Thorns FC: SSDD

I just don’t know what more to say about the dreary road loss in Louisville that we haven’t already said a gajillion times.

Undercooked, toothless “attack”? Failure to finish? Possession without purpose? Lack of effective, progressive passing? Individual performances that failed to produce collective quality? Fatal defensive errors?

As a team the Thorns were tactically adrift and sterile, allowing Racing, a poor squad, to hang about until that inevitable defensive derp dropped all the points.

How many times have we seen all this before?

How often can I write this?

In his post-match presser Coach Ken said:

“That’s as as quality of performance as you’ll see away from home. Midfield was excellent. We had the majority of the ball. We controlled the tempo of the match. There’s no way we weren’t the better team tonight, and we certainly didn’t deserve that result.”

Which reminds me forcefully of the sort of memoirs German generals wrote after the world wars complaining that how it wasn’t their fault because, fuck, they’d won all the battles.

Battles, like “the performance, the midfield, the possession, the tempo”..?

Mean nothing if you can’t consistently turn those into wins.

Update 10/23: I had to throw this in because it’s so perfect:

That’s our “vaudevillian cane” blogger and, yeah.

Here’s two perfect examples of this “losing the war” thing, five-something minutes apart. First, 18th minute, the Thorns, beginning with Sauerbrunn playing long out of the back:

‘Brunn hits a pretty long ball that dimes Izzy D’Aquila, who pushes it up to Payton Linnehan going up the left wing:

Linnehan makes the left side run.

So does the Racing backline. So when Portland arrives inside the eighteen the slow pace of the “attack” means Linnehan is surrounded and her support – such as it is – is cut off.

Typically in this position a Thorn will either 1) blast futilely over or wide of goal or right at Katie Lund, or 2) drop back to a teammate to try and cycle the ball around.

The second is what Linnehan has to do, and in this case it’s to Olivia Moultrie, who can’t make anything of this dog’s breakfast, either…

This changed a bit in the final half hour when Ken brought on his artillery, Smith and Weaver.

But.

I won’t kid you – I’m skeptical about Henderson’s xG/PSxG numbers here. Here’s what FBRef reported for Portland:

That looks a lot more like it.

For example, the Turner shots that Henderson’s source credits with almost a full expected goal (0.89xG) were either way off target (twice, 65′ and 90+6′) or weak dribblers right at a set-up Lund (90+4′).

Same with Smith; her 70th minute attempt was soft and right at Lund, the 72nd minute effort was hard and straight at Lund but, in Smith’s defense she had (tell me you’re surprised to hear…) no other options. Same with the 77th minute shot.

Better than Turner, still, not really that dangerous.

Meanwhile on the other end, here’s Racing on the attack in the 23rd minute. They, too, are in possession on the flank, with Emma Sears looking for a teammate inside:

Unlike Linnehan, Sears finds one. See her, Savannah DeMelo, loafing untroubled just outside the 12-yard spot?

Sears hits her with a tidy cross in:

What’s not there? A blue (gray, whatever this ugly-ass kit color is) shirt.

A deep run like DeMelo’s here should be covered by a midfielder – in this case, Sam Coffey…

…but since this is grab-ass freelancing KenBall, nope.

Instead DeMelo gets a shot at what should have been the matchwinner…

…but shanked it wide, letting Portland off the hook for…only an hour and change.

Same shit, different day.

Worth noting here that the past weekend also featured another ugly Orlando loss, this time to Gotham, making the points the Thorns harvested from the Pride the week earlier look way more like “Orlando loss” rather than “Portland win”. That the points that come are more from opponent failure than Thorns success.

But like I said at the top; how many times have we said that?

Short Passes

Per OPTA, fairly even; Portland a skosh better – 83% of 546 passes, Racing 81% of 457. That said much of Portland’s passing was the usual possession-without-purpose; across the back, up the flanks, back downfield, repeat. Both sides were sloppy in possession, making repeated unforced turnovers.

Our “vaudevillian cane” blogger andre carlisle has been late again this week, so no passing charts, sorry. I’ll update if and when he posts.

Update 10/23: Okay. Here’s Racing:

“Louisville is a bad team”, remember? Right? Okay, I’ll take “yucky”, too. But…how about this, from Portland:

Sara Lee would make a better fucking dish than this mess of pottage. That’s just sorry, pointless passing back and forth, “possession without purpose”. That’s not “dominating” shit.

Turnover and over.

