the UTSA game--hmmn?

Purplegeezer wrote:

dave97239 wrote:The only game in which the Pilots were out shot was Stanford. In that game Stanford had 10 more shots resulting in one more goal. On average the Pilots had 10 more shots/game than their opponents and 1.3 more goals.

In the UW playoff game the pilots took 21 more shots than UW... on a typical day that would have meant a 2 goal margin of victory.

It was just an unfortunate time for the Pilot shooters to have their worse day in finishing all year.

The thing I think some folks are looking at is not how we compared to Stanford, but how we compared to last year's UP team.

That team scored at a clip of almost 1 goal every 5 shots (.217 GPS)
Dani scored at a .4 GPS rate ( one goal every 2.5 shots)
That might be the best clip we have ever scored at.

I guess the question is what did we do last year that we didn't do this year? And how do we start doing that again?

Exactly!!! Well Put!! Last year might have been an aberration as far as scoring, in fact I think Garrett said that early in the season, but we ended up a LONG ways from last year as far as scoring totals, and that resulted in way too many close games, the type of game in which one unlucky break can lose a game which we otherwise dominated - and, as I said earlier, with almost the same team as last year when we had all those goals and all those lopsided games. We managed to hold off that unlucky break until the Washington game, but they had one really superb play that they scored on, and we just couldn't get the ball into the net. The game should not have been that close.

So - what was different this year from last? Was it just losing Michelle? Was it just a turn of luck?

This has been said numerous times throughout the season, but I think it's relevant in the summary here. I think we lacked a player (Michelle E., Megan, Christine, Shannon, Tiffeny) who could consistently beat her defender and force a second defender to move to her. All of the above (and really no one else I remember from the Pilots) were able to do this and create goals both for themselves and for their teammates.

Dani benefited from Michelle and Megan opening up the defense over the last two years and giving her good looks at the goal. This year she didn't have anyone like that and her goal-scoring went way down. I recall the same thing happening to Wynne McIntosh in her final year when Shannon left. Wynne had been a prolific goal scorer in her early years, but when Shannon was no longer drawing the defense away from the goal to cover her Wynne saw far fewer opportunities and was not able to score as much.

If we have one need next year it is for the creative player who can beat a defender and open up the defense, but such players are rare--there are probably only 2 or 3 (or fewer) per year coming out of high school. If we don't have such a player, we have to find another way to beat teams that pack in the defense. Any of you (real or armchair) coaches out there have suggestions?

If they don't have that player next year my suggestion is keep doing what they did this year. 19-1-2 and a number 2 ranking in the country is a tremendous season.

While landing a sensational striker would be great, I think building on the very capable players we already have is a more fruitful approach. Hopefully next year the forwards will have more maturity and experience that will make a difference in the key games.

Because in the end, I think the major offensive story this year was inconsistency. In 6 games we took 6 or less shots per goal... but in 6 other games it took more than 13 shots per goal & in 4 of those games it was actually more than 18 shorts per goal... and the changes don't track with quality of opponent.

Even if the lower goal production rate continues next year, if we could just reliably score goals at the season average rate at every game, UP will be a powerful force.

My knees are good, but I am with SoreKnees on this: I suspect the Pilots lack a striker with the athletic abilities and the creative spark of some of the past Pilot forwards. While I agree that may change with the maturation of some of the young Pilots, it is a concern going forward and will remain a big concern if we show the same or an even greater inabililty to put the ball in the net next year.

I agree our record was not too shabby this year, as has been suggested, even with the limitation. Unfortunately, the departure of so many important players leaves many, many questions unanswered for next year.

I add that I think the offensive inconsistency alluded to is a symptom of the problem pointed out by SoreKnees.

I'd agree with SoreKnees. I'd also say another reason Portland didn't score as much this year as last season was because the schedule was more difficult with a lot more quality opponents. There was no way the Pilots were going to have 6-0, 7-0 or 8-0 games against teams on the 2010 schedule.

