2024 Final Grades: Defenders

We’re on to the second part of our retrospective of the 2024 season.

We started at the back, with the goalkeepers. It wasn’t a hot mess, but it wasn’t very exciting, either; both the starters looked supremely average, the (third possible) starting keeper (Bella Bixby) is coming off 1) maternity leave after 2) a disastrous 2023 season, and there’s a couple of rooks or near-rookies that we know nothing about.

So now we move up the pitch a bit to talk about the backs. At various times in 2024 Portland started some version that included three different centerbacks and four different fullbacks.

And Meaghan Nally, who appeared for several minutes in the Matchday 16 game against San Diego and was waived in July, so we can save bandwidth rather than include her in the discussion.

But before we start talking individuals, how did the Thorns defenders do as a unit?

Thorns Defense By The Numbers

How’d they look?

Not terrific.

Per FBRef, the Thorns ranked:
3rd from the bottom (11th of 14) in “opponent shots created per 90 minutes” (22.75; the league leaders were Gotham (15.27), Washington (17.54), Kansas City (18.46), and Orlando (19.34)
Lower-mid-table-ish (9th of 14) in “opponent goal-creating-actions per 90 minutes (GCA/90)” (2.27; Gotham led the league by a ton (1.27) followed by Orlando (1.38)
Lower-mid-table-ish (9th of 14) in “non-penalty xG against per 90 minutes” (1.39; Kansas City, Gotham, and Washington were all below 1.0 xGa)
Upper half (6th of 14) in “non-penalty goals minus non-penalty xG against per 90 minutes” (-0.04; the league leaders included Kansas City (-0.44) and Houston (-0.41, thanks, Jane Campbell!)
– Worth noting that the league breaks sharply in this category in a way it doesn’t for xG against, which is more-or-less a continuum from Kansas City (0.93) to Houston (1.83).
– Seven clubs have keepers who saved them from something like a goal every three games (Gotham, -0.33) to about a goal every two-and-a-half games (Kansas City, Houston, Carolina, all in the -0.4s).
– The other seven are nowhere close to that, ranging from a-bit-better-than expected (Louisville, -0.10) to almost neutral (Washington and us, -0.04) to oh-Jesus-not-that-shit-again (Bay FC +0.08, Kansas City +0.17, and Seattle +0.18)

These metrics suggest that:
Portland’s goalkeepers – despite being pretty meh overall – were better relative to the league than the Portland backline was, and that
Portland’s backline was anywhere from kind of lower-mid-table dross (in the xG against and GCA/90, i.e. in the “not giving up dangerous opportunities” sense) to pretty rubbish (in just giving opponents shot opportunities, dangerous or not).

It’s no surprise that Portland shipped more goals – 35 – than the five clubs above them, but a bit surprising to see several clubs below them, such as San Diego and Chicago, no (or not much) worse.

The 2024 Thorns backline was also extremely inconsistent. A total of 12 concessions – 34% of the total goals shipped all season – come from only three of the 26 regular season matches and were scored by only two opponents; Kansas City on Matchday 1 (5 GA), Kansas City again on Matchday 14 (4 GA), and Bay FC on Matchday 18 (3 GA).

It’s worth a deeper look at the defensive sets, though, because there’s a pattern there.

Thorns Defense By The Defenders

Between them Mike Norris and Rob Gale played the following formations:
4-3-3: 15 matches, 6-2-7 (win-draw-loss).

Here’s what that looked like in graphic form:

Couple of notes on the tables:
1) results are color-coded – green for wins, yellow for draws, red for losses.
2) the two columns to the farthest right include:
a) expected goals against (xGa); intended as a measure of how dangerous the opponents’ chances were. If the xGa value is in red it means the opponent’s xG was higher than the Thorns’, and
b) Post-shot xG against (PSxGa); included purely as a check on xGa. If the PSxGa is significantly higher than the xG it suggests the opponent actually did better with their chances than expected, that is, produced a more dangerous shot than the xG predicted for the position on the field and type of effort (boot, head, setpiece, breakaway). If lower, then although the opponent got into a dangerous position they fluffed the shot or shot tamely. As with xGa, PSxGa values in red are higher than the Thorns’ PSxGa for that match.

4-2-3-1: 5 matches, 2-1-2.

4-4-2: 4 matches, 2-0-2.

3-4-2-1: 2 matches, 0-0-2.
3-5-2: 1 match, 0-1-0.

Kind of hard to generalize conclusions from this breakdown. The three-back looks like an obvious failure but the other three? Enh.

