Here I wrote about how Metcalfe’s Network Law can predict time of possession in youth soccer.
It says, on offense the team is like a network where every player is a node that the ball can move through and the value of that network is exponentially proportional to how effective each player can be an effective node without turning the ball over.
To do that requires being able to execute basics — like receiving, dribbling and passing — while also making good percentage decisions.
The theory goes that the more players a team has as effective nodes relative to the other team, the more they will possess the ball.
The team with fewer effective offensive nodes will turn the ball over more.
Teams with the same numbers of effective nodes will have roughly equal possession.
When there’s an imbalance in number of effective nodes, that will tilt possession toward the team with more. For example, a team with 11 effective offensive nodes playing against a team with 8 effective nodes, will have 65% possession. If they played a team with 6 effective nodes, they’d have 77% possession
Germany had 60% possession.
My node theory suggests that meant the U.S. had 1-3 players whose ball handling skills weren’t up to the players on Germany’s team, making them less effective offensive nodes.
First question I would ask is why we would choose players whose ball handling skills aren’t up to the level we’re going to play against?
It took me a long time to figure it out. I’m not sure I have it figured out, but one thought is American soccer favors players strong with the traditional positional attributes. For example, we prefer midfielders that can run hard and win loose balls, defenders who can keep pace with fast forwards and defend well 1v1 and goalkeepers who can block shots. And for all of those positions, we rate athleticism high.
By favoring such players, we don’t put as much emphasis on ball control. We think OK ball control is good enough and that more refined ball control is only needed upfront.
Few seem to notice how much it costs.
Start with the basic trap. Watch closely next time you see a international or inter league mismatch, or if you re-watch the US v Germany match.
The lower team will often have an extra bounce or hop when they traps that they then need an extra second and extra touch or two to gain control. That often invites the defender to come closer and put more pressure because they know they have a higher percent chance of causing a turnover.
The higher team stops the ball clean. The ball more often comes to rest with no extra motion. That’s 1 second per trap advantage. The defenders more gingerly reel space in to apply pressure, because the know the chances of winning a tackle from that player are lower than the getting burnt by over committing.
I’m not saying these players have awful ball control or are not capable of making great plays.
They will make a lot of great conspicuous plays that fit with their strengths, like winning a lot of 50/50s. Those stick in the fans minds. They will also make a few outside their strengths so fans can throw those in my face.
But fans miss the subtle ways they make the team less competitive.
Over larger samples, those players will cause more turnovers. Those turnovers may not be directly attributed to them. They may happen 2-3 passes further down the field, but it started with their sloppy trap and well-projected pass that allowed the other team to close space on all their marks eventually resulting in an interception.
It also does some more subtle things.
First, it will impair the USMNT’s ability to switch styles of play if needed for the game. That makes them less dimensional and less tactically flexible and easier for the opponent predict and control.
One example: as a team you want to be able to play long and short. If you can’t do both well, it makes it easier to cover the one you can do. Because all offensive nodes aren’t up to snuff, it takes fewer defensive resources to cover shorter passing options so more can be allocated to covering the long options.
If you can pose a serious threat with shorter passes, that will force the other team decide where to focus defensive resources, improving the odds of a mistake that creates an opening to exploit.
In Am soccer circles it seems like it is generally felt a team should play one style of soccer, build the team around that and just get really good at that. But, even the coaches of the best passing teams in American football will tell you that being able to run contributes a great deal to passing success, because it keeps the other team guessing and deciding where to allocate its defense.
Second, it produces weaknesses the other team can exploit. Matt Turner is an awesome shot blocker, but still a little shaky with the ball at his feet when facing the world’s top players. So, guess where Germany will try to force the US to pass?
But that goes both ways. If the US figures out that’s not a great percentage pass, then that removes a basic passing option from the node and weakens all other nodes because Germany can now dedicate even more resources to covering them.
This is one reason the value of the network is exponentially related to the number of good offensive nodes. The value isn’t just in the ability to play the ball through the node, but also in having that as a viable option.
If passing to goalie becomes less viable, then holding possession and switching through the back to control the pace of the game while looking for openings also becomes less viable, which then forces the US to push forward every time they get the ball and if they lose the ball, leaving lots openings for Germany to attack through.
Sort of sounds like the 2nd half to me.
Our Dinner Table 