Match stats/analysis for recent Socceroo games

[Decentric]

That's simple so works.

I’ve now got that covered.

 

[Decentric]

I'm fed up of doing all the maths calculations from so much data! Once done though I find it very interesting.

I have finished 1v1s in the match, Colombia 3, Aus 0.

Colombia was the most competitive team against us in 1v1s since doing 1v1s in Popa's tenure, and late Arnie.

The table will be like this.

Player's name, number of 1v1 duels; ledger +, -, or neutral (O); percentage of duels won.

Ryan - no 1v1 duels.
Trewin - 9 indiv 1v1 duels contested, + 3 ledger, won 67% of 1v1 duels contested.
Degenek - 16 duels, +1, won 55%.
Burgess - 6 duels, +2, won 67%.
Miller - 16 duels, +10, won 81%.
O'Neill - 13 duels, +5, won 73%.
Irvine - 7 duels, +1, won 60%.
Rowles - 11 duels, -1, won 45%.
Metcalfe (rightwing) - 12 duels, -1, won 45%.
Toure - 22 duels, -2, won 45%.
McGree - 8 duels, -1, won 43%.

Subs:
Balard - 3 duels, -2, won 0%.
Okon - 1 duel, +1, won 100%.
Elder - 5 duels, 0 or neutral, won 50%.
Irankunda - 5 duels, +1, won 60%.
Boyle - 1 duel, -1, won 0%.

Colombia team 1v1s, +7, to them. These comprise duels where a Roo might not see a player dispossessing them blind, hence not deserving to lose a 1v1 in their own tally.

1v1s comprise - heading, body on body/strength, tackling, steals ( dispossessing a player dribbling), speed, dribbling around players.

Australia had a ledger of PLUS 9 in total 1v1s against Colombia at the end of the game. This is easily the closest of any game we've played that I've recorded to date since Arnie lost to Bahrain at home.

Aus won 70 to Colombia 61 in total 1v1 duels, which equates to 53.4 percent. Aus had the ascendancy over Japan A by 52, 53 or 54 percent in 1v1 duels.

I haven't added up the Cameroon and Curacao games yet, but Aus should clearly be in the ascendancy. That is because the attacking Roos held their own. Conversely, Colombia got the better of Aus's attacking players, which doesn't happen often.

Also, the back three of Trewin, Degenek and Burgess ( had few duels, only 6), weren't as dominant as Socceroo back threes are against most other teams.

Breaking every player down, would take ages, but if anyone has any questions I can give break down re indiv players.

The stars in 1v1s were Miller +10, winning 81%, and O'Neill +5, winning 73%.

Rowles, usually very dominant in 1v1s at CB, or even his other games as Left Wing Back, struggled in speed duels and being dribbled around against Colombia. Rowles still out- muscled them in body on body, heading and tackling actions though.

 

[Decentric]

In the last Socceroo hit out against Curacao, it was interesting to compare Hrustic and Nishan V, playing 45 mins each.

Live I thought Nishan V produced more energy over both flanks. Yet looking at the comparative stats, I could not verify my initial thoughts.

Assists, assist goal attempts, killer passes - both played 1, but Iran converted NIshan V's killer pass.

Balls played into the box - Hrustic played 2 ( both effective), NV 1 (effective).

Shots - Hrustic 1 on target, NV 0.

Passes played under time and space pressure - Hrustic 8 out of 11 at 73%.
NV 5 out of 6 at 83%.

Turnovers - Hrustic caused 4, plus 1 block.
NV caused 1.
I'm astonished at this figure? Hrustic never used to do anything much off the ball. He was almost like a cone. Was it due to canny, judicious positioning and pressing when Curacao had the ball? In amongst his aged peers Hrustic is one of the most skilful players with the ball at his feet in the Socceroo set up.
With the young tyros emerging under the age of 25, many are already as skilful as Hrustic, plus they have been inculcated with a hard work ethic off the ball.

High skill/poor control - Hrustic 4 actions of high skill, 0 poor ball control actions.
NV 1 action of high skill, 2 poor ball control actions.