But. We’ve got a slightly different way to break the Thorns defense down that is more instructive.

The coaches (Norris, Gale, possibly Sarah Lowdon if she actually ran the club for Matchdays 21 and 22) ran out a series of different defender groups in each of the formations. For this study I’ve grouped them primarily by the centerbacks.

The largest of these “groups” I’m calling the “Sauerbrunn-Hubly” Group; this included 4-3-3s, 4-4-2s, and 4-2-3-1s; a total of 14 matches (4-3-7). You can break these down further;
with Reyes and Muller at fullback (8 matches, 1-3-4)
with Payne and Muller at fullback (4 matches, 2-1-1)

…as well as a couple of one-offs; Reyes and Klingenberg at FB on Matchday 7 (win), Payne and Reyes at FB in the Washington away loss on Matchday 19.

Note the xG against numbers; from 0.36 (the hapless Damned here, faffing away from Cary as always) to 3.77 in the one-sided loss in Orlando, averaging 1.54.

The next-most common defender set swapped Isabella Obaze for Kelli Hubly. The “Sauerbrunn-Obaze” Group played together eight times (6-0-2) including the It’s A Trap! win over Orlando and the good home win over Washington on Matchday 8.

The xGa is barely above 1.0, but note the color of the number; in the eight matches Portland outscored their opponents 13-4 (and the outlier, Washington, got one goal on an xG of 2.16 and PSxG of 1.76, so kinda shit luck on the day…)

But the Thorns kept the sheet clean for half of these (Chicago, Houston away, San Diego, and Orlando, average xGa 1.2) so there was some solid work in back, too.

The Thorns played five other defensive sets; three three-centerback matches in the middle of the late season collapse (Matchdays 21-23) that may have been 1) Lowdon’s influence, or 2) KenDesperation.

Whoever was responsible, it didn’t work; kielbj over at Stumptown pointed out that to make the three-back work right it has to include a mobile centerback that can push up while the other two slide over to cover, a degree of tactical skill no Ken squad showed last season.

The last two were real oddballs; Mike Norris’ Opening Day pickup-squad disaster, and the one game Sauerbrunn missed all season, the ugly home loss to Bay FC.

The thread running through this?
Sauerbrunn-Obaze: 6-0-2, average xGa: 1.04
Sauerbrunn-Hubly: 4-2-7, average xGa: 1.54

That’s pretty convincing to me. Thoughts?

Okay, so now it’s time to start handing out grades to…

The Defenders:

Let’s start with the centerbacks, since we’ve used them as pillars for this study.

But to begin with, I’m gonna piss and moan a minute.

Here’s what the NWSL.com site gave me to work with for defensive stats after 2023; in this case, for Becky Sauerbrunn –

Here’s what the site offers in 2024:

What the fuck?

How is that useful? How readable is that dog’s dinner of numbers and letters? Jesus wept.

Fortunately our gang at FBRef has the real goods, so, let’s start with:

Becky Sauerbrunn (CB)

Age: 39 (will be 40 in June 2025)
Games played 2024: 26 played, 25 started
Comparison with previous seasons:
2022 Final Grade: B+
2023 Final Grade: B (Incomplete)

Here’s her net plus-minus rating plotted against the team average:

It’s worth keeping in mind that the team’s average was pulled upward by a handful of terrific players – primarily Smith, Weaver, Sugita, and Coffey – so the apparent issue the plot accuses Sauerbrunn of, playing below the squad mean, is more an artifact of “didn’t play at Hina Sugita’s level” which is fair, since Hina-san had an excellent season.

How did Sauerbrunn compare to the best centerbacks in the league? Here’s her “defensive actions per 90 minutes” in 2024 per FBRef compared to Tara McKeown of Washington, Naomi Girma of San Diego, Emily Sams of Orlando (FBRef calls her “Madril”. Emily Menges of Bay FC and Abby Dahlkemper, now also of BFC:

Pretty impressive! Tough on the tackle (took on 80% of the attackers she could reach and won something like 87% of those duels), seldom made mistakes – that’s the “Err” column; note only Girma is cleaner – and while not quite as mobile as kids like Sams and Girma and McKeown well up with the two veterans Menges and Dahlkemper.

How about in the air? See the right-hand column below?

Outstanding; took on more opponents per match than anyone other than McKeown, and won more than any of the others.

