Thorns FC: A time to laugh, a time to weep

There’s a time to every season under Heaven.

In this case, the season is Playoff Season, and with their 0-2 win in Los Angeles the Thorns are in with…well, sort of a shout.

Don’t take me wrong. The match was a solid road win featuring two more Moultrie goals, and a clean sheet.

That said, the Angels are a pretty toothless opponent; eleven shots, only four on frame, 0.63 xG over 96 minutes.

I missed the opening part of the match (we’ll get to that…) so my notes had them with only six attacks (or seven attack-like-things) over about 70 minutes:
33′ – Long left-flank pass leading to a low cross all the way through the Thorns’ 18-yard box; nobody in black close enough to it to provide real danger.
36′ – A melee in front of goal let Giselle Thompson fire a snapshot that Makenzie Arnold turned over her crossbar.
39′ – Good buildup through the Thorns deep midfield ended by a timely MA Vignola clearance.
45+2′ – Poor Obaze headed clearance goes right to Evelyn Shores, but Shores shoots right at Arnold (still the best ACFC chance, post-shot xG 0.17)
52-53′ – Long spell of ACFC possession around the outside of the Thorns’ 18, but nothing really dangerous.
62′ – Miyami threaded a dangerous run in and dished to Christen Press inside the 18, but even though Press turned cleverly her shot was, again, right at Arnold.
90+5′ – Maiara crashed the Thorns’ backline to find Prisca Chilufya, but Chilufya’s shot went wide left.

The other issue that turned up? Ken still hasn’t really solved the goal-production problem.

The Thorns 1.29 xG looks pretty impressive if you don’t look too closely at it, but almost 70% of it is the Moultrie penalty (0.73xG).

Without it…

…the rest of the whole squad only chipped in about 0.5xG, and the Thorns total production is well below ACFC’s;
– Reilyn Turner with two shots (0.2xG, but both of the shots were off-target), and
– Four shots (0.28xG) from four other players (Vignola, Reyna Reyes, Alexa Spaanstra, and Jessie Fleming) but only one on frame (Spaanstra’s 48th minute 0.05xG/0.02post-shot xG effort).

A smart opponent (meaning someone other than Alexander Straus – Carlisle-sensei is justifiably pissed with his work last weekend) is going to figure out that the way to stifle the current Thorns attack is “smother Olivia Moultrie”, just like smart opponents realized that laying two or three bodies on Sophia Wilson was how you stifled the Thorns in 2023 and 2024.

We’ll see when we get to the comments; the Thorns’ didn’t need to do all that much to whip up on the sorry-ass Angels, and while that was a nice win and much needed, I’m not sure it says much more about how formidable the Thorns’ postseason form will be now that the Postseason Season is upon us.

Short Passes

OPTA says kinda meh; Portland only 71% completion of 316 passes, ACFC 74% on 396. My numbers are a bit different and we’ll review those in a moment.

Here’s Sofascore’s “momentum” plot:

What’s kind of disturbing is how, after a fairly busy first half hour and a goal, the Thorns’ “attack” simply disappears.

I get “sitting in on a lead”…but this is a squad with a tendency to leak goals from defensive errors, and sitting on a one-goal lead, even against the Angels? That seems like a poor choice.

Of course, you can be good or you can be lucky, and luckily for Ken & Co. Turner sold the penalty shout and Livvy buried it, so it’s all good.

Still…hmmm.

Here’s Carlisle-sensei with the passing. Portland:

The “without central targets high…” part of Carlisle’s comment really jumps out of this. Look where Castellanos and Turner, the other two notional “forwards” are; having to check way back to pick up possession or get service. Spaanstra at least tried to stay high, but as the shot tally showed, got next to nothing out of it.

So there’s still issues.

Here’s ACFC:

Yep. This is a legitimately poor side; poorly coached, playing poorly, and when you have people like Hina-san and Chilufya and Jun Endo on the roster there’s no real excuse for that.

Turnover and over.