1v1s - Hrustic 6 contests, -1 ledger, won 40% contested.
NV 6 contests, +2 ledger, won 75%.

 

[Decentric]

I've just totalled up the 1v1s for Aus v Cameroon and Aus v Curacao.

For the team aggregates:

Cameroon

124 unique 1v1 duels took place.
Australia had a ledger of plus 44 at the end of the game.
Aus won 68% of unique 1v1s over the 90 mins that had an outcome.

Curacao

127 unique 1v1 duels took place.
Australia had a ledger of plus 35 at the end of the 90 mins.
Aus won 64% of 1v1 duels contested that had an outcome over the 90 mins.

Later I'll post the individual figures for each Socceroo in both games.

Colombia had in comparison:

131 unique 1v1 duels.
Plus 9 ledger to Aus.
Aus won 53.4% of unique 1v1s that had an outcome over the 90 mins.

Usually CBs have the best ball winning stats, followed by midfielders, full backs, then forwards. Who do you think are Aus's most proficient 1v1 exponents?

 

[Decentric]

1v1s, Aus v Cameroon

Player's name, number of unique 1v1s; ledger +, -, 0; % of duels won.

Ryan - contested no 1v1s.
Geria - 10 duels, +3 ledger, 67% won.
Circati - 8 duels, +4, 75% won.
Herrington - 3 duels, +3 ledger, 100% won.
Italiano - 13 duels, +7 ledger, 77% won.
O'Neill - 9 duels, +2 ledger, 67% won.
Metcalfe - 7 duels, +5, 86% won.
Bos - 15 duels, +5 ledger, 67% won.
Boyle - 8 duels, ledger 0/neutral, 50% duels won.
Juric - 9 duels, +3 ledger, 67% won.
McGree - 14 duels, +2 ledger, 67% won.
Subs:
Hrustic - 1 duel, +1, 100% won.
Iran - 7 duels, +2 ledger, 67% won.
Burgess - 3 duels, +3 ledger, 100% won.
Okon - 1 duel, +1 ledger, 100% won.
Yazbek - 2 duels, +2 ledger, 100% won.
Degenek - 1 duel, +1 ledger, 100% won.
Trewin - 3 duels, +2 ledger, 100% won.
Mabil - 5 duels, +2 ledger, 75% won.

Cameroon won 5 unique team 1v1s.

Plus 44 duels ascendancy to Aus out of 124 unique 1v1 duels contested.

Aus won 68% of 1v1 duels.

As one can see both Italiano, 13 unique duels, with + 7 ledger, winning 77% - and - Bos, 15 unique duels, with a plus 5 ledger, winning 67%, did well in 1v1s in this Cameroon game.

Boyle at 0 or neutral, won as many as he lost - and - had the lowest ledger at 0, plus a 50% win percentage of duels contested that had an outcome. He was the Aussies worst against Cameroon.

Notice how many 1v1 duels McGree and Juric won comparatively in similar attacking positions.

O’Neill at a +2 ledger looked low compared to his games against Colombia and Curacao, but he only contested 9 unique 1v1s. He still had a good win/ loss % of 67 though.

Yet Metcalfe only contested 7 unique 1v1s as a DM, but had a ledger of +5 and 86% won. This Cameroon 1v1 performance is far better for Connor M than against Colombia, playing wing, and Curacao playing DM.

Some subs contested very few 1v1 duels.

In the past, I've felt, but haven't had cold hard data to substantiate my perceptions, that Hrustic has also been a low 1v1 performer, like Boyle.

 

[Decentric]

1v1s, Aus v Curacao.