So individually a solid season…but had troubles as a part of the defensive unit. Perhaps not on Sauerbrunn, but as the old head and the presumptive leader of the backline it’s hard to completely overlook those unit struggles. So for the third season in a row:

Grade: B+

It’s hard to see Sauerbrunn hangin’ em up next season. But, as we saw with Sinclair, hanging on after your body tells you and everyone around you that it’s ready for retirement is not a good look. Great players of the Sinc/’Brunn breed tend to keep their value long after lesser players have cratered…but even the Greatest have a point where they hit the wall.

The Thorns defense struggled last season, as it has for some time now. To me that suggests the need for fresh ideas. Fresh faces? Fresh coaching? Fresh tactics? All the above?

Sauerbrunn seems like a particularly bright student of the game; you’d think that she could bring a lot to that fresh start. Can she, if her bosses provide the opportunities?

Hopefully we’ll see.

Kelli Hubly (CB)

Age: 30 (will be 31 in August 2025)
Games played 2024: 22 played, 21 started
Comparison with previous seasons:
2022 Final Grade: B
2023 Final Grade: C-

In 2023 I wrote:

“Hubly’s deal back in 2018 and 2019 when she was still largely a reserve and spot-starter was that she was a “high-risk/high-reward” player. One match she’d crush it, the next she’d cough up a massive defensive hairball and lose you the game. A big part of her progression to starter meant cutting down on the derps, and she did; over the past couple of seasons she’s been rock-solid in back.”

Then in 2023…

“…Hubly kind of returned to her throw-out-a-massive-derp-every-other-game ways. What’s frustrating about Hubs is that when she’s solid? She’s solid. Compare her stats with Girma; if you didn’t know the dumb shit Hubly had pulled every so often you’d think they were twin sisters.”

Well…

Like a fucking mountain range; inconsistent? Fuck-all nothing but hills and (unfortunately, lots of) valleys!

How’d she compare to the same group of league centerbacks we used for ‘Brunn’s comps? Defensive actions per 90 minutes first:

Enh. Not so great. Lost a lot of challenges – more than half – and the while the “error” numbers are low they don’t show how ugly many of her errors were.

Weaker in the air than everyone other than the Olds (Menges and Dahlkemper).

How about going forward?

Enh again. Not terrific; tackled for loss half the time, and not strong carrying out of the back.

The systematic troubles the “Sauerbrunn-Hubly” backline had seem to lead back here rather than to ‘Brunn.

So I have to keep returning to the mantra I repeated every time Hubly started over Obaze; “Why, Ken? WHY??”

Grade: (for the season) D+ (cumulative average over 2022-2024): D

I’m hard on Hubly because we all saw this coming in 2023. She cleaned up her work in 2021 and 2022 so we know she could, but this time? No. The big errors kept recurring.

Can she fix this? Hubly’s relatively young so, yes she could. Will she? She didn’t last season after a generally poor 2023. Admittedly, playing KenBall made everyone look pedestrian. But this was making dumbass rookie mistakes, so fixing it wasn’t rocket science. Hubly is a veteran professional, and that’s a fundamental skill. No excuses.

Our third centerback is…

Isabella Obaze (CB)

Age: 22 (will be 23 in October 2025)
Games played 2024: 10 played, 9 started
Comparison with previous seasons:
Not Applicable – signed January 2024 (72 matches over 6 seasons for 3 clubs in the Danish Damallsvenskan)

Here’s how she compares to the centerback comps we’ve been using; first, defensive actions:

Not terrific, but not horrible, either. Especially for a player in her first NWSL season who’s coach repeatedly yanked her out of the XI. Respectable? Yep.

Here she is in the air:

That’s not quite as respectable; worse than everyone other than the Olds.

Here’s her PMR plot:

That really gives you a feel for how difficult it must have been for Obaze to find any kind of rhythm. Despite that, as we’ve seen, her partnership with Sauerbrunn looks better in context than Hubly’s does, so;

Grade: C+ (Incomplete)

Frankly, I want to see Obaze starting regularly to see if she has the chops. She looks promising as part of a unit, but her plus-minus ratings are not great; there’s a lot of minuses there, meaning mistakes. Centerbacks need to be the ultimate steady rocks. I like to think she can, but I also think that means more minutes to prove it.