Here’s how things are going

Opponent (Result) – 2024	Turnovers
Kansas City (L)	43
Gotham (L)	30
Louisville (D)	54
Carolina (L)	34
Houston (W)	No data
Chicago (W)	No data
Bay FC (W)	41
Washington (W)	26
Seattle (W)	20
Houston (W)	21
Orlando (L)	28
North Carolina (W)	27
Seattle (D)	26
Kansas City (L)	35
Utah (D)	35
San Diego (W)	30
Gotham (L)	43
Bay FC (L)	35
Washington (L)	35
Chicago (L)	35
Angel City (D)	25
San Diego (L)	34
Utah (L)
Orlando (W)	29
Louisville (L)	36

Brutal. Not unexpected, but still ugly.

The Biggest Loser was Reyes with six, though most of those were long belts that did little real harm other than the loss of possession. Same with Sauerbrunn’s five, and Payne’s four.

Three people turned over three-and-a-half; D’Aquila, Fleming, and Moultrie. Coffey and Linnehan coughed up two-and-a-half.

Obaze had only one but the worst of the bunch, a 21st minute giveaway right to an unmarked Janine Beckie inside Obaze’s own third!

Fortunately Beckie skied the thing over the byline for no apparent reason, reminding us again that, well, Beckie.

Of course, she then got the assist on the Flint goal. Goddammit, Beckie.

Corner Kicks

Two, both in the first half, one long, the other a low “line drive”.

Time	Taker	Short/Long?	Result
35′	Moultrie	Long	Flicked clear over the touchline for a Portland throw
40′	Moultrie	Line drive	All the way through the pack to Reyes, whose long-distance shot sailed into Row ZZZ

Not a damn thing.

Throw-Ins

Portland took all the throws in the first half; Portland 15, Racing 9. In the second things slowed down and evened out; Portland 10, Racing 9

Of Portland’s throw-ins I had 18 of 25 (72%) connecting successfully and six (24%) going to Racing. One (4%) was “neutral”, going neither to Portland nor Louisville (usually meaning either out for another throw close to the original spot, or pinging around to be decided by actions onfield).

Racing completed 13 of 18 throws (72.2%) and lost four (22.2%). One was “neutral” (5.5%).

Here’s how that’s going:

Opponent	Advantage gained	Advantage lost	Opponent gain	Opponent loss
Kansas City	62.5%	8.3%	59.2%	40.1%
Gotham	62.8%	22.8%	57.1%	38%
Racing	84.3%	15.7%	43.7%	50%
Carolina	70.9%	29.2%	73%	27%
Houston
Chicago
Bay FC	64.2%	28.5%	71.4%	28.5%
Washington	41.6%	58.3%	62.5%	34.3%
Seattle	71.4%	14.2%	80%	20%
Houston	67.8%	25%	69.6%	30.3%
Orlando	76%	24%	73%	30.7%
Carolina	89.4%	5.2%	57.6%	26.9%
Seattle	85.7%	9.5%	68.7%	28.7%
Kansas City	70.7%	29.3%	72.7%	27.3%
Utah	65.5%	30%	50%	50%
San Diego
Gotham	47.6%	28.6%	50%	35%
BFC	63.6%	27.3%	62%	20%
Washington	60%	40%	72.2%	27.8%
Chicago	75%	15.6%	36.6%	50%
Angel City	68%	27.3%	81.8%	7.4%
San Diego	61.9%	28.5%	78.9%	21.1%
Utah
Orlando	65.3%	26%	70.3%	25.9%
Racing	72%	24%	72.2%	22.2%
Average	67.9%	24.6%	63.8%	30.1%

The change in the throw-in balance is interesting given the teams’ trajectories between Matchday 3 and Matchday 25, and the difference in the two matches; the first a poor Portland side scratching back a home point from a better Racing, the second two poor teams seeing who could throw away the points with Portland losing.

Remember that not only was the original thesis “The Thorns seem to be bad at throw-ins. Why?” but also “Do throw-ins make a difference tactically?”

The aggregate data looks increasingly inconclusive.

It certainly doesn’t confirm the first hypothesis. Portland’s throw-in success/fail ratio looks very similar to their opponents’.

But it also seems to suggest that throw-ins aren’t, in fact, underrated as a weapon. Being “good at throw-ins” doesn’t seem to look like it matters much on matchday.

We have one more data point to gather, though.

Player Ratings and Comments

Moultrie (+6/-0 : +5/-3 : +11/-3) Olivia Moultrie is the “poster child” for this club right now, and for this match.

Taken as individual performance, Moultrie had “a good game”. Active – which was not a given recently – creative, solid on both sides of the ball (her “pluses” are almost evenly divided; six attacking, five defending).

Taken as part of the team effort? Not so much. Three “shot-creating actions”, fine. But she was the center forward! Three shots, two off target, one blocked? That’s not really what you want from your #9.

That’s because Moultrie is not a #9. Fuckadoo, how hard is that?!?

I know, I keep banging this drum. But when you have good players playing well, but the team doesn’t seem to reflect that?

That’s on the coaching.