Ryan - zilch.
Herrington - 6 duels, +1, 60% won.
Circati - 13 duels, +10, won 67%.
Rowles - 8 duels, +7, won 88%.
Trewin - 11 duels, +5, won 73%.
O'Neill - 12 duels, +4, won 67%.
Metcalfe - 3 duels, +1, won 67%.
Behich - 4 duels, +1, won 67%.
Mabil - 4 duels, 0 or nuetral, won 50%.
Juric - 13 duels, +1, 55%.
Hrustic - 6 duels, -1, won 40%.
Subs:
Geria - 2 duels, +2, 100%.
Okon - 6 duels, +2, 67%.
Villupillay - 4 duels, +2, won 75%.
Bos - 5 duels, +1, won 60%.
Burgess - 2 duels, +2, won 100%.
Irankunda - 7 duels, +3, 80%.
McGree - 4 duels, +3, won 100%.
Robertson - 2 duels, 0 or neutral ledger, won 50%.
Degenek - 3 duels, +3, won 100%.

Curacao won 12 team 1v1 duels, -12.

127 unique 1v1 duels took place.
Australia had a plus 35 ledger.
Aus won 64% of the duels that had an outcome over the 90 mins.

If one goes back and compares the 3 games - Colombia, Cameroon and Curacao, trends are starting to emerge.

In terms of advantageous position due to body shape and specialist skills, these positions tend to be more advantageous in 1v1s from top to bottom.
Back three.
Midfield four.
Front three.

 

[Decentric]

More stats.

This time I have balls played into the penalty box.

The new phenomenon is that of opposition balls played into the Aus pen box, a low percentage are effective, compared to the higher percentage of effective balls played into the Socceroos opposition pen boxes.

Aus v Colombia
Aus played 7 balls into the Colombian pen box, with 5 being effective. This equates to circa 70% being effective.

Colombia played 27 balls into the Aus pen box, with only 5 effective, but scoring 3 goals. This equates to a bit under 20% being effective despite playing 4 times as many balls into the pen box by Colombia.

Trewin played 2, Miller 4 and McGree 1.

Aus v Cameroon
Aus played 25 balls into the Cam pen box, with 19 effective. This is 76% being effective.

Cameroon played 26 balls into the Aus pen box, with 5 being effective. This equates to fractionally under 20% efficacy.

Italiano put 5 in, Substitute Mabil 4 and McGree 4.

Aus v Curacao
Aus played 20 balls into the Curacao pen box, with 15 being effective. This equates to 75% efficacy.

Curacao played 22 balls into the Aus pen box, with 8 effective. This equates to 36% efficacy.

Trewin played 5, Sub Bos 4 (only recording 2 as a starter against Cameron), Hrustic 3.

I define an ineffective ball played into the box, where it is cleared by a defender, an Intercept made by the keeper, dribbled out or passed out by a defender.

Everybody reading would have thought Colombia dominated Aus.

Popa appears to have some cunning tactics.

1. In attack, he must have triggers for the team to advance forwards in numbers, at very specific times. So when Aus gets the ball into the pen box, there is support.

Both Cam and Cur played a lot of more speculative balls into the box from range, which were easily intercepted by Ryan, or CBs, and few attacking Cam or Cur players in support.

Even though Colombia's balls were often cleared/intercepted by Ryan and the 3 CBs, my theory is that with more Colombians in support in attacking positions, they picked up more second balls, and kept the play in attack.

I have not yet totalled up passing/possession stats, but Colombia appeared to dominate play and territory late in the game.

2. When the other team has the ball, it seems like Popa has very specific, and, limited times when he wants the Socceroos to Squeeze space intensively, like in the Defensive Transitions for about 6 seconds when Aus loses the ball.
Then the rest of the time is keeping the defensive shape compact, with players holding back from closing down space for opposition players on the ball, apart from other subtle pressing triggers. Also, a deep Socceroo defensive line is often adopted.

 

[grazorblade]

More stats.

This time I have balls played into the penalty box.

The new phenomenon is that of opposition balls played into the Aus pen box, a low percentage are effective, compared to the higher percentage of effective balls played into the Socceroos opposition pen boxes.

Aus v Colombia
Aus played 7 balls into the Colombian pen box, with 5 being effective. This equates to circa 70% being effective.

Colombia played 27 balls into the Aus pen box, with only 5 effective, but scoring 3 goals. This equates to a bit under 20% being effective despite playing 4 times as many balls into the pen box by Colombia.