The Thorns started three fullbacks last season, with Meghan Klingenberg in reserve. Let’s begin with:

Marie Muller (FB – primarily RB)

Age: 24 (will be 25 in July 2025)
Games played 2024: 25 played, 20 started
Comparison with previous seasons:
Not Applicable – signed February 2024 (104 matches over 6 seasons for FC Freiburg in the Frauenbundsliga)

We’re going to do the fullback analysis a bit differently from the centerbacks, because I think it’s important to look at the three regulars as a unit. But first, here’s Muller’s PMR plot:

Muller had some struggles with late-match form. For some reason – fitness? headspace? – she’d start making errors, including some real howlers, after the break. And, as we’ll see, because the Thorns lacked a sort of like-for-like right back substitute she had to soldier on, errors or no. So the big negative net games, like Matchdays 13, 17 and 18, and 24, were usually that issue popping up.

Here’s Muller against her league peers per FBRef. All stats normalized per 90 minutes. First defending:

To me what jumps out of this are two columns.
1) “Tkl%” – the ratio of successful tackles to the total attempted. Here Muller is on the low end of success; lots of attempts, less than half wins. Only Nighswonger is as poor, and she shouldn’t really be there, but FBRef wouldn’t give me several players I wanted as comps so there she is.
2) “Tkl + Int” – total tackles and interceptions per 90. This is where Muller makes up ground; she’s far and away the top of the list.

So compared to her fullback comps Muller is 1) less selective on the tackle – note Krueger and Milliet only take on half as many opponents (~0.8 compared to 1.6 per match) – and less successful; they win nearly 60% of the time to Muller’s 48%, but 2) a boss at cutting off passes, over 2.5 per match to Krueger’s 1.29, the best of the comps.

Now here’s passing…

Solid. Right up there with her peers. Her long passing is perhaps Muller’s weak point, though 1) she attempts a lot – over 6 per match – so if she connects 40% of the time that still 2 or 3 per game compared to, say, Abello’s 50% of 4 per game or Nighswongers 30% of 9 (which is ugly, but a reminder that Nighswonger really doesn’t fit in with better fullbacks like Krueger or Abello…).

Here’s Muller in possession:

Couple of things from this:
1) KenBall, among other issues, doesn’t integrate Muller into the final attack. Look at how Muller’s “Att Pen” numbers drop off sharply compared everyone else’s. Up to that point, she’s pushing up…but not into the opposition’s 18.
2) Muller tried to deke her defenders less than her peers; see her “take on” raw number. When she did she succeeded about as well as they did.

Overall,

Grade: B+

To step up a grade next season Muller will have to:
1) become more consistently good over the full 90. No more late match derps.
2) integrate better with her midfielders and forwards. Modern fullbacks are expected to provide more attack. That’s largely on her gaffer, though; we don’t know if she were in a non-KenBall system whether she could do that, and
3) get tougher on the tackle.

I largely liked what I saw from her last season, so I think she can do all those things once in charge of a cleverer coach.

Reyna Reyes (FB – primarily LB)

Age: 23 (will be 24 in February 2025)
Games played 2024: 25 played, 20 started
Comparison with previous seasons:
2023 Final Grade: B+

Here’s her PMR chart across her two seasons:

And her 2024 plot:

Reyes perhaps more than any of the backs suffers from the “Smith PMR” effect. As her table shows, she improved over 2023, both in cutting back on errors and boosting her positive actions. Her plot looks drab because, like all the backs, they got shelled under Ken while Hina-san and Smith and Coffey were having to play hero-ball up front of them.

Let’s look at her comps. First, defense:

Outstanding. All her metrics; tackling, interceptions, all up in the top tier of the league.

Passing?

Same here. Possession?

Same, and more forward than Muller, both in touches in the final third (tho same drop-off in the opponents’ 18, but that’s KenBall for ya…) and progressive carries.

The “stop, turn, and drop” feature of KenBall shows up in the “take ons”, though; lower than everyone other the the over-her-head Nighswonger. Again, probably not on Reyes.

So…

Grade: A-/B+

Reyes has matured shockingly well under the “guidance” of two shockingly mediocre head coaches. It’d be a delight to see how high her ceiling is working for a gaffer with a clue.

Nicole Payne (FB – primarily RB)

Age: 23 (will be 24 in January 2025)
Games played 2024: 19 played, 11 started
Comparison with previous seasons:
Not Applicable – received on loan February 2024 (2 matches for Paris-St.Germain in the 2023-24 Division 1 Féminine season)

As we’ve seen above, Payne was third on the fullback chart. When she did start she was almost invariably at right back; if her partner fullback was Muller then Muller would swap to play left back.

Here’s her PMR plot:

Not bad outside of Washington away, and a huge outing in the preceding Bay FC match here. Tracked well with the squad.

Here’s her defensive comparisons:

Mmmm…not really great. Under 50% on the tackle on the fewest attempts per 90 of any of her peers, and the fewest interceptions. Least sturdy of the three fullbacks.