Here’s how things are going;

Opponent – Venue (Result)	Turnovers
Kansas City – Away (L)	38
Angel City – Home (D)	38
North Carolina – Home (D)	32
Utah – Away (W)	25
Seattle – Away (L)	34
Gotham – Home (W)	26
Louisville – Home (D)	16
Orlando – Home (W)	18
San Diego – Away (D)	32
Houston – Away (W)	21
Bay FC – Away (L)	No data
Washington – Home (W)	16
Chicago – Home (W)	22
Washington – Away (L)	27
Seattle – Home (W)	20
Carolina – Away (D)	26
Kansas City – Home (L)	35
Utah – Home (L)	26
Louisville – Away (W)	28
Chicago – Away (D)	27
San Diego – Home (D)	28
Gotham – Away (L)	30
Bay FC – Home (W)	34
Orlando – Away (L)	30
Angel City – Away (W)	18

Better! Much better, but, again, Angel City. Eight in the first half, ten in the second, while the Angels were losing 16: six before the break, 10 after.

Moultrie was the Biggest Loser with six. Arnold coughed up four, though three of those were late-match long boots downfield just to kill time. Turner lost three, and nobody else turned over more than twice.

Only one was particularly scary; in the 91st minute Daiane hoofed a real hairball directly to Press just outside her 18-yard box. The Angels putzed around with the ball and eventually lost it again, so no danger from what could have been a dangerous chance.

Press!

Twenty-first match tracking the effect of each side’s press. I counted either a 1) turnover (either from a tackle-for-loss or a mishit forced pass), or a 2) forced retreat or drop-pass that killed off a progressive action, as a pressing “win”. If two players were involved in a press each received a half mark (for attempts) and a half credit for successes.

The Thorns press felt – and the numbers show that it was – sporadic, and mostly in response to the rare Angel drives forward. I didn’t see Portland pressing hard to turn over, and, given the match flow I can see why. The lack of success, though? That’s a bit troubling.

ACFC should have been pressing like a sonofabitch, at least after the half hour; behind and chasing the game? The Angelinos had no reason not to throw bodies at Thorns trying to turn them over. And to some extent they did; when AC pressed, they won (and did turn the ball over; 17 of their 56 presses were ball-winners compared to Portland’s 10 wins from 62 presses).

But that, chasing the game, the Angels only pressed about 5/6th as much as Portland did? That makes no sense, and is another indictment of the club’s management.

Match time	ACFC presses (wins)(%)	Thorns presses (wins)(%)
0-19′	No data	No data
19-30′	5(5) (100%)	8(7) (87.5%)
30-45+3′	13(11) (84.6%)	11(5) (45.4%)
First half (18′-45+3′)	18(16) (88.8%)	19(12) (63.1%)
45-60′	12(9) (75%)	16(8) (50%)
60-75′	15(12) (80%)	6(1) (16.6%)
75-90+6′	11(8) (72.7%)	21(13) (61.9%)
Second half	38(29) (76.3%)	43(22) (51.1%)
Match Total	56(45) (80.3%)	62(34) (54.8%)

My thoughts:
1) As usual, the NWSL got shit on by one of it’s supposed “network affiliates”, in this case, ESPN. Some sort of volleyball thing ran long, so the network booted the LA-Portland match to one of it’s weird little crapfiliates (“ESPNNews”? Seriously?) until the 19th minute.
2) Portland was playing LivvyBall and didn’t really need to press high, and didn’t, and, when they did, didn’t win much.
3) Angel City is just a tactical shitshow, here as elsewhere. Technically sound, managerially adrift.
3) Two Thorns did the bulk of the pressing; Moultrie (15 presses, 10 wins, 2 ball-gaining duels) and Turner (11 presses, 5 wins, 2 gains). Four more pitched in: Spaanstra (6 presses, 4 wins, 2 gains), Vignola (6 presses, 5 wins, 2 gains), Fleming (7 presses, 2 wins, 2 gains), and Castellanos (5 presses, 2 wins, no gains).
4) On the attacking side Reyna Reyes got hammered by AC’s press; 9 presses, 8 losses, 1 turnover. Other victims; Castellanos (5 presses, 4 losses, 3 turnovers), Fleming (5 presses, 4 losses, 3 turnovers), Vignola (4 presses, no wins, 2 turnovers), and Turner (4 presses, 3 losses, 2 turnovers). Moultrie was pressed fairly hard but did fairly well against it: 6 presses, 3 wins, 1 turnover.
5) I don’t really see the press as key to this match. Portland didn’t need it and didn’t do it. ACFC did, but was no more competent there than they were elsewhere.