Everything just came together to create a perfect storm.

pms275 wrote:

Everything just came together to create a perfect storm.

Michelle graduating (leaving no dominating attacker), tougher schedule, maybe some good luck last year and tougher luck this year (this year's near misses went in last year), possibly all of which created an atmosphere of trying too hard and/or not expecting to score - the perfect storm. Makes sense to me. I still think the biggest single factor was not having another dominating attacker when Michelle left, and I'm still thinking and hoping Michaela will fill those shoes next year.

While we lost many seniors to graduation, it's not going to affect the offense very much. The only offensive player to graduate was Sophie, and she was gone for much of the season. With virtually the same offense next year, and added maturation in our outstanding freshman class, I would certainly expect a more productive offense next year.

Sophie CANNOT be replaced, but someone who can intimidate and, IMHO can score, will be a freshman next year...Malloy Leahy. Although a defender, she has shown she can score if necessary. I also believe that Amanda Frisbie will blossom into a positive force to go with Micaela. Time will tell.

Let the visions of next season begin!

Purplegeezer wrote:

dave97239 wrote:The only game in which the Pilots were out shot was Stanford. In that game Stanford had 10 more shots resulting in one more goal. On average the Pilots had 10 more shots/game than their opponents and 1.3 more goals.

In the UW playoff game the pilots took 21 more shots than UW... on a typical day that would have meant a 2 goal margin of victory.

It was just an unfortunate time for the Pilot shooters to have their worse day in finishing all year.

The thing I think some folks are looking at is not how we compared to Stanford, but how we compared to last year's UP team.

That team scored at a clip of almost 1 goal every 5 shots (.217 GPS)
Dani scored at a .4 GPS rate ( one goal every 2.5 shots)
That might be the best clip we have ever scored at.

I guess the question is what did we do last year that we didn't do this year? And how do we start doing that again?

Well, I'd consider Amanda Frisbee and Foxhoven pretty good building blocks. I don't think the problem was
scoring against teams with a lot less talent. We won 9-0 in the first round and really had a breakout game. There may be things that the coaches can do to get Foxhoven more involved again.

But, I do have to say that in every big run we've had in the playoffs there's almost always been a shootout...even with high scoring teams than this one. Many times we've had better luck and done better than this year. But, some years we simply won't be able to advance. Practicing PKs and drills for scoring from inside the 18 would be helpful though. Also, teaching players how to pace themselves in terms of conditioning during games. We've got a great foundation for the future though, and our team is remarkably consistent. I'm not too concerned...

SoreKnees wrote:This has been said numerous times throughout the season, but I think it's relevant in the summary here. I think we lacked a player (Michelle E., Megan, Christine, Shannon, Tiffeny) who could consistently beat her defender and force a second defender to move to her. All of the above (and really no one else I remember from the Pilots) were able to do this and create goals both for themselves and for their teammates.

Dani benefited from Michelle and Megan opening up the defense over the last two years and giving her good looks at the goal. This year she didn't have anyone like that and her goal-scoring went way down. I recall the same thing happening to Wynne McIntosh in her final year when Shannon left. Wynne had been a prolific goal scorer in her early years, but when Shannon was no longer drawing the defense away from the goal to cover her Wynne saw far fewer opportunities and was not able to score as much.

If we have one need next year it is for the creative player who can beat a defender and open up the defense, but such players are rare--there are probably only 2 or 3 (or fewer) per year coming out of high school. If we don't have such a player, we have to find another way to beat teams that pack in the defense. Any of you (real or armchair) coaches out there have suggestions?