Linnehan (61′ – +3/-3 : +1/-0 : +4/-3) Kind of the same problem; Linnehan is not a true winger. She’s also lost her shooting boots since the early season, but that’s another issue.

To be fair; normally I’d grouse about pulling Linnehan at the hour instead of D’Aquila to get Smith on. Their PMRs suggest that D’Aquila was having a better second half, though. So you get a pass on that this time, Ken.

Smith (29′ – +3/-2) Still looks stuffy and frustrated with her teammates’ lack of support, which I understand completely. Helped raise the level, but not enough to overcome the inertia of incoherent “tactics”.

D’Aquila (70′ – +1/-2 : +6/-0 : +7/-2) My guess is that switching over to the Thorns left side helped D’Aquila lift her game in the second half, but I’d be purely guessing. As usual, ineffective in front of goal, which is a pretty huge “forward fail”. Still mystified that Ken hasn’t tried someone – Spaanstra? – here instead. I’d blame it on “practice” but I’m still unsure that this squad does actual “practice”. It sure doesn’t look it half the time.

Weaver (20′ – +3/-0) Too late, still hampered by KenBall, but some good energy. Fingers crossed for a quick recovery.

Fleming (+6/-1 : +3/-1 : +9/-2) The numbers tell the story; “good” (in the sense of lots of pluses and a +7 net) but “not enough” (barely in double figures total, meaning unable to get involved enough to impact the match as a whole).

I’m happy watching Fleming look better on the pitch, and lift the level of the Portland midfield’s play. Ken wasn’t wrong; as a unit Fleming, Sinclair, and Coffey did win the midfield battle. But, like the German generals found out, winning battles doesn’t win wars.

Sinclair (61′ – +4/-0 : +0/-1 : +4/-1) Looked every minute of her age.

Turner (29′ – +0/-4) I was harder on Turner’s shooting than FBRef or Henderson, particularly her doorstep clank at 90+4′. That one should have gone anywhere but right at Lund. Pot that sitter and we’d be talking about “one of those draws that feel like wins”.

Coffey (+3/-1 : +4/-0 : +7/-1) I’ll be curious to see our vaudevillian cane blogger’s passing charts. It still looks to me like Ken is sitting Coffey deeper, using her more as a pure destroyer than the full-field #6 she’s capable of being.

Update 10/23: Look back up there. Yep. She’s parked in midfield passing out wide and backwards.

The problem with that is that, lacking a true #10, the Thorns need as much attacking support as possible. Coffey can do that. To park her in back without a better idea? That’s, well, dumb. It doesn’t work, and it hasn’t, because…

Reyes (+2/-1 : +3/-4 : +5/-5) …the backline and keepers are still shipping crap goals on dumb derps.

The Thorns have won this season, when they have won, not on stonewall defense but by like watching Brazil; you score four, we’ll score five.

Reyes, like everyone else on defense, was “okay”. But only for 89 minutes and 50 seconds. For ten seconds they derped, shipped a crap goal, and lost.

If the defending could improve? Great! Grind out one-nil wins or scoreless road draws. But until then? Putting the blocks to anyone good at going forward is shooting yourself in the foot, Ken.

Sauerbrunn (+4/-0 : +1/-2 : +5/-2) See above.

Obaze (+1/-1 : +0/-2 : +1/-3) Not great from a usually-reliable centerback; the horrific turnover mentioned above plus pretty much 50% of the concession.

Payne (+3/-3 : +2/-1 : +5/-4) See the Reyes comment. Really need Muller for these tough, tight matches. Payne is just too careless with the ball and her pace doesn’t help her because her positioning and field vision are so suspect.

Hogan (+1/-0 : +4/-2 : +5/-2) This…

…is one of those “awshits that cancel 1,000 attagirls”.

What the hell were you thinking? You weren’t ever climbing over Obaze to get that ball. Would staying on your line have let you parry it away? Dunno; Flint flicked it hard and straight from only about four yards out.

But coming out like that removed any chance you had.

This loss was a full team (and coaching, particularly…) effort. But this was reeeeal ugly.

Coach Ken: I’m reading several people kicking Ken for “playing for the draw”.

Aside from that a draw would have secured playoffs, I honestly don’t think the guy was doing that. I think he really was trying to win. Which is pretty damning, because that makes it obvious how clueless this poor bastard really is.

I think he’s “assistant-coach-grade” material. Look back up at the presser quote.

That sort of niggling obsession with detail, the visible lack of tactical intelligence, the pointless fiddling with rosters – playing people out of position and starting people who have shown their lack of skill – and failure to solve repeated problems.

That, to me, shows that this dude doesn’t get it.

He’s just not a soccer-smart-enough guy.

Could his squad get into the playoffs, then get hot and lucky for three games and save his job?

That’s not impossible.

God help us.