Here’s the running tally:

Match (Result)	Opponent Press (Success)	Thorns Press (Success)
Utah Away (W)	28/12 (42.8%)	27/15 (55.5%)
Seattle Away (L)	32/23 (71.8%)	21/15 (71.4%)
Gotham Home (W)	28/20 (71.4%)	19(15) (78.9%)
Louisville Home (D)	34/25 (73.5%)	14/8 (57.1%)
Orlando Home (W)	28/17 (60.7%)	43/24 (55.8%)
San Diego Away (D)	18/18 (100%)	100/36 (36%)
Houston Away (W)	27/17 (62.9%)	42/23 (54.7%)
Bay FC Away (L)	No data	No data
Washington Home (W)	31(15) (48.3%)	61(48) (78.6%)
Chicago Home (W)	31(21) (67.7%)	51(39) (76.4%)
Washington Away (L)	18(17) (94.4%)	25(12) (48%)
Seattle Home (W)	51(27) (52.8%)	42(33) (78.5%)
Carolina Away (D)	47(26) (55.3%)	59(39) (66.1%)
Kansas City Home (L)	43(23) (53.4%)	50(32) (64%)
Utah Home (L)	44(28) (63.6%)	64(29) (45.3%)
Louisville Away (W)	54(40) (74%)	46(30) (62.5%)
Chicago Away (D)	32(18) (56.2%)	67(39) (58.2%)
San Diego Home (D)	27(17) (62.9%)	87(61) (70.1%)
Gotham Away (L)	66(48) (72.7%)	101(43) (42.5%)
Bay FC Home (W)	45(35) (77.7%)	137(84) (61.3%)
Orlando Away (L)	95(63) (66.3%)	85(45) (52.9%)
Angel City Away (W)	56(45) (80.3%)	62(34) (54.8%)

Nine-tenths of the Law

For the third match in a row I tracked the Thorns possessions; what they did with the ball whilst they had it, and what happened to it at the end. Specifically I tracked passes by type, length, and location (attacking third or otherwise).

Had I been able to see the first 20 minutes or so I probably would have broken possessions down into four parts; kickoff to the first Moultrie goal, then from the goal to halftime, halftime to the PK, then from there to full time.

Since I missed much of the first part, I just tracked the first half as a unit. But I broke out the second half between the restart and the PK, and then the PK to the final whistle.

First Half (19th minute to halftime)

In the 26-odd minutes between the beginning of the broadcast and halftime the Thorns had a total of 26 possessions.
7 (26.9%) ended in some sort of “attack” or entry into Angel City’s final third.
6 (23%) were lost to good defending such as tackles for loss or intercepted passes.
12 (46.1%) were ended by Thorns turnovers.
1 (3.8%) was ruled offside, so a combination of defensive discipline and poor attacking timing

During these possessions the Thorns made a total of 96 passes.
38 (39.5%) were “forward” passes (which included diagonal passes, either out wide or inside).
31 (32.2%) were in the Angels’ defensive third (so “attacking” passes)
6 (6.3%) were long cross or switching-fields passes, and
11 (11.4%) were long lobs or deep long passes.

Second Half (Restart to 60th minute)

12 possessions in 15-odd minutes.
4 (33.3%) attacks or entries into ACFC’s defensive third,
4 (33.3%) lost to tackles, interceptions, or other defensive actions,
4 (33.3%) lost to turnovers, and

A total of 43 passes during this period.
20 (46.5%) were “forward” passes; 7 (16.3%) were in the attacking third.
2 (4.7%) were long cross-/switch-field passes, and
6 (14.3%) were long lobs.

Second Half (60th minute to full time)

34 possessions in 35-odd minutes.
8 (23.5%) attacks or entries into the Angels’ defensive third,
13 (38.2%) lost to tackles, interceptions, or other defensive actions, and
14 (41.2%) lost to turnovers.

A total of 77 passes during this period.
25 (35.2%) were “forward” passes; 8 (10.4%) were in the attacking third.
2 (2.6%) were long cross-/switch-field passes, and
16 (20.8%) were long lobs.