This Friend speaks my mind...again. I sit behind the goal that the Pilots attack in the first half (usually) and I cannot recall a season where they scored fewer first half goals. I also can't recall a season where I was constantly thinking the pass or direction of attack was the wrong choice. Now, I know that sitting up in the stands and second guessing is a true soccer aficionados favorite pastime but I and my watching partners were left scratching our heads quite often as to the direction the creatives took to attack. We didn't have that magical player to open the spaces and without scoring in the first half, teams were able to hunker down and allow shots but not GREAT shots. Oh well, I guess this has been hammered to death and I'm done with the season and looking forward to next but like I have said before, there is trend in women's soccer from the national team down through the youth leagues in the direction the game is going right now. I fear that we are right in line with an endemic reality in high level soccer. http://www.socceramerica.com/article/33984/the-real-problem-with-womens-pro-soccer.html
The illusion of parity is good but it also brings about hunkered down defenses, youth programs that train out the "flair" of the game, and the reality that the occasional "magical" player is getting harder to come by. That being said, I'm quite confident that a few of our freshman have the capability to become our next magician and lead us back to the final four. Just wait till next year!

I don't know the answer to a lot of questions being discussed on this thread, but something that has not been mentioned is the vast jump in parity of teams that we are witnessing in high relief this year. It's most noticeable in the fact that three #1 seeds and 2 #2 seeds are out of the tournament going into the quarter-finals. But I think the more persuasive evidence is in the overall strength of the NCAA tournament field this year. Of the teams in the field, 51 were in the top 64 of the RPI rankings. The others were conference champion "automatic qualifiers." This is as compared in recent years to 44 to 46 teams in the top 64 being in the field.

The result is that there are fewer and fewer easy games in the tournament. The talent is being distributed more evenly not only among teams in the strong conferences but also among teams in what traditionally have been weaker conferences. Conversely, recruiting by the elite teams has become more and more difficult.

In addition, it means that there are fewer and fewer easy games during the regular season for the elite teams.

It is possible this is a short-term phenomenon. But, I doubt it.

I agree. The missing ingredient to this fabulous team was the break-away player who had ball-at-the-feet skills. Someone who can dribble around defenders at will and create space with their speed. Michelle Enyeart used to make the defense take notice and give her some attention right at the start of a match....when she would sometimes take the kickoff and dribble right down and around the middle of the defense. Remember that? Everyone would expect her to pass...but she'd keep the ball and keep penetrating as deeply as she could go. That small statement she made was etched in our opponents head for the rest of the match and set the tone for the heart and success of Pilot soccer....possession attack with precise one touch passing.

The 2 players with beautiful dribbling\ball control skills were our defensive backs...Jessica and Ellie. The best ever I've seen was Angie Woznuk. She was a dribbling wizard on the pitch and set the table for the strikers. She controlled pace, had impeccable timing and a deft passing touch.

GO PILOTS!!!

I think the article Decrink referenced earlier made some good points regarding the problems of parity and what can be done to tilt the the emphasis toward offensive strikes rather than hunkered down defenses.

For example, what if the first tie breaker (before OT & PK) was based on how many saves you forced the other keeper (& posts) to make; that would reward a team for maintaining an offensive attack mentality throughout the match.

Since the NCAA has already made mods to the FIFA rules, why not a few more to encourage offensive flair... as long as we are on the topic, how about no off sides once the ball is inside the box?

Both are great ideas - ANYTHING but penalty kicks. I personally have long thought that the best way to open up the game a little and reward the team that controls play would be to make the goal bigger, making it easier to score and therefore making it easier to be rewarded for getting the ball into the offensive end. It'll probably never happen.

I think if you have to go to a tie-breaker, it should be something other than kicks from the mark. I'd opt for paired 2:00 minute overtime periods starting with free kicks at ever decreasing distances. First one team gets a free-kick from 40 yards with play continuing for 2:00, then the other team gets a kick from 40 yards and play for 2:00. If one scores and the other does not, the game ends. Otherwise repeat starting from 30 yards, then 20 yards, then corner kicks, or something like that.

It would reward all phases of the game in the tie-breaker, not just striking and shot-stopping.