Trewin played 2, Miller 4 and McGree 1.

Aus v Cameroon
Aus played 25 balls into the Cam pen box, with 19 effective. This is 76% being effective.

Cameroon played 26 balls into the Aus pen box, with 5 being effective. This equates to fractionally under 20% efficacy.

Italiano put 5 in, Substitute Mabil 4 and McGree 4.

Aus v Curacao
Aus played 20 balls into the Curacao pen box, with 15 being effective. This equates to 75% efficacy.

Curacao played 22 balls into the Aus pen box, with 8 effective. This equates to 36% efficacy.

Trewin played 5, Sub Bos 4 (only recording 2 as a starter against Cameron), Hrustic 3.

I define an ineffective ball played into the box, where it is cleared by a defender, an Intercept made by the keeper, dribbled out or passed out by a defender.

Everybody reading would have thought Colombia dominated Aus.

Popa appears to have some cunning tactics.

1. In attack, he must have triggers for the team to advance forwards in numbers, at very specific times. So when Aus gets the ball into the pen box, there is support.

Both Cam and Cur played a lot of more speculative balls into the box from range, which were easily intercepted by Ryan, or CBs, and few attacking Cam or Cur players in support.

Even though Colombia's balls were often cleared/intercepted by Ryan and the 3 CBs, my theory is that with more Colombians in support in attacking positions, they picked up more second balls, and kept the play in attack.

I have not yet totalled up passing/possession stats, but Colombia appeared to dominate play and territory late in the game.

2. When the other team has the ball, it seems like Popa has very specific, and, limited times when he wants the Socceroos to Squeeze space intensively, like in the Defensive Transitions for about 6 seconds when Aus loses the ball.
Then the rest of the time is keeping the defensive shape compact, with players holding back from closing down space for opposition players on the ball, apart from other subtle pressing triggers. Also, a deep Socceroo defensive line is often adopted.

The triggers seem to change slightly each game. Need to watch a game a few times to figure it out

Some times, like the game v japan, there seemed to be very few triggers

 

[Decentric]

Now I have the team possession stats and completed passing stats according to passes completed.

Aus v Colombia

Aus
Passes in Defensive half - 290 completed, 14 mishit, with 95% completion rate.
Passes in Attacking Half - 89 completed, 22 mishit, 80% completion rate.
Total passes - 379 completed, mishit 36, 91% completion rate.

Possession according to pass completion - Aus 42%, Colombia 58%.

Colombia
Def half passes - 267 completed, mishit 7, 97% completion rate.
Attacking half passes - 268 completed, 30 mishit, 90% completion rate.
Total passes - 535 completed, 37 mishit, 94% completion rate.

Cameroon v Aus
Aus
Defensive half passes - 300 completed, 8 mishit, 97% completion rate.
Attacking half passes - 153 completed, 23 mishit, 85% completion rate.
Total - 453 passes completed, 31 mishit, 93% completion rate.

Cameroon
Def half passes - 169 completed, 13 mishit, 93% completion rate.
Attack half passes - 96 completed, 48 mishit, 71% completion rate.
Total passes - 265 completed, 61 mishit, 81% completion rate.

Possession based on passing - Aus 67%, Cameroon 37%.

Aus v Curacao
Aus
Def half passes - 216 completed, mishit 12, at 95% completion rate.
Attack half passes - 97 passes completed, 16 mishit, 86% completion rate.
Total passes - 313 completed, 28 mishit, at 92% completion rate.

Curacao
Def half passes - 207 completed, 27 mishit, at 88% completion rate.
Attack half passes - 106 completed, 33 mishit, at 76% completion rate.
Total passes - 313 competed, 60 mishit, at 84% completion rate.

Possession split 50% each to Aus and Curacao.

Except Curacao mishit passes more, attempting extra passes than Aus. They had a completion rate of only 84%, whereas Aus had 92% completion pass rate, from lower numbers of attempted passes.

There is heaps of extra info I’ll elucidate in the next post/s.