Match Totals:

Total possessions: 72
Attacking possessions: 19 (26.4%)
Possessions lost to defensive actions: 23 (31.9%)
Possessions lost to turnovers: 30 (41.7%)

Total passes: 216
Forward/diagonal passes: 83 (31.4%)
“Attacking” passes (in the ACFC defensive third): 46 (21.3%)
Long passes: 33 (15.3%)
Cross-/switching-field passes: 10 (4.6%)

We’ve now got enough data to start running some analyses. So here’s how things have been going so far:

Poss/Passing	BayFC Home (W)	Orlando Away (L)	ACFC Away (W)
Possessions	65	85	72
Ended in attack	6 (9.2%)	17 (20%)	19 (26.4%)
Lost to defending	20 (30.7%)	25 (29.1%)	23 (31.9%)
Lost to turnover	37 (56.9%)	43 (50.5%)	30 (41.7%)
Lost to other	1 (1.5%)		1 (1.3%)
Passes – total	388	431	216
Forward passes	143 (36.8%)	164 (38%)	81 (31.4%)
Attacking passes	113 (29.1%)	67 (15.5%)	46 (21.3%)
Long passes	28 (7.2%)	35 (8.1%)	33 (15.3%)
Cross-field passes	4 (1.2%)	25 (5.8%)	10 (4.6%)

Thoughts:
1. The Orlando match really was better, both in overall play and in the possession and passing metrics, than the other two games. BFC was undeserved, and ACFC was deep in a sort of “clubbing defenseless seal pup” territory, accounting for much of the “generally better metrics” uptick in “attacking possession” and lower turnover numbers.
2. My guess is that had I access to the first 19 minutes or so my Thorns overall passing numbers would come close to OPTA’s 316.
3. Still, the Thorns tend to lose a LOT of possessions to sloppy passing. And that doesn’t include poor pass choices such as trying to force balls in to players marked touch-tight (which I usually marked as “ended by defending”) so the passing problems are actually worse than they look.
4. The larger number of long passes Portland attempted in LA? Most of these – 16 out of 33 – came in the final half-hour when Portland was just dinking the ball around playing keepaway.
5. Otherwise the various possession outcomes and passing percentages are very similar between matches. This isn’t an “opponent” thing; it’s how the squad plays and is only peripherally affected by the opponent’s tactics.

Corner Kicks

Four. Three long, one short, three first half, one second.

Time	Taker	Short/Long?	Result
21′	Moultrie	Long	Cleared but recycled, then cleared again into touch
30′	Moultrie	Long	Cleared over the byline.
31′	Moultrie	Long	Cleared but recycled; eventually Coffey tried a through-ball that was too far for Moultrie, goal kick.
73′	Moultrie	Short	…to Fleming, who was tackled for loss.

Nothing, really. Again, it’d be nice to see this squad work on some kind of set plays for these. As it is it’s kind of grabass that depends on someone getting good and/or lucky or the defenders taking a nap.

Player Ratings and Comments

Before we start, I want to note the low overall plus-minus rating numbers. Again, not the net, but the raw numbers. LOTS of players with stuff like +6/-2 over 96 minutes. This is a team 1) not imposing itself on the match, largely because it was 2) not challenged by a poor opponent.

Castellanos (79′ – +0/-0 : +3/-0 : +3/-0) Another “nearly invisible” outing from this player. At this point it’s inevitable that she’s gone after the end of this season, but I’ll be curious to see if she wants, or can land, another job here in the NWSL. Between the WSL and her work here? I think she’s in trouble,

Harbert (11′ – no rating) “Tall blonde” is my only real impression of this player so far this season, and at this point it seems unlikely that we’ll see any more.

Turner (91′ – +1/-0 : +1/-2 : +2/-0) Earned the PK, so there’s that. Otherwise? we’ve discussed the “forwards problem”. There’s simply not enough organization or understanding between the AMs and front line, meaning that if goals are coming they’re coming from individual hero-ball, and we’ve been here before, now, haven’t we?

Perry (~6′ – no rating)

Spaanstra (79′ – +7/-0 : +1/-1 : +8/-1) What a Spaanstraesque outing! Lots of good, hard work! Attacking, passing, defending…this player works so hard it’s hard not to like her! And yet…her job is to score goals, and she didn’t. What about creating goal-scoring and shot-creating opportunities for her team? Here’s FBRef from their match report: “GCA” are “goal-creating actions”, “SCA” are “shot-creating actions”

Player	SCA	GCA
Fleming	3	0
Turner	2	1
Spaanstra	2	1
Castellanos	2	0
Moultrie	2	0
Reyes	2	0
Vignola	1	0
Obaze	1	0

That’s damn good work.