How about passing?

Decent enough, though Payne’s success dropped sharply the longer the pass she attempted. Again, some of that is the tactical setup, since all the Thorns fullbacks show similar long-pass failures.

Here’s Payne in possession:

Decent. Payne tended to push up higher than Reyes or Muller but once there, not much to show for it; no goals, no assists compared to Muller’s 0G+2A and Reyes’ 0G+1A (which should have been 1+1 if her toe-poke at Washington had counted as it should).

With the ball at her feet not terrible, not terrific; Payne’s “take ons” were largely unsuccessful which, again, matches the eye test.

So, yeah. Solid but kind of a step below the other two regulars.

Grade: C/C+

To me Payne sits right about where she was on the depth chart; below Muller and Reyes, above Klingenberg. I don’t see Payne bringing anything the other fullbacks didn’t, and in some critical aspects (such as providing goal service) clearly below the two.

The thing is, she;s 1) young, and 2) on loan. If she takes a step or steps up under the new gaffer? Great! Make PSG an offer! If she doesn’t work out? Merci, and bon voyage.

Meghan Klingenberg (fb/LB)

Age: 36 (will be 37 in August 2025)
Games played 2024: 12 played, 2 started
Comparison with previous seasons:
2022 Final Grade: B-/C+
2023 Final Grade: B/C+

In 2023 I wrote:

“After 2022 I…warned that while she might start the next year that she looked to be losing more and more ground to age, but that since the club lacked a potential replacement we’d see a lot of her in 2023. Then Reyna Reyes was added, and…that may be the handwriting on the wall for Kling. That replacement is on the roster. Does that move Kling to the bench?”

It did.

In 2024 Kling was a utility knife. Started twice – at left back the first half in the Bay FC away win in May, and just over an hour at defensive midfielder in the home disaster against Kansas City in June – and played more than a half hour twice; a second-half right back sub to rescue the March Louisville home draw, and a half hour at left back to see out the April road win in Chicago.

Otherwise, 66 minutes in 8 matches, including single digits in five of them, single minutes in three of the five.

So Kling’s days on the pitch are now clearly numbered. She’s still a sort of Thorns spirit animal, the club’s Designated Ranter:

But I have to wonder; all her contemporaries – Horan, Heath, now Sinclair – are gone. How much longer will she want to remain? And how much longer will the owners want to carry what must be a presumably-fairly-hefty free-agent salary for pure depth and “fuck Seattle” energy?

Summing up

After 2023 I concluded that “…the Thorns backline had a rough 2023, between injuries and individual issues, but I think the real trouble was their gaffer’s unshakeable belief in bombing his fullbacks forward and Bixby’s shocking season.”

This past season I suspect the backline problems went deeper, including
Ken’s poorer tactical skillset,
and his poor (or poorer) player-to-role-evaluation skills in a thin roster,
while several individual players (such as Hubly, and Muller in late games) were struggling, and
both starting keepers looked vulnerable, making their defenders nervous and as a result play tight and vulnerable.

My thoughts are that the backline needs a couple of things:

A better on-field coach, who can also combine with a better general manager to sign…

A top-tier centerback (as well as possibly some depth at fullback if Payne doesn’t develop).

It’s hard not to just repeat what I concluded last season’s final grades post with:

“There’s a lot of talent here, but it desperately needs to be better organized.”

The talent is still here…though with some threadbare patches; past Sauerbrunn there’s only a promising young player and an error-prone veteran, past Muller and Reyes only an inconsistent loanee.

And Ken is still here, so the lack of organization is, too.

Overall Grade: C (with a note from the teacher: “I’d like to see improvement in both individual and collective work next year.)

Update 12/6: The club has added a back – Samantha Hiatt – from Gotham. She’s a fourth-year veteran (Seattle 2021-2023 before the move to Gotham) but was lightly used last season (17 matches, 12 starts) and appears superfluous to Amoros’ plans.

That’s…good. Here’s how she looks in back against our current three centerbacks – Hiatt is primarily at centerback – as well as the comps we used for the position. Hiatt outlined in red:

To me that’s a “B/B+” centerback. Not a good a tackler as ‘Brunn, better than Hubly, about the same as Obaze. Good at anticipating opponent passes – her “Tkl+Int” is better than any of our three except Hubly – and good in the air, winning 64% of her duels there.

Plus it suggests that someone is working the GM phones, so regardless of where the hiring process is there’s a butt in the seat. That’s good.

Next up: The Midfield