Spaanstra is one of those players that don’t hit you in the face with their skillsets. She’s not pacey, she’s not particularly strong or tough on the tackle, her passing and dribbling moves don’t wow you.

She’s the quintessential “squad player”; decent at a lot of things, useful, not and never will be a star.

Everybody needs squad players! It’s up to the gaffer to find clever ways to use them to their best, and, well…

Tordin (11′ – no rating)

Moultrie (+6/-1 : +4/-1 : +10/-2) Obvious Woman of the Match, but, as noted above, the degree to which this squad has been utterly reliant on Livvy to make goals is a bit scary. That she does score goals is terrific; as we agreed after Bay FC, the Sinclair “Fuck you I do it myself” Torch is well and truly passed.

That her teammates don’t seem to be able to pile on top of that? Isn’t so terrific.

Coffey (89′ – +1-0 : +2/-0 :+3/-0) What happens when you’re a hard-as-nails defensive midfielder poised to crush opponent attacks, and those attacks never come, or are sighted just wandering about? You spend much of the match running about trying to catch and kill them is what, and that’s what the Thorns #6/#8 did.

Seems frustrating to me, but points are points, so perhaps not so much to Coffey.

Torpey (1′ – no rating)

Fleming (+2/-0 : +5/-1 : +7/-1) All her usual positives with the same caveat as Coffey; not much to do until late in the match when the Thorns were just killing time. Did it well, but the same lack-of-engagement PMR we’re seeing across the board.

Reyes (+2/-1 :+6/-1 : +8/-2) If the midfield had a lazy day the backline could have taken a ten-minute break almost any time during the match, but they didn’t, and, instead, beat down what little attack Angel City could scrounge up.

Did have one shockingly awful moment, in the 88th minute when she and Sam Hiatt both went after a looping Press service and collided with each other! Fortunately for them, and their clean sheet, Chilufya couldn’t get to the cross, either. Still. C’mon.

Hiatt (+0/-1 : +5/-2 : +5/-3) Pretty much identical to Reyes’ comment.

Obaze (89′ – +0/-2 : +2/-2 : +2/-4) The big minus is for a bad first half injury-time turnover in front of her own goal that, fortunately, ACFC was too inept to take advantage of. Steady other than that; better shift than her numbers indicate, an artifact of the low PMR numbers.

Daiane (1′ – no rating) Pure timewasting.

Vignola (+6/-1 : +2/-1 : +8/-2) Another good match on both sides of the ball. Particularly tough on the tackle; Marie Muller is going to have to fight for her position next spring.

Arnold (+1/-0 : +0/-0 : +1/-0) Got up well to box the Thompson shot over her crossbar and otherwise untroubled.

Coach Ken: Road win, playoffs locked in. Time to laugh and be happy, eh?

We’ll see. This was the easy one.

Next you’ve got a home tie with a Houston that’s been playing with its tail up and has a chance to spoil your Decision Day party, and then it’s (very likely) an away quarterfinal with one of the top four.

It only gets tougher from there.

Can you have this squad ready to win four matches running?

Can you?

Because right now, that’s your only job.

My Now-Traditional “WTF with your broadcast deals, NWSL” Rant.

Look. I get that 1) the league is trying to spread the broadcast deals around, and 2) it’s not a big player in the sports broadcasting world.

And that the 3) the “hook” for this one was the teary retirement sendoffs for Press and everyone’s LA cinnamon roll, Ali Riley.

And that 4) all these fucking cable/network/streaming people have their fucking hand out looking for that sweet sponsor cash, so you’re likely to get spammed with commercials even when the ball is in play. But this shit is ridiculous and unacceptable; one team puts the ball in play:

And, literally with the ball in the air, suddenly we the fans are looking at this:

WTFF? I didn’t bother figuring out who the fuck this was, but why are we looking at her smirky mug while action is going on the pitch, so that when we finally do get another look…

…something has happened (apparently an Angel City foul) but which we know no more about than a cow knows about the fucking Council of Trent.

The old YouTube days of 2013 should be long gone; the amateurish stream and the Sahlen Meat Bomber and all the other small-time crap associated therewith. This sort of high-school AV Club fuckery is unacceptable, and if the league cared more for its product than its wallet it would knuckle these broadcasters over it.

They don’t, so they won’t.

But it’s still really